Leadership Matters Now

Thought for the Week: Sorry Sears---this is what you get

Yes, this is a bone-picking blog today...sorry about that. But I also think I understand why Sears is having such a tough time of it these days. Eighteen months ago, Karen and I purchased a king-size Simmons mattress from them which was an ordeal in itself since it appeared that each department was staffed with one person who also seemed responsible for at least one additional department. Anyway, we made the purchase of a little over $400 and then had to wait a couple of weeks while they ordered it and delivered it, etc.  Annoying but not more than one would expect.

A few months ago, one side of the mattress lost its firmness (yes....my side). We tried a new platform, etc and nothing worked so we took it back for a return under it's 10-year warranty. First, it took three trips to Sears to find anybody that any idea how to process the warranty. Then, we got a five-page email with instructions as to the things we needed to do to PROVE that it was in need of replacement...18 months after purchase.

The email essentially puts the customer to work for the store. It involves pinning strings, taking measurements, taking photos, flipping the mattress and taking more photos, validation photos to show that the measurement you are taking is legit, photos of the foundation both with and without mattress, etc. End the end, because the pillowtop of the mattress is resilient, there was not "Beyond 1.5" sag in the mattress that would prove to them that it is neither firm nor "luxurious."

When speaking to them on the phone (oh yes...I DID speak to them on the phone), the response was that, if I chose not to follow the instructions, and if the photos did not show a 1.5" sag, there was "nothing we can do." Even when I explained that the problem had nothing to do with a sag, there was still "nothing we can do."

So, in the end, I, like every other customer in a free market, am left with the only recourse I have. First, I won't shop at Sears. Second, I won't buy Simmons. And third...and worst of all...I'll make sure that everybody we know and have contact with understand that Sears may be failing because they forgot their vision statement. "Sears Holdings is committed to improving the lives of our customers by providing quality services, products and solutions that earn their trust and build lifetime relationships."

I know I'm just one customer...but I'm one of those customers that Lou D'Ambrosio is talking to when he says that the customer is what the new Sears is about. This blog only gets a thousand readers or so in a good week, and around a hundred or so regularly but what I love about the free market, is that communicating to those readers is my prerogative alone. If I want to unload about horrible customer service, I can. And if only a couple of readers decide to question there own purchases from Sears, the cost of ignoring the customer becomes much greater than the cost of satisfaction.

Thought for the Week: You Can Hold Behavior Accountable

He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else. — Benjamin Franklin

I've had more than one occasion in the last few weeks to talk to leaders about the issue of measuring behavior. It's easy enough to figure out if somebody is hitting their numbers or getting their job done according to some pre-defined agreement as to what their output should look like. It's often more difficult when we're talking about our beliefs regarding how somebody should behave. As one leader said to me yesterday, "How do I hold him accountable for being a butt???"

The answer is fairly simple, but it requires some patience and work on your part as a leader. If the issue is a current one, you have to sit down and reflect on what, EXACTLY, is the behavior that is causing the problem. "You're being a butt," isn't particularly informative to the recipient of that feedback, and it's not measurably specific. What is it exactly that is defining this person as a problem?  In this case, it might be that his tone of voice was dismissive to a customer. It might be that when he should have been engaging the supplier in a more detailed conversation, he cut her short and simply walked away. It might be that he isn't answering his calls until they are convenient for him.  We have the capacity to be a jerk in many diverse ways!

Once you have forced yourself to identify the behaviors and not allowed yourself to say, "Well, I know it when I see it," you'll find that you can usually isolate three or four things that are really causing the problem.  And it is those things that are the problem. You can't demand that I be a satisfied employee, but you can demand that I act professionally with my peers and shareholders.  But that might mean that you have to describe for me exactly what I'm doing that is not professional.

That is the main point. You can hold me accountable to behaviors where you have a clear definition and clear expectations for performance.  This changes the conversation from "you have to stop being a jerk" to "you have to stop ignoring your suppliers," or "you have to stop making negative comments around our clients." And then you add a clear consequence. In that way it is no different than holding employees accountable to any other job performance metric.

 So, yes...behavior is part of the job. And many times, behaviors are more important to successful outcomes than technical expertise.  You have to be willing to make them part of your performance discussion, but if you do, you'll find a much easier path to reinforcing the behaviors that work and redirecting those that don't.

Guest Post: Acceptance by Association

Contributed by Brett Hunkins

I recently watched a group of students conduct a feedback exercise and I was struck by something I consistently heard in their discussions.  It’s something I’ve heard before and therefore it may just reflect an emerging speech pattern, but I’m suspicious there’s more meaning to it than that.  If I’m right, it can serve to hinder meaningful communication.

What I heard was an explanatory statement beginning with the words, “I’m the type of person that . . . ”  to explain something personal.  At times this was followed by something extremely generic that anybody could say, almost as broad as “I’m the type of person that likes to breathe.”  At others, it was a far narrower observation almost like, “I’m the type of person that prefers crunchy peanut butter to be spread by a fork using the left hand while standing on the right foot.”

The striking part of this approach is that it sidesteps offering a statement that is truly personal which makes the substitution of “I’m the type of person…” a highly ineffective interpersonal technique.

At the generic extreme, the approach provides almost nothing of use to the recipient because the statement is so broad that it reveals nothing personal about the speaker.  The interesting thing in the feedback exercise is why the speaker would not make that a personal statement because of its broad appeal.  “I like to breathe” isn’t all that different from “I’m the type of person that likes to breathe”, except for the fact that it strips away the sense of a group association.

At the narrow end, it’s inhibiting to communication because the listener likely has no idea what TYPE of person is being described…who, after all, would have known anyone who exhibited that behavior?  And the sender’s apparent belief that there IS such a “type” simply functions as a kind of preemptive validation, likely showing that any response has to get through some walls.  I notice that students sometimes present themselves to me in similar ways. 

I’m working on finding responses that cause the conversation to get more personal and to the point, like “tell me more about that,” or “I’m not sure what type of person that is…tell me what it means to you.”

In any event, it is important for leaders to not fall into the speech pattern themselves, and to help others communicate in more personal ways.  A culture that lacks communication is bad - -one that lacks communication while appearing not to is worse.

Let me know what you see on this topic.  I’m the type of person that is interested in your thoughts.   Brett

----------------

Brett Hunkins is an Associate Professor at the DeVos Graduate School of Management at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan.

 

Thought for the Week: No Shortcut for Selection

"We made our employees sing at their interviews."-- Jim Long, Media Pioneer

Employee selection and team-member selection are two of the hardest aspects of being an effective manager. Not only do you need to understand skillset and technical competencies, you are faced with additionally figuring out whether this person will add to the overall dynamics of your team. Determining personality and “fit” are the intangibles that drive leaders crazy and, in general, are something of a roll-of-the-dice even for the most skilled.

In order to apparently limit some of the “unknowns” in determining whether a person is a good fit or not, some employers and agencies have been asking applicants to provide their Facebook passwords as a condition of consideration for employment. From recent news, I can’t decide which disturbs me more---the fact that employers are actually asking for this information, or the fact that two U.S. Senators have had to ask Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether or not this practices violates federal law.

Seriously?

The fact that it’s even a question confuses me. An employer today cannot require you to provide your personal diary, nor the password to your personal email. They can’t ask to see the photo album from your latest vacation. They can’t ask you about your “relationship status” or which religious affiliation you claim or what bookmarks you have in your Internet browser at home.

So how can it even be possibly legit that you would provide your password to Facebook? The logical extension of this practice doesn’t even have to be taken to its extreme to be ridiculous. What about your iTunes playlist, or your “pins” on Pinterest? The links to the lame YouTube videos you watch? Your Netflix account? The list could conceivably go on and on

At the end of the day, managers have to make team selections based on their best available legitimate data, usually through the form of a resume (nearly useless), references (sometimes useless) and interviews (effective if done correctly). There’s not a short cut and there are no guarantees, which means you have to take your time, plan your approach, and get plenty of input from others to make a sound decision. Even then, you’re going to get it wrong sometimes. And I doubt that would change if you knew your applicant’s latest scores on Farmville.

Warren Buffett Said Enough---for now

In an age of immediate and exhaustive information, Warren Buffet’s announcement last week that he had chosen a successor left many investors and analysts perplexed and frustrated that he then failed to name exactly who that successor might be. In his annual letter to shareholders, the Berkshire Hathaway leader stated that “the person is an individual to whom [directors] have had a great deal of exposure and whose managerial and human qualities they admire.”

So, does the Sage of Omaha owe us more than that? According to some, including Lawrence Hrebiniak of the Wharton School, there should apparently be more concern at the announcement of a “secret” successor than no announcement at all. While I have argued in this blog before that there is a long-term danger of the “CEO Icon” mystique that requires companies like Berkshire Hathaway to ensure that succession is a priority, I disagree with Hrebiniak that Buffett is “losing it just a bit.”

In fact, there are some pretty real reasons why you don’t announce a successor before the deal is finalized. For one thing, the deal isn’t done until the deal is done. David Sokol, the original best bet for a successor to Buffet, resigned over allegations of insider trading. Had a been prematurely named by Berkshire as the next CEO, it would have been disastrous.

Similarly, in Buffet’s letter to shareholders, he mentions that there are two backup executives who could also be considered. He further stated that he has not plan to retire in the near future. So imagine, if he named an actual successor today, and then for whatever reason it didn’t work out, investors would absolutely believe they were getting second best with one of the two backups. While that could end up being the case, it could also be that the context changes and one of the other two are ultimately more qualified.

Buffet is in a situation strikingly similar to that of the late Steve Jobs, or former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.  When the CEO is the identity of the company, investors and interested parties have a right to want to know that the company will succeed the current leadership. But Warren Buffet has shown himself to be a wise man many times over. It’s reassuring to know that the situation is a priority at Berkshire Hathaway, but with no indication to the contrary, I believe that’s enough. For now.

 

Thought for the Week: Flexibility is Not a Contradiction

“Leaders honor their core values, but they are flexible in how they execute them.” Colin Powell

In the title to a Harvard Business Review blog in February of this year, Herminia Ibarra poses the question “Is ‘Command and Collaborate’ the New Leadership Model.”  Part of the basis for asking this question was a presentation by Peter Grauer, the Chairman of Bloomberg at this year’s Davos World Economic Forum, who observed about his leaders that “The top performers had contradictory behaviors…they had future vision but were tactically strong. They provided strong guidance but were open to challenge. They relied on extensive networks but were also capable of moving fast.”

In my opinion, the only reason to say that these are somehow contradictory or conflicting behaviors is that we are treating complementary skills as polar opposites. Yet we have known and taught for decades that the truly effective leader is flexible (See Ken Blanchard’s Situational Leadership, circa 1960.) He or she has the emotional intelligence and skillset necessary to adapt their leadership approach to the needs of the situation and of the followers.

Perhaps part of the problem is that this either/or kind of thinking makes it difficult for leaders to see the realistic need for flexibility. I may then embark on becoming a “directive” leader or an “empowering” leader without understanding that at times, I may need to do both. When employees are lacking skill or confidence in a certain area, I may need to be directive. When they are expert at their work and need to be innovative, I need to be coaching and encouraging. These are complementary skillsets, not contradictory ones.

Thought for the Week: Feedback both Positive and Negative

Feedback is the breakfast of champions.  Ken Blanchard

I’ve noticed for a while that managers and leaders have found interesting ways to avoid referring to “negative” feedback using such terms as “constructive” or if they’re pushed “critical,” but hardly ever negative. I understand why we do this and actually I am not proposing that we go about beating people up with negativity, but I think it’s important not to lose sight of what “negative” feedback is actually all about.

Since todays feedback process has its genesis in the technical world of feedback, it’s worth going back to the original idea on occasion to remember the purpose of the process.  Whether you are using the metaphor of electronic circuitry or of a gunner firing from a ship, there are a few things to remember about the purpose of positive and negative feedback.

1. Positive feedback reinforces. In human terms, when I give you positive feedback I am usually encouraging you to do more of what it is that you are already doing, or perhaps pushing you to do similar things that make you even more successful. Positive feedback creates energy in people and fires them up that they are doing things right.

2. Negative feedback diverts or redirects. Again, in human terms, when I give you negative feedback, I am usually encouraging you to stop what you are doing or tweak our approach to something else.  Negative feedback creates stability, helping us to make adjustments in order to hit the target we have already identified.

Of all of the preconditions for effective feedback, one of the most important is that a target has been established so that our feedback is relative to something else. For example, if I have no idea how I am expected to behave relative to customer satisfaction, neither positive nor negative feedback is very helpful. If I happen to be getting it right in your eyes, then great. If I’m getting it wrong, then we’re both disappointed. But if I don’t know exactly what it is you want in the first place, either type of feedback can create confusion.

A second precondition is specificity. Again, telling me I’m great with customers is nice to hear, but I have no idea what you are trying to reinforce. Telling me I need to work on my customer contact skills might be correct, but I don’t know what to fix if you aren’t specific. If there’s a misunderstanding about the feedback, I may put a lot of effort into doing something that has no impact in the end.

Both types of feedback, negative and positive, should be constructive---they should serve a purpose. To separate the two by calling the negative feedback “constructive” implies that the positive feedback is nice but of no real importance. Employees are smart enough to understand that there are positive and negative aspects to their behavior so I encourage you to call it what it is without worrying so much about whether you are being a downer. Of course you are…nobody likes to hear that they are doing it wrong. But if you dance around the issue, you also run the risk of being unclear.

Finally, don’t forget that your followers get feedback on a constant basis without your intervention. At least if they understand your expectations and have clear targets they do. If I see the results of my work fairly quickly, and I know what’s expected, it’s likely that I get most of my feedback from my own results. If the results of my work are delayed in time, then I need your help in understanding what sorts of adjustments I should make. If I don’t get feedback from my leader, both positive and negative, I fill the information gap with assumptions that inevitably, over time, drift off course.

Thought for the Week: Dis-engaging Employees

Individual commitment to a group effort -- that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work. Vince Lombardi

An interesting article in today’s Mckinsey Quarterly argues that “senior executives routinely undermine creativity, productivity, and commitment by damaging the inner work lives of their employees…” Assuming that the senior executives don’t get up in the morning and ask themselves, “How can I destroy the inner work lives of my employees?” what is happening?

According to the authors of the McKinsey study, Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer, of everything that can deeply engage people in their jobs, “…the single most important is making progress in meaningful work.” They go on to share results of their multi-year research study, published in their recent book The Progress Principle.

As unfortunate as it is, this makes a lot of sense. And the problem isn’t limited to senior executives. Managers at all levels have a tendency to set priorities in a way that the daily lives of their subordinates are much less visible and much less important than perhaps they should be. Granted, no manager of multiple employees (or multiple levels of employees) can be expected to know how every corporate decision affects every individual person. At the same time, it is possible to at least consider the consequences of a decision in terms of its impact on engagement.

For example, one of the traps mentioned in the McKinsey article is in “Strategic Attention Deficit Disorder.” While it is important for leaders to remain flexible to current challenges, often initiatives are started and then, once underway, stopped (or worse, simply abandoned) in order to start new initiatives. For those Type A leaders that are out there driving change, it is important to remember that these kinds of initiatives often take time and require patience that many of us simply don’t naturally have.

As it relates to engagement, the problem with Strategic ADD is that it undermines the ownership of the initiatives by the people who are charged with implementing them. This is the standard “flavor of the month” feeling. Sometimes the best and brightest of your employees will hold back on committing to the success of a particular initiative because they are unsure as to whether or not it is worthy of their personal investment. The more often that long-term initiatives are pitched by leaders, only to be abandoned down the road, the more cynical the employees become.

The overall lesson of the McKinsey study is one that we’ve known for a long time. While leaders may struggle with engaging their employees over a long period of time, it is possible to dis-engage them fairly quickly. Make a conscious effort to consider the consequences of your decision. If it contributes to a lack of engagement, the decision may be more costly than you think.

Thought for the Week: Make your "smart" goals STRONG goals

First, have a definite, clear practical ideal; a goal, an objective. Second, have the necessary means to achieve your ends; wisdom, money, materials, and methods. Third, adjust all your means to that end.   Aristotle

Around this time of year, many of us have created our goals and, if we've paid attention, we may have used the popular SMART acronym of goal-setting. In the standard approach, goals are defined as "good" if they are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-Bound.

These are o.k. characteristics and they have worked for decades. However, I am not sure they cover all of the elements necessary for successful goal-setting in times of great challenge. Today we need more than smart goals…we need STRONG ones.

Simple. For a goal to be useful, it has to be understandable. By “simple” I don’t mean it has to be elementary, but it needs to be focused on a single activity and outcome. Goals that have multiple parts are hard to understand and are difficult to deliver since the employee is unsure of what part of the goal is most important. A simple goal for one person may be an overly complicated goal for another person so this is a relative term based on the individual and the task at hand.

Timely. For a goal to be useful it also has to be relevant to the situation at the moment. Each goal should have an importance that is immediate. If you truly want me to make this goal a priority, I have to see how it plays a role in our success right now.

Realistic. For a goal to have its desired effect on performance, it has to be seen by the recipient of the goal as somehow possible to achieve. Unrealistic goals create demoralized troops. This is a point of negotiation. If you see the goal as realistic and your follower does not, you need to take the time to explain your thinking in a way that they can see the same reality you do. This does not mean the goal has to be easy..just possible.

Objective. For goals to be strong, they must be viewed as unbiased and real. One of the definitions of “objective” is “having a real existence.” If you want me to attempt to achieve a goal, it has to be termed in a way that it is real. “Making people happy” is not an objective goal. “Improving customer satisfaction” is.

Necessary. Useless goals are the bane of high-performance. For a follower to be motivated to achieve a goal he or she has to see the value of the goal they are pursuing. Goals need to be provided in a context of understanding so that employees understand not only the specifics of the goal, but also the goal’s importance in the bigger picture. The necessity of the goal can be a strong performance driver, especially for employees who are personally committed to the overall success of the department or organization.

Grand. Goals need to be aspirational. They need to represent performance that requires ingenuity and persistence. They need to be challenging. Remember that I suggested they are realistic, which means they are not SO grand that they are unattainable. But realistic does not mean that it’s a piece-of-cake…it just means that it is doable. Grand goals are goals that stretch us to grow in ways that mediocre goals do not. Grand goals can be exciting, if they are agreed upon by both the leader and the follower.

Whether SMART or STRONG or some combination of the two, goals that are imposed on people tend to be less successful than those that are established with people. A goal-setting session should be a dialogue…the actual establishment of the goal should be the outcome of the dialogue. “Gifting” your employees with their goals creates confusion about what you mean and what the priorities are. But a goal-setting session where each individual has the opportunity to share in the crafting of the objective can be inspirational in itself.

Engagement Matters

If you're one of those folks who think that employees who aren't "into" your company should just be replaced (it's a buyers market right now isn't it?), then think again. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) estimates that it costs about 50% of an employee's salary to replace them. But that's only if they are an "average" employee. If the employee who is disengaged has specialized skills or a high level of authority, the act of terminating the employee and bringing in a new one can soar to as high as 400%!

I know I've written on this before, but there is still a mentality among many leaders that each person below them is as replaceable as a worn out part in a car engine. Outside of the SHRM estimate is the additional cost of low morale, lost productivity, and general fear and frustration on the part of your team. There are times when a person has to go, but some thought about how to turn unproductive attitudes and behaviors into high contribution is worth you time and effort.

At 11:00 am EST today (Jan 25, 2012), Ken Blanchard ("Leading at a Higher Level") and company will be hosting a free webcast called "Quit and Stayed" which looks at the issue of employee disengagement and will address strategies and methods for re-engaging those employees. I'm one of the featured speakers and will be focusing on the difference between your view and that of your employees. I'll be joined by many other experts such as Lee Cockerell of Walt Disney World Resort, Grace Gorell of the University of Kentucky, Mark Miller of Chick-fil-A and many others.

You can register at www.LeadershipLiveCast.com.