Preston Leadership Blog

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Who hasn't put his foot in his mouth? I know I have. This week a nice little reminder of the gravity of the situation at RIM came across my desk and I had to pass it along:

RIM’s Heins Quickly Lodges Foot in Mouth

New CEO drops a quote that will live in infamy

Jan 23, 2012, 1:38 pm EST   |   By Tom Taulli, InvestorPlace Writer

 If a company loses more than 70% of its value in less than a year, Wall Street usually cheers when a new CEO comes on board. But in the case of Research In Motion (NASDAQ:RIMM), things have not gone according to the playbook. The stock was down more than 6% Monday after RIM announced new leadership.

Then again, the new CEO — Thorsten Heins — seems to be a lackey of the former co-CEOs, Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis. Despite the fact that RIM is getting crushed by Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), Thorsten actually proclaimed, “I don’t think that there is a drastic change needed.”

Lots of leaders feel that they must fill every moment of silence with their own sweet voices. There are people who virtually never stop talking. I've railed about this before because it drives me bonkers.

Now, if everything they said was intriguing, insightful, visionary and witty, I could listen all day long. The problem is, I suppose, a difference of opinion. They must have thought their words were all those things, but alas I did not.

It's hard to listen for more than 10 minutes when the content is either full of minutia, scattered all over the place, or full of self-aggrandizing. 

Mr. Thorsten, the new CEO of RIM is either totally out of touch or allowed his mouth to continue after his brain stopped paying attention. No need for drastic change? Seriously?

You and Your Boss

I read a great blog post by Linda Hill and Ken Lineback in Harvard Business Review called “In Pursuit of a Better Boss”. I liked their emphasis on accountability. In my experience, many “bad bosses” are parties to a dysfunctional relationship; and one that can be fixed if both sides are willing to work at it.

It won’t surprise anyone that good communication is the foundation of a mutually rewarding and productive relationship at work. When we trust each other we can disagree without emotion, and be challenged without getting defensive. Getting all the best ideas out on the table assures the best decisions.

One of the bosses I particularly enjoyed working for at eBay, Mike Bringuel, once said, “Smart people should disagree”. He wouldn’t let his team sidestep disagreements to maintain harmony. After a brief adjustment period, we got used to it and became a much more productive group.

The trend toward more candor at work may sound counter-intuitive in today’s hyper-litigious workplace, but it’s not. The better we get at expressing ourselves in ways that don’t cause problems, the better off our companies will be.

Lots of people are afraid to disagree with their boss or other executives! I hear stories all the time from CEOs who have built teams of yes-people. They complain about not getting honest feedback. Hill and Lineback say that both sides have a responsibility to fix it.

I couldn’t agree more. In work relationships where the stakes are high, there’s a hierarchy and pressure to perform, people can become tentative. What they need to do is learn to speak up appropriately. Bosses need to prove that they can take it by not attacking subordinates who challenge them. It takes time but the payoff is huge.

“There was nobody in charge”

One of the more startling quotes I saw about the BP disaster was a statement by a rig worker that "there was nobody in charge" just after the explosion.

Several senior people and many who were purportedly trained for such a calamity didn't follow documented and safe response procedures. And I'm talking about the 90 minutes after eleven people lost their lives. Strong and credible leadership was needed; but what we got was a sad and frustrating tragedy.

We will learn from this to be sure. One would hope that drilling for oil gets safer and more responsible as a result. But we can also learn a lot about the most obvious cornerstone of leadership that it almost goes without saying.

In my opinion, the "nobody was in charge" assessment is about the harshest thing one could say about another's leadership. Being well-regarded, well-respected and somewhat successful at leadership is certainly easier in good times than in bad. To be sure, a crisis of this proportion is an epic test of leadership; BP and Transocean, Ltd. have failed miserably.

Lee Iacocca used to quote Thomas Paine in his Chrysler commercials, saying "Lead, follow, or get out of the way!" Amen.

No one is inspired by a wishy-washy, non-decisive leader. One can still collaborate, gather information, and use instinct while being a strong leader. Many people confuse powerful leadership with headstrong steamrolling. They're different.

The most influential leaders pull all their resources together quickly, analyze the data, and act in a time-sensitive fashion. Waiting around for someone else or a crisis situation to make (or force) a decision is followership – and bad followership at that. It takes preparation, quick-thinking, and courage to be decisive when disaster strikes…but also when it doesn't.

The first entry in a leader's job description should be "make decisions."

You can read the article I read here.

Using Your Mute Button to Get Others Talking

Leaders communicate. We learn to be persuasive, precise and inspiring with our voices and keyboards. It's an essential skill, but there are times when keeping quiet serves an important purpose.

It's tempting to comment as often as possible when we have valuable information or a unique perspective to share. Everyone wants to add value and we feel obligated as leaders in our organizations to offer up what we bring to the table every chance we get.

But is this always the best strategy?

How many times have we come away from a meeting or conference call wondering why everyone was unusually quiet? Why didn't anyone have questions? When stakeholders remove themselves from an important debate, trouble is usually brewing right? Not always.

Resisting the temptation to steer conversations or manage agendas takes self-discipline. But it's vital, when time and circumstance permits, that we allow others to think through complex situations and help each other find the best possible solutions. We don't tolerate others who dominate discussions, why should we let ourselves get carried away?

You've probably found yourself in this situation: a regular meeting during which an unexpected issue comes to light and no one feels "safe" in voicing his opinion until yours has been registered. This may feel like a special privilege, but in fact it can restrain creativity and stifle healthy brainstorming. It's no sign of weakness to say, "Sure I have some thoughts, but why don't you start."

After brief hesitation and occasional glances to read your expressions, people will eventually open up. Of course, in any meeting, no one should be allowed to be disrespectful or manhandle an open discussion. There may be others who feel that they need to take over, since you seem unwilling to do so. Politely shut that down, encouraging everyone to add to the discussion.

It goes without saying that allowing a meeting to careen out of control and go into double-overtime is unacceptable. But if we use our mute button judiciously we begin to see gradual transformations. Natural leaders will reveal themselves. The group will develop more egalitarian norms. Buy-in for decisions made by the team for the team will get stronger.

Less is often more.

Are You Involving?

Benjamin Franklin said, "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn."

Talking at people really doesn't influence them, get their buy-in, or help them understand things any better. In fact, research shows that most of us tune out after about 10 minutes! Leaders can improve the effectiveness of their messages by involving their listeners.

How?

Start by speaking more slowly and asking questions. Listen, and lead an exchange of knowledge, perspective and experience.

Speaking to groups of people doesn't have to be a lecture. Pictures and video can be very involving. U2 used video in a very compelling way during their Vertigo concert tour.

Thousands of people who may never have thought about it learned that there are important causes in far off places that they wanted to do something about. And they responded in droves. Bono is a leader.

Leadership is all about influence. When others have the opportunity to get involved in solutions, they do their very best to see them through to success. Simply asking, "what do you think?" isn't enough. Follow up with "why?" and explain your decision-making process.

One measure of a leader's success is how well she develops those who report to her. In order to do that successfully, leaders should focus on developing the right thought processes. What to consider? Who are the stakeholders? What have we learned from past experience?

It's surprising how many of us know how to go through the motions but fail to actually think. Teach others to think and they'll truly learn.

It's tempting to shield our staff from some of the pressures we experience. That's why leaders get the big bucks, right? It's a noble motive, but in doing so we're depriving others of critical opportunities to fully learn how to think. This is why simulators are so effective training tools; we get the feel for what it's actually like.

That's being involved – and only then does excellent learning happen.

Putting Your Heart at Work

I've always been puzzled by how hard business organizations strive to strip the soft, emotional, or personal side of things out of their practices.  Granted, objectivity is important for many reasons, but so is the human factor.

For people to fully commit and devote themselves for the company they work for, they have to love it.  For them to love it, it needs to have a heart.

Here's an objective study supporting this seemingly touchy-feely claim: Gallup has interviewd over 10 million employees and found that when workers agree with the statement "My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person", the following happens:

- the employee is more productive;

- the employee produces more profitability for the organization;

- the employee is significantly more likely to stay with the organization long-term;

- the employee fosters customer engagement.

And it gets better: people who have a best friend at work are 7 times as likely to be engaged on the job than those who don't.

So the question is not whether organizations should be concerned with the human factor; the question is how to do it effectively.

I would have 101 suggestions to make, but let's start with one.  Try implementing a "Caring For the Little Things" practice, doing something concrete each day week. 

For example, when someone puts in long hours to meet a deadline, write them a "Thank you for your perseverence" mini-card.  If you hear at lunch someone's child has performed in the 6th grade concert, plan for a "How did Jake do?" short coffee break.  A team member came in on her day off to replace a sick employee?   Have an appreciative post-it on her computer screen when she comes in the next day - and another one with "Hope you feel better" for the returning employee.

These are little things that make a big difference.  They can't be measured in widgets produced per hour, but their benefits are just as tangible.  So much so in fact that you may well find that your new caring practice is your best spent 120-seconds each day.

Manager Heckled During Presentation

While giving a presentation on LEADERSHIP to a large group of long-term employees, a manager in Toledo was mercilessly heckled. Finally, he gave up, throwing his pointer to the stage and storming off in a huff. The audience erupted in laughter.

Unlikely? Yes; but not entirely unthinkable. What were those long-term employees heckling him about? He was just talking about company policies, giving careful explanations for each and every rule change for 2009. Unfortunately he used words like “consistency”, “standards”, “policies”, “guidelines”, and “precedent”.

Not leader-like words.

The difference between management and leadership escapes far too many people in positions of authority. How do we know if we're leaders or just administrators?

1. If you take comfort in having a policy written for every possible situation that hits your radar, you just might be an administrator. (apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)
2. If you are constantly disappointed in your subordinates’ job performance, you just might be an administrator.
3. If you value consistency over fairness, you just might be an administrator.
4. If your door is often closed so you can “get some work done”, you just might be an administrator.
5. And finally, if you consider walking around and talking to employees in your firm a “chore”, you are most definitely an administrator.

Too harsh? Certainly there are some enlightened people with “administrator” in their job title who are leaders. But there are twice as many people with “officer”, “director” or “vice president” in their titles who are confused about what leadership really means.

Take Michael Scott, (Steve Carell’s character on The Office). Michael is a bumbling, mostly lovable, moron…but he is actually a leader most of the time – just not a very good one. His ideas are often ridiculous and his attempts at humor usually go way too far, but he does take a stand on issues. He’s usually out in front, at least trying to be a leader.

Leaders aren’t just administrators. Leaders are people with vision and an open mind who aren’t afraid to challenge themselves and those who work around them. They never shy away from tough decisions. They hire people smarter than themselves. And finally, leaders wake up every day thinking about ways they can better serve their customers by leveraging the human resources in their audience.

"Nothing Great was Ever Achieved without Enthusiasm"

Ralph Waldo Emerson must’ve written this with leaders in mind. But there have been plenty of great leaders who weren’t outwardly effusive, e.g. Tom Landry. Leaders don’t necessarily have to be highly animated to be highly effective.

How can they achieve great things without enthusiasm? Well, they can’t.

Enthusiasm is just passion that’s visible on the outside. Our sincere interest and passion for our work always shows through. I believe that we need passion in order to achieve great things.

Leaders who aren’t naturally effusive just need to communicate their passion every chance they get. This can be with words - 1:1 or in group settings. Talk in specific terms about what you care about and why you care about it and people will feel your enthusiasm.

I worked with a very effective leader named Steve some years ago. He achieved great things but was pretty low-key about it. Steve was very likeable. He spoke quietly but smiled easily. He knew his stuff, and it took a lot to get Steve riled up: you wouldn’t call him “enthusiastic” – at least on the outside.

But Steve and his team achieved great things. His people would do anything for him; they wouldn’t let him down. Ask them why, and they’d say it was because he cared so much. He showed genuine interest in people and problems. He worked hard and he was doggedly determined to accomplish his goals. His enthusiasm was obvious if not immediately evident in his demeanor.

Steve was enthusiastic in his own way. His passion was obvious but not flashy.

It is true that ‘nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm’, but there are many ways to express enthusiasm. Great leaders communicate their passion and their inner feelings. Their enthusiasm still comes through - and gets great results.

In Tough Times Leaders Say, “Onwards!”

Many of my readers know a great leader named Van Morris (no, not Van Morrison, but the former CEO of Infonautics Corp). Van’s leadership was exactly what the company needed during some very tough times in the ‘90’s. I’ll tell you what made him so good at it, but first a little background:

Infonautics was an early dot com founded by Josh Kopelman and Marvin Weinberger in 1992. It was a pioneer in education via the Internet, and it was a fantastic place to work. We worked hard and loved it.

Talk about tough challenges; there were lots of unknowns - it wasn’t for the faint of heart. At one point over 220 people were working together to make a name for the company. Even though it went public in 1996, it remained a very personal place for anyone who had the privilege of working there.

There were big ups and big downs. Even though the company was eventually split up and sold, much of its technology and partnerships are still in use today.

Fundamentally, what made Van a great leader during tough times?

• He did more listening and coaching than talking.
• He did his homework – Van was able to hold his own with heavy thinkers in engineering as well as folks in sales, marketing, finance and HR. People respected him for that.
• He walked around, getting to know as many employees as possible. He got the message out.

Maybe most importantly, despite some tremendous challenges and setbacks, he maintained a positive attitude.

What about “onwards”?

Van would end his e-mails and meetings with “onwards!” What was he really saying?

• “OK, I hear you, and here is my guidance; come back if you need to talk but the rest is up to you.”
• “We’ve got to keep going. If we work hard and be creative we’ll succeed together.”
• “I believe in you. Get past this; don’t make it a chapter in your life” (another Van-ism).

We had some great times and some tough times at Infonautics. But it was mostly Van’s leadership that kept people on board and believing. And it has paid off in ways that each and every "Infonaut" understands now.

All of us have moved on and many are following Van’s lead by extension in other companies. He has continued his success with other ventures too. For Van, being a great leader in tough times meant communicating.

These days, leaders need to find a way to express just what Van did so many times at Infonautics. Acknowledge the problem, work together to develop the best possible solutions, and GET GOING! Hopelessness is never in a great leader’s skill set.

Leverage Talent

"Leverage” is a word we’ve heard a lot lately; and it had an almost purely positive connotation until “greed” franchised it. But leverage is still good when it comes to your organization’s talent. In fact, leaders who don’t leverage the talent on their teams are doomed to under-perform and feel talent-starved.

Some ways great leaders leverage talent:

Think creatively about ways people can apply an existing strength in an entirely new way. Job seekers need to be reminded of this all the time. For example, if Dave is really good at crunching data, which requires analysis with a big picture view, have him apply those talents to help your sales staff identify prospects and qualify leads.

Give people opportunities to think. Sounds obvious but you’d be surprised. Talented, ambitious people who get endlessly bogged down in day-to-day fire-fighting will eventually decide to spend their time somewhere else. Have a talented performer attack a completely new problem outside of her paradigm. Watch how new perspectives energize talented people and give them a reason to stick around.

Have them serve as a mentor. Talented people often have strengths that don’t get used day-to-day. But in a mentoring relationship these untapped skills are shared; perhaps for impactful use elsewhere in the organization by the mentee.

Leaders who pay attention to the talent that exists across their organizations give themselves new opportunities for growth through leverage.