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?

Manage Up or Be Disappointed

The very idea of managing one’s boss (“managing up”) is quickly coming back into the mainstream. Subordinates the world over raise their eyebrows when we suggest that it’s not only OK to manage your boss, it’s something you really must do.

The late Peter Drucker wrote about it in 1999, typically pushing the envelope in his time. Those who admire Drucker, including me, consider NOW to be his time – but that’s for another post.

Many good articles and books have been published on the topic since then.

As you might imagine, there are lots of similarities between managing a direct report and managing a boss. For example, setting expectations. Why do so many leaders fail to manage their boss’ expectations well? Surprises are usually not good. Avoiding conflict now often leads to unavoidable strife later.

My dad liked to say, “If you work for a man, work for him.” He was talking about loyalty. It’s never a good idea to be disloyal to your boss.

Finally, get to know your boss’s communication preferences. Drucker puts leaders into two categories in this regard: readers or listeners. Do you rush into your boss’ office with new information, expecting him to make a decision on the spot? It’s more likely that you’ll get the decision you want if you give him time to absorb the information in writing first. Obviously emergencies are emergencies, but readers strongly prefer a little time to ponder.

Or, do you send your boss volumes of information via e-mail (or paper), only to be disappointed when you learn that she didn’t even read it! Listeners prefer to evaluate facts on the spot, discuss options, and make the call. Volumes of data are not nearly as influential with this style of communication as an overview would be. Give ‘em the summaries.

Interacting with your boss in the most effective way will get you what you want more quickly. It’s really as simple as that. Why do so many people miss this? Send me an e-mail if you’d like to discuss.

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.

Ideas on Maintaining Momentum

In my monthly newsletter for April 2011 I wrote about the value of momentum. A lot of people chimed in to say they couldn’t agree more. But what we all lacked were suggestions on how to maintain momentum and how to incentivize others to do the same. So here goes:

1. Establish periodic goals that not only reward but point out the incompleteness of the program that may be put on hold. My theory is that unfinished business bugs people.
2. Don’t approve any new programs unless you feel confident that funding and other resources will be treated as “sacred”.
3. Get support and endorsement from the highest levels of the organization and make any progress updates supplied to the C-level as open and public as possible.

What other suggestions do you have? Discuss.

Which Role Do You Play?

As we go about our busy lives, demands on our time and attention pull us in many different directions. We switch back and forth between various roles: executive, father, team member, coach, brother, colleague, etc. It happens continuously.

In the 90’s, my afternoon commute served as a transition period between my professional and personal lives. It wasn’t always easy, but listening to loud rock and roll in the car on the way to pick up my son from daycare seemed to help.

Imagine an actor in a play, switching costumes and characters several times during her performance. It’s difficult at first, but with practice she’s able to make the transitions quite smoothly. The audience marvels when she shows up on stage as a completely different character.

Our global, always-on business environment is teaching us to switch gears more quickly and eventually with less difficulty. But we shouldn’t leave behind the skills and perspectives we use in one role just because we switch to another.

For example, the negotiation skills we develop at work can be applied to other roles we play outside of work. But it doesn’t end there. We also have perspectives that can enhance a team’s ability to see situations from various angles they may not have considered. Relying on the team leader’s emotional intelligence to bring in outside perspectives is not enough.

Diversity in perspective is part of what makes a regular team a high-performance team. You may have a specific area of expertise but you also have valuable perspectives that others might not have. Bring them with you, but be ready to compromise.

Do You Have a “Tell”?

Good Poker players learn to spot other players' "tells", those (mostly) subconscious signals that we send out when we have a good or bad hand. Looking around the table in a certain way, fumbling with chips, and sighing are examples of common "tells". Learning to eliminate one's "tells" is an important skill in Poker and other games that require a degree of deception.

Do you (or does your leader) have "tells"?

I used to work for a great boss who had one. When she asked me if we could "chat" I always knew that something was wrong. But when she asked me if I had a minute or if we could "talk", I knew that the meeting would be positive. Worked like a charm and when I told her about it one day, she had no idea she was telegraphing the nature of her requests. She'd also drink a ton of coffee on the way to work and be so wired when she arrived that everyone would brace themselves for long lists of stuff to do. Empty travel mug in hand meant watch out! But LeAnne was an excellent leader.

For many, silence is a "tell". So many people have told me that when their boss goes silent, they know something bad is brewing. Doors closed? Uh-oh.

Leaders have a responsibility to communicate. This is not optional. Nature certainly loves a vacuum, and in the absence of their leader's voice, people will draw conclusions of their own. We've all seen this happen. Anyone who has had to dig his organization out of a hole created by secrecy at the top knows how difficult it can be. Morale is like an aircraft carrier; it takes time to turn it around. Don't go any farther down a path if the truth will surely require a 180.

Communication is not just talking; it's also listening. Want to engage key contributors? Discuss. Leaders should not strive to have the last word.

Abusing the authority that comes with a leadership position can take many forms, not the least of which is squelching healthy debate because it is uncomfortable. Have the courage to participate in conversations that challenge conventions. Stop a debate only when it becomes disrespectful or tangential.

Learn to be influential. There are millions of brilliant people who are not heard because of poor communication skills. If it is your responsibility to communicate, then work on it as you would any other critical job skill. Charm only goes so far – there are earnest techniques that can bring clarity to complex issues in the workplace and inspire others to higher levels of performance.

 

The Feedback Generations

"Let me give you some feedback." That simple phrase often sets the stage for some degree of defensiveness. Most of us, without even realizing it, anticipate a need to defend ourselves when we hear those or similar words. The old fight or flight response kicks in - even when there is no physical threat.

But some of us handle feedback much better than others.  I've noticed that Generations X and Y (a.k.a "Millennials") are, in general, better at receiving feedback than Baby Boomers; and their future looks bright because of it. What can we learn from this?

They Start Young

We Baby Boomers take pride in our independence and self-sufficiency. Men in particular don't tend to ask for help until it's absolutely necessary.  Add to that your mother's advice: "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Politeness aside, the idea of giving constructive feedback is something many leaders struggle with regardless of their age or position in an organization.

But a large percentage of post-Baby Boomers grow up with experience on some kind of team. They are more accustomed to feedback and have always had convenient communication technology at their disposal. Virtually chatting with several friends simultaneously hasn't been commonplace for all that long. Some would argue that the proliferation of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and even e-mail has led to social isolation, but I see it differently.

Requests for feedback and customer experience ratings have become ubiquitous. We are quickly learning about the power of perceptions and the value of viewpoints besides our own. Our always-on, Internet-connected society makes it incredibly easy to request, receive and provide feedback. Certainly there are issues as a result - such as the 'false courage' that plays out as nothing more than passive-aggressive disrespect, but thoughtful constructive feedback is a higher form of social interaction that ultimately serves the common good.

For Generations X and Y, giving feedback feels more like a social obligation. And receiving feedback is just the other side of the coin. We don't have to like it but we should certainly aim to get used to it.

By embracing an open channel of regular two-way feedback, leaders will be more accountable, more informed and more involved with their peers, subordinates and customers. Fortunately for future generations it will seem like old hat.
 
Social networking has connected and re-connected countless millions of people by methods not available only a short time ago. Many a formal and informal support group has been created, opening the floodgates of feedback and constructive criticism. But I hope that society as a whole learns how to give and receive feedback more appropriately (and consistently) in cyberspace. Chances are good that the leaders of tomorrow will have mastered it, and if so their own careers as well as those of the people who report to them will be well-served.

Be Predictable?

As funny as it sounds, many leaders work at keeping their teams guessing. With all the best intentions (usually), they believe that their dynamic and ever-changing behavior only serves to help others grow. I suppose there is some logic to this, but is it really more productive?

College is not about what we study so much as it is about learning how to think. If it were simply a matter of memorization, just about anyone could absorb enough to graduate. But it's so much more. Applying what we know in new and different ways is where real growth occurs.

In a leadership relationship, the best way to inspire creativity and strategic thinking is to be somewhat predictable. When a subordinate comes to his manager with an opportunity or a problem, he better well be prepared to discuss possible solutions as well. How does he learn to do that? He imagines the questions his leader will ask; learning to think like his boss.

The more ways in which others can visualize everything that goes into their leaders' decision-making, the faster they will be ready to move up. Resist giving the answers and instead ask the important questions followed by "and why?"

Here's an example. A busy executive is on the road 60% of the time, making her a moving target for her subordinates. As they try to find her to get answers and decisions, they're wasting valuable time. In most cases, they already know what her questions will be. Eventually, when everyone knows what the important considerations will be, we all make faster, more informed decisions. Bottlenecks are broken open when a leader's pushback is somewhat familiar and predictable.

We should teach our teams the questions. Make it a habit. Anticipating concerns, addressing big sticking points up front, and learning to get to the point are key skills for leaders who aspire to become C-level executives.

“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.

Why Top Performers Leave Good Companies

Think about the top performers in your organization. Do you really know what makes them tick?

High-potential and high-performing employees are motivated by a unique set of experiences and rewards that have been identified by the authors of a significant study appearing in the May 2010 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Understanding what keeps star employees from leaving will prevent the significant brain drain that always accompanies an economic recovery cycle.

Why do they give 110%?

One very common mistake that corporate leaders tend to make is the assumption that everyone values the same things to the same degree. Equity or cash? Flex-time or four 10-hour workdays? And why doesn’t everyone love the new on-site doggie daycare??

The fact is that we will never know all the reasons why the average employee chooses to lend his energy to certain organizations and not to others. But superstar employees are not “average” and we certainly should not treat them as such.

Authors Jean Martin and Conrad Schmidt, along with their team at the Corporate Leadership Council, studied 20,000 high-potential employees in 100 organizations around the world over six years.* They uncovered the patterns that some of the world’s best companies are already addressing.

The results may or may not surprise you, but know this: the war for talent is just beginning. Ignore it at your peril. What motivates “everyone” doesn’t necessarily inspire the people who we really really want to keep.

Figuring out what makes high-potential employees tick is complicated by the fact that there are generational differences at play. Yesterday’s high-potentials were different from today’s high-potentials; and what about the Millennials?

Step 1: We need to ask them and be ready for some challenging answers.

What did the Corporate Leadership Council discover about “emerging stars”?

1. Recognition is much more important than it used to be. Do it early and often.
2. Explicitly link individual goals to corporate objectives.

3. Get them involved in solving your organization’s most challenging problems.

Generally speaking, our best employees want to make a difference and be rewarded for it. What a great concept!

One-size-fits-all, egalitarian compensation and reward programs are de-motivating for top performers. They do not want to do average work or be regarded as average contributors.

Let’s look at #2 above. Linking individual goals to corporate objectives is not as simple as creating a performance appraisal template with the first five entries pre-written.

We need to understand personal and professional goals and then offer experiences and skill-building opportunities that connect them to the bigger picture in the organization.

Johnson & Johnson’s LeAD program for high-potentials provides regular assessments and coaching from an outside firm. “The company has found that when top talent is seen as a critical organizational asset…the [high-potentials’] ability and willingness to contribute to the firm dramatically increases.”

The study also found that 25% of the highest-potential employees intend to jump ship within the year, and 70% of all high-potentials lack the critical skills necessary to succeed at higher levels in their organizations.

This is a serious problem with tremendous implications for the future. Suddenly professional development becomes a high ROI proposition when [limited] salary and bonus dollars alone will not provide the long-term connection to organizational performance that the high-potential employee now seeks.

Developing a meaningful program for retaining your star employees will take work, but several very successful companies like Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, H-P, and Novartis have made it their priority as the economy begins to offer greener pastures in a multitude of locations now more easily accessible to motivated employees.

* From “How to Keep Your Top Talent” (Harvard Business Review, May 2010, pgs. 54-61)