Leave it to The King Of Pop's ex-wife to put meaningful perspective on this just-completed strange week when she revealed her then-husband confided he'd probably end up like her father, The King Of Rock & Roll.
Of course this makes me wonder if South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford had similar premonitions that he'd wind up like another once-powerful southern politician, Wilbur Mills, whose career was also derailed by a relationship with an Argentinian--Fanne Foxe. Between the onslaught of news about Michael Jackson's tragic death and the unfortunately shrinking coverage of the comical Governor Sanford I had time to read an email from a former employee who was excited about a new career opportunity because he really liked his prospective boss and is certain he'd "learn an awful lot." Nice to see Chris is still committed to learning because when I wasn't doing all this reading, I was once again immersed in meetings at a company that apparently prefers to pretend rather than really make the necessary changes in its business.
Michael Jackson had some of the smartest, most sincere, loyal advisors ever assembled. As far as the public has been concerned, Elvis' 1977 death was a summer stunner, just like his future son-in-law's summer 2009 passing is. But apparently those who were "on the inside" are not overly surprised. Similarly, you can't tell me that a state governor can actually disappear for an extended period of time without anyone knowing it. I wouldn't have believed this before the Internet and I certainly am not buying it in this day and age.
So....how!??! And why is it that few actually attempt to or even do learn????? I'm truly convinced "History repeats itself" is a true cliche thanks to the stupid, lazy and gutless.
Reinforced by the company I referred to in the 3rd paragraph--one that will die a tragic death which will be greeted with the same shock for its suddenness as Michael Jackson's was last week or Elvis Presley's was 32 years prior--otherwise smart and capable people lack the courage to do their jobs.
Instead of telling executive management about all the company problems and screw-ups they are presenting news executive management wants to hear in a way they want to hear it. They're all convinced the company is perched for a wonderful rebound "when the economy picks up" (which, by golly, they're all certain is happening right now!). Meanwhile they're rotting from within and are unlikely to see Labor Day.
When will serious minded professionals really learn that the embarrassment is not telling the Emperor he has no clothes, but in allowing senseless repeat performances of untimely and unnecessary mistakes?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Fundamentals Rule
At this point I’m not sure which is harder to get a handle on: Where the economy really is? or Which of the expert opinions are accurate? I’m no economist nor do I have radical breakthrough theories, but based on my business experiences I at least have a credible viewpoint that is consistently applied. Fundamentals rule.
The current economic mess and events leading up to it was created by individuals and organizations convinced they had figured out ways to either ignore or redefine fundamentals. Of course the most notable of these modern-day business Icarus’ initiatives was sub-prime mortgages. In this interconnected global economy even sound businesses have been crippled by the residual effects of “Corporate Camp Run A-muck”. However, not every company ignored fundamentals which is why there remain glimmers of good news that are roundly reported and featured by the popular business press.
I’ve had the benefit of working across a wide range of business/professional services sectors and also consulting for some of the world’s largest manufacturers. And while I respect that each company and every industry has certain nuances, the driving fundamentals are always the same. Organizations that have stayed true to these fundamentals are more than holding their own even under the direst economic conditions while those that are renewing their commitment to sound business principles are inching their way back. However, companies that have not yet fully (re)discovered fundamentals do so at their own peril.
As always, there’s an interesting and useful conflict that must be managed. While sound fundamentals always ground and drive a business, companies that operate in an extreme mindset may also become less innovative. Progress and growth is fueled by innovation; management’s most critical responsibility is to foster innovation yet honor fundamentals by not allowing a company to become mindlessly reckless. Icarus may have been a tragic Greek mythology figure, but at the same time his story didn’t deter the Wright Brothers.
Innovation, guided by fundamentals, creates sound, secure and sustained success. The mixed signals we’re getting about where the economy currently--“The Worst is Over,” “We Haven’t Hit Bottom Yet,” etc.—reported on a daily basis is my cue that the struggle between fundamentals and flying too close to the sun continues. But in the end, fundamentals always rule.
The current economic mess and events leading up to it was created by individuals and organizations convinced they had figured out ways to either ignore or redefine fundamentals. Of course the most notable of these modern-day business Icarus’ initiatives was sub-prime mortgages. In this interconnected global economy even sound businesses have been crippled by the residual effects of “Corporate Camp Run A-muck”. However, not every company ignored fundamentals which is why there remain glimmers of good news that are roundly reported and featured by the popular business press.
I’ve had the benefit of working across a wide range of business/professional services sectors and also consulting for some of the world’s largest manufacturers. And while I respect that each company and every industry has certain nuances, the driving fundamentals are always the same. Organizations that have stayed true to these fundamentals are more than holding their own even under the direst economic conditions while those that are renewing their commitment to sound business principles are inching their way back. However, companies that have not yet fully (re)discovered fundamentals do so at their own peril.
As always, there’s an interesting and useful conflict that must be managed. While sound fundamentals always ground and drive a business, companies that operate in an extreme mindset may also become less innovative. Progress and growth is fueled by innovation; management’s most critical responsibility is to foster innovation yet honor fundamentals by not allowing a company to become mindlessly reckless. Icarus may have been a tragic Greek mythology figure, but at the same time his story didn’t deter the Wright Brothers.
Innovation, guided by fundamentals, creates sound, secure and sustained success. The mixed signals we’re getting about where the economy currently--“The Worst is Over,” “We Haven’t Hit Bottom Yet,” etc.—reported on a daily basis is my cue that the struggle between fundamentals and flying too close to the sun continues. But in the end, fundamentals always rule.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Hiding Behind Voicemail. An Alarming Trend in Business?
It could be that I’ve been ridiculously slow to make this connection, but I’ve now pulled together enough evidence from a broad enough range of sources where it has finally dawned on even me: the tools designed to facilitate interaction, improve service, and further connect companies and employees to all stakeholders are having quite the opposite effect. Though we’ve all rolled our eyes when yet another of our calls roll to voicemail or have experienced the frustration of an unanswered email, the problem is worsening and my analysis shows it’s costing companies real revenues in a market that’s not particularly inviting.
Most recently one of the absolutely finest professional service providers I know, someone who has a distinguished track record producing instant results for his clients, is a man of uncommon character, and has real solutions for companies that are struggling, reported that the vast majority of his outbound phone calls are disappearing into the black hole of voicemail. He typically deals only with senior executives and his experience is telling him that a growing number of people he’s trying to reach are, in his words, “hiding behind voicemail.” One of his indicators is the timing and volume of calls he gets back, especially when compared to history (this is someone who keeps detailed statistics on everything). It’s closely related to my experiences in other areas.
I’ve spent my entire career in business/professional services, and I get up close and personal looks at many different companies in this broadly defined industry. And while every company’s mission statement and annual report gives passionate lip-service to a commitment to service, what’s happening on the front lines is anything but. Undoubtedly the nervous-wreck of an economy has everyone more on edge and customers are putting more bite into their calls to (vendor) customer service lines, but on a regular basis I am finding “hiding behind voicemail” is routine. Most damaging is that when I dig deeper into situations where a client service/sales/customer service employee dodged a call, I’m finding they are taking cues from more senior management; an alarming trend. At a time when companies can strengthen their relationships by standing up in the face of adversity they are allowing themselves to be more vulnerable to competition because throughout the ranks employees are shrinking away or hiding.
Here’s a contrast:
As a way to fix a business that was fast losing credibility in its market I had to terminate several unsavory sales people, each having questionable business practices and ethics. One of the sales people I terminated responded to losing his high-income position by posting untrue and really demented stuff about the company and me personally on the Internet. Of course this individual used a pseudonym to excoriate me in what amounts to one of the most incredible role reversals of all-time (it’s kind of like Bonnie & Clyde accusing the Texas and Louisiana officers of murder). My way of dealing with it was to reply to this post by using my name, putting my entire contact information out in the public domain and asking anyone who wished to speak with me to please call; I never got one inquiry and the brief moment of stupidity quickly faded away. Now compare that to this scenario.
Senior management at a company I’ve done business with had to communicate a very sensitive message to their end-user customers; something so critical that executives personally spent a great deal of time on this matter. I know these executives extremely well and they have always passionately stated their strong belief that, though theirs might be a national company, it’s as personal and community-based a field as there is. This company happens to be a technology leader, has all the customer data imaginable, and despite all the tools at their disposal, despite their planning for the critical communication, and despite their stated deep commitment to something deeper than “mass customization”, they sent out a letter that was unsigned and opened with a “Dear Sir/Madam” salutation! Needless to say, they have lost control for the situation…but I guess their silver lining is none of the executives involved will have to hide behind voicemail because, other than a general customer service number, recipients wouldn’t even know who to call. Now if you were the customer service rep getting a call from a frustrated/confused/angry customer who got a letter like this, knowing how your executives hid from their responsibilities, how would you handle the flood of calls?
Most recently one of the absolutely finest professional service providers I know, someone who has a distinguished track record producing instant results for his clients, is a man of uncommon character, and has real solutions for companies that are struggling, reported that the vast majority of his outbound phone calls are disappearing into the black hole of voicemail. He typically deals only with senior executives and his experience is telling him that a growing number of people he’s trying to reach are, in his words, “hiding behind voicemail.” One of his indicators is the timing and volume of calls he gets back, especially when compared to history (this is someone who keeps detailed statistics on everything). It’s closely related to my experiences in other areas.
I’ve spent my entire career in business/professional services, and I get up close and personal looks at many different companies in this broadly defined industry. And while every company’s mission statement and annual report gives passionate lip-service to a commitment to service, what’s happening on the front lines is anything but. Undoubtedly the nervous-wreck of an economy has everyone more on edge and customers are putting more bite into their calls to (vendor) customer service lines, but on a regular basis I am finding “hiding behind voicemail” is routine. Most damaging is that when I dig deeper into situations where a client service/sales/customer service employee dodged a call, I’m finding they are taking cues from more senior management; an alarming trend. At a time when companies can strengthen their relationships by standing up in the face of adversity they are allowing themselves to be more vulnerable to competition because throughout the ranks employees are shrinking away or hiding.
Here’s a contrast:
As a way to fix a business that was fast losing credibility in its market I had to terminate several unsavory sales people, each having questionable business practices and ethics. One of the sales people I terminated responded to losing his high-income position by posting untrue and really demented stuff about the company and me personally on the Internet. Of course this individual used a pseudonym to excoriate me in what amounts to one of the most incredible role reversals of all-time (it’s kind of like Bonnie & Clyde accusing the Texas and Louisiana officers of murder). My way of dealing with it was to reply to this post by using my name, putting my entire contact information out in the public domain and asking anyone who wished to speak with me to please call; I never got one inquiry and the brief moment of stupidity quickly faded away. Now compare that to this scenario.
Senior management at a company I’ve done business with had to communicate a very sensitive message to their end-user customers; something so critical that executives personally spent a great deal of time on this matter. I know these executives extremely well and they have always passionately stated their strong belief that, though theirs might be a national company, it’s as personal and community-based a field as there is. This company happens to be a technology leader, has all the customer data imaginable, and despite all the tools at their disposal, despite their planning for the critical communication, and despite their stated deep commitment to something deeper than “mass customization”, they sent out a letter that was unsigned and opened with a “Dear Sir/Madam” salutation! Needless to say, they have lost control for the situation…but I guess their silver lining is none of the executives involved will have to hide behind voicemail because, other than a general customer service number, recipients wouldn’t even know who to call. Now if you were the customer service rep getting a call from a frustrated/confused/angry customer who got a letter like this, knowing how your executives hid from their responsibilities, how would you handle the flood of calls?
Friday, June 5, 2009
Successful Companies MUST Depend on a Fully Functioning High-Performance Organization
Last night the local CBS News affiliate (Channel 2 in NY) Consumer Reporter ran a fascinating story regarding “sneaky and persistent debt collectors”: http://wcbstv.com/consumer/debt.collection.federal.2.1032181.html
I’m all for protecting individual rights, especially privacy, and especially obeying the laws, but at the same time exactly why are collectors resorting to any means necessary to do their jobs and collect money owed to their companies or clients?
In recent years I’ve worked with several companies that have outrageously high and unfortunately growing open accounts receivables and there’s a detectable pattern: Rather than owning up to delinquencies or trying to work with creditors, too many delinquent customers are either hiding from their obligations or becoming belligerent.
Look, I know good people and good companies are victims of a horrible economy, overwhelmed by events they can’t control, but I just can’t look at this as some “Attack of the Relentless Debt Collectors” either. Whether consumers or businesses have unintentionally taken on more debt they can handle, are they still not accountable for decisions they made? And if a collector isn’t able to engage the borrower in constructive dialogue is the collector supposed to abandon her/his professional responsibilities?
I’m sure there are collectors and collection agencies that go way too far, but this CBS Channel 2 report reinforces what I believe lies at the heart of so many of today’s problems: an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility and professional accountability.
The same people that make their unpaid debt more an issue of “relentless debt collectors” than the fact that collection agencies collected an astonishing $40 billion in debt show up at work with the same distant attitude about contributing to their company’s success.
Sadly, I see this way too often and one of the toughest parts in any of my assignments is reorienting these people to a performance/production imperative. Though apparently disconnected, I see same the root causes and story lines being applied in the public outrage regarding “overpaid executives."
It’s much easier to single out a CEO or a handful of executives in a struggling business, but successful companies depend on a fully functioning high-performance organization. A company is a collection of its parts and it’s impossible to cultivate a successful whole when sums don’t accept personal responsibility and professional accountability.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Can someone do a truly awful job by doing a good job?
It will probably take me many beers and many years to find an answer to the question that has been troubling me these past few weeks:
“Can someone do a truly awful job by doing a good job?”
Because the subject of my question is me and a team of people I’ve worked closely with, it’s led to many a sleepless night. Let me explain, and by all means if you can help me come to grips with this I’d really like to hear from you.
As you may or may not already know (and if you read my bio you will now), I work with and in businesses that have issues. In one particular case a naturally gifted entrepreneur quickly grew a privately-held company that set new records for having issues. Pick a discipline, function, legal, structural, financial, strategic or any tactical matter and you would have found severe issues in this company.
My role and mandate was and still is to engineer swift, significant and sustainable results and against this mountain of problems I (once again) had the benefit of working with a small team of highly focused and competent professionals that systematically resolved and reversed the bad trends plaguing this company. Because these matters needed to be dealt with urgently and expertly, recognizing company ownership would not be well-suited to actively participate as they were given status updates, progress reports, and ultimately the results everyone was looking for. By all accounts and measures, a good job by all!
However, rather than learning invaluable lessons that would serve the company and its stakeholders well into the future, and instead of recognizing the good fortune of a re-engineered healthy business where there had been dysfunction, a company ownership’s conclusion from the many corporate near-death experiences was sequentially: (a) the problems must not have been that bad because they were fixed quickly and apparently easily, (b) there would always be a capable clean-up crew available to instantly fix anything that might confront the company, (c) the company is simply blessed, (d) the company is better than and smarter than everyone else and is therefore invisible, indeed bullet-proof.
Consequently, ownership not only reverted to the business methodologies that got it into trouble in the first place they did so with an exaggerated vengeance. A truly horrible job, because what had been built proved not to be sustainable and in my world Harry Truman’s “the buck stops here” sign/slogan makes me fully accountable that we successfully climbed a huge mountain and then watched a corporate suicide leap.
Reflecting on it, had we failed along the way with one or a few of the initiatives and, had the company felt real pain at an interval or more, real lessons would have been learned and this would be a thriving company.
“Can someone do a truly awful job by doing a good job?”
Because the subject of my question is me and a team of people I’ve worked closely with, it’s led to many a sleepless night. Let me explain, and by all means if you can help me come to grips with this I’d really like to hear from you.
As you may or may not already know (and if you read my bio you will now), I work with and in businesses that have issues. In one particular case a naturally gifted entrepreneur quickly grew a privately-held company that set new records for having issues. Pick a discipline, function, legal, structural, financial, strategic or any tactical matter and you would have found severe issues in this company.
My role and mandate was and still is to engineer swift, significant and sustainable results and against this mountain of problems I (once again) had the benefit of working with a small team of highly focused and competent professionals that systematically resolved and reversed the bad trends plaguing this company. Because these matters needed to be dealt with urgently and expertly, recognizing company ownership would not be well-suited to actively participate as they were given status updates, progress reports, and ultimately the results everyone was looking for. By all accounts and measures, a good job by all!
However, rather than learning invaluable lessons that would serve the company and its stakeholders well into the future, and instead of recognizing the good fortune of a re-engineered healthy business where there had been dysfunction, a company ownership’s conclusion from the many corporate near-death experiences was sequentially: (a) the problems must not have been that bad because they were fixed quickly and apparently easily, (b) there would always be a capable clean-up crew available to instantly fix anything that might confront the company, (c) the company is simply blessed, (d) the company is better than and smarter than everyone else and is therefore invisible, indeed bullet-proof.
Consequently, ownership not only reverted to the business methodologies that got it into trouble in the first place they did so with an exaggerated vengeance. A truly horrible job, because what had been built proved not to be sustainable and in my world Harry Truman’s “the buck stops here” sign/slogan makes me fully accountable that we successfully climbed a huge mountain and then watched a corporate suicide leap.
Reflecting on it, had we failed along the way with one or a few of the initiatives and, had the company felt real pain at an interval or more, real lessons would have been learned and this would be a thriving company.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Stop the "Duck and Cover" Mentality: We Need Leadership to Conquer Today's Business Challenges.
I have a couple of client situations that can only be defined as the highest of high stakes. My client companies—totally uninvolved with one another—are separately in the fight for their lives with respective business partners that has the potential to destroy all parties involved. Even if I were permitted to go into great detail, there’s not enough Blog or Twitter space to fully tell these complex stories. But these stories are very much related to many others plaguing businesses today: (a) accelerated trouble resulting from broader economic pressures, (b) lack of organizational expertise solving serious problems, (c) ineffective leadership, unable to master growing volatility.
More than ever before I’m asked the same question by a growing number of people: “how do we handle the mounting problems in our business, what should we read, where can we learn what to do?” While I always try to avoid giving off-the-cuff simple answers to complex questions, as I work with my clients to solve their apparently inexorable problems and get a deeper understanding of others’ business dilemmas, I believe the best reference guide for executives today may not come from the business library or business history at all.
Study The Cuban Missile Crisis from the fall 1962 when the world came absurdly close to a nuclear war. A combination of inexperience, fear, bravado, talking at rather than to other parties (particularly opposition), miscalculation, escalation (things looked absolutely bleak when a U2 plane was shot down over Cuba October 27th), solved by October 28th by brave leadership that allowed themselves to get past the posturing and find resolution.
I was too young to remember anything from those scary 14 days in October 1962, but I vividly remember the air raid drills we routinely conducted in elementary school…just in case. From what I am seeing lately, too many executives are dealing with today’s serious business challenges like the worst of the Cuban Missile Crisis moments and too many employees are doing a corporate version of “duck and cover” drills--when today’s business climate calls for leadership that is ready, willing and able to conquer today’s challenges.
More than ever before I’m asked the same question by a growing number of people: “how do we handle the mounting problems in our business, what should we read, where can we learn what to do?” While I always try to avoid giving off-the-cuff simple answers to complex questions, as I work with my clients to solve their apparently inexorable problems and get a deeper understanding of others’ business dilemmas, I believe the best reference guide for executives today may not come from the business library or business history at all.
Study The Cuban Missile Crisis from the fall 1962 when the world came absurdly close to a nuclear war. A combination of inexperience, fear, bravado, talking at rather than to other parties (particularly opposition), miscalculation, escalation (things looked absolutely bleak when a U2 plane was shot down over Cuba October 27th), solved by October 28th by brave leadership that allowed themselves to get past the posturing and find resolution.
I was too young to remember anything from those scary 14 days in October 1962, but I vividly remember the air raid drills we routinely conducted in elementary school…just in case. From what I am seeing lately, too many executives are dealing with today’s serious business challenges like the worst of the Cuban Missile Crisis moments and too many employees are doing a corporate version of “duck and cover” drills--when today’s business climate calls for leadership that is ready, willing and able to conquer today’s challenges.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Leno Brought Comic Relief to a "Temporary Willmington Condition"
Leno brings comic relief: "5/11/2009 10:15:00 AM
by GARY HUFFENBERGER Staff Writer - Willmington News Journal, Willmington, Ohio
Jay Leno, center, held a meet-and-greet Sunday prior to the evening show. Here he was joined by two Wilmingtonians, Mark Rembert (left) and Taylor Stuckert, who are leading the Energize Clinton County initiative as well as contributing in other ways to the effort to alleviate the economic hardships in the area, where Clinton County has a 12.5 percent unemployment rate and Highland County a 14.5 percent jobless rate, according to the most recent data. (News Journal Photo/Gary Huffenberger)
I’m an uncomfortable flier even in the best conditions, which is why I’ll never forget my first flight to Wilmington (OH) in the jump seat of an Airborne Express YS-11, situated between an open toilet and containers of packages and envelopes. I was a raw entry-level sales rep for a company that had either the (a) nerve, (b) desperation, (c) vision, (d) stupidity to transform itself from a traditional variable cost air freight forwarder to an integrated fixed cost carrier in an era of double-digit inflation and interest rates.
I remember boarding the pride of Airborne’s fleet back then—a World War II vintage turbo that served all of metro NY—and looking across Newark Airport’s tarmac at Federal Express’, Emery Air Freight’s, Purolator Courier’s fancy fleets of jets feeling a bit envious but mostly nasty angry. We were a nobody company daring to compete with well entrenched extremely well run and respected businesses. Within 5 years of that flight on a rickety YS-11 Airborne was not only much larger than Emery and Purolator, we had become the clear cut 3rd largest industry player to FedEx and UPS.
From the senior executives in Airborne’s Seattle headquarters to the part-time package sorters in Wilmington, we had a warrior culture of energized and aligned people committed to winning. Especially by comparison to the others, our lack of resources became the point of competitive pride and spirit; buttons senior management always knew how to press.
Though there are many examples, another Airborne moment seared into my memory is an afternoon I spent taking the company President & COO—Bob Brazier—to client and prospect meetings when I was managing the Chicago office. We had done extremely well in Chicago, I had the privilege of working with a team of exceptional professionals, and as we passed all the Airborne customer buildings I made sure to point that fact out to Brazier. After about 10 minutes of this, and I must say it was impressive because we were in very fertile Airborne territory, Bob deadpanned “yeah Mike, you really brought Federal to their knees, I hear they’re about to close up in the Midwest, maybe nationally.”
No matter how far we might have come from a single YS-11 serving the tri-state NY area the culture would never allow for celebration because that would naturally lead to complacency and then disaster. Though there are many clichés that get under my skin, none is more bothersome than “to make money you gotta spend money”. I grew up at Airborne from an entry level sales rep to a senior manager, and in the roughly 15 years spending money was taboo. Yet we outgrew the competition and made money. Sure, our lack of marketing to rival FedEx or UPS was also a cause for envy, but it further stoked our competitive nasty angry attitude.
In 2003 DHL acquired Airborne promising to take the company to the next level by spending money to make money. Though I had left Airborne a few years prior I kept in close contact and everyone was excited about “DHL and their deep pockets”, relieved that the intense never satisfied Airborne management style would be replaced by a kinder and gentler DHL.. Among the many things I learned at Airborne was “to make money you gotta have aligned management building a purposeful culture with universal understanding of what the mission is”. All DHL’s investment in Airborne could never make up for the culture that eroded over the past half decade or so.
Jay Leno is incorrect when he says, “’these are pretty resilient people’”…no, these are Airborne people and they are the toughest and most resilient people I know. To those who lived it and know... the saddest thing is: “Leno Brings Comic Relief” to Wilmington Ohio. Yet those of us who lived it and know it have the true confidence that "all of this" should and will be a painful, but temporary condition.
by GARY HUFFENBERGER Staff Writer - Willmington News Journal, Willmington, Ohio
Jay Leno, center, held a meet-and-greet Sunday prior to the evening show. Here he was joined by two Wilmingtonians, Mark Rembert (left) and Taylor Stuckert, who are leading the Energize Clinton County initiative as well as contributing in other ways to the effort to alleviate the economic hardships in the area, where Clinton County has a 12.5 percent unemployment rate and Highland County a 14.5 percent jobless rate, according to the most recent data. (News Journal Photo/Gary Huffenberger)
I’m an uncomfortable flier even in the best conditions, which is why I’ll never forget my first flight to Wilmington (OH) in the jump seat of an Airborne Express YS-11, situated between an open toilet and containers of packages and envelopes. I was a raw entry-level sales rep for a company that had either the (a) nerve, (b) desperation, (c) vision, (d) stupidity to transform itself from a traditional variable cost air freight forwarder to an integrated fixed cost carrier in an era of double-digit inflation and interest rates.
I remember boarding the pride of Airborne’s fleet back then—a World War II vintage turbo that served all of metro NY—and looking across Newark Airport’s tarmac at Federal Express’, Emery Air Freight’s, Purolator Courier’s fancy fleets of jets feeling a bit envious but mostly nasty angry. We were a nobody company daring to compete with well entrenched extremely well run and respected businesses. Within 5 years of that flight on a rickety YS-11 Airborne was not only much larger than Emery and Purolator, we had become the clear cut 3rd largest industry player to FedEx and UPS.
From the senior executives in Airborne’s Seattle headquarters to the part-time package sorters in Wilmington, we had a warrior culture of energized and aligned people committed to winning. Especially by comparison to the others, our lack of resources became the point of competitive pride and spirit; buttons senior management always knew how to press.
Though there are many examples, another Airborne moment seared into my memory is an afternoon I spent taking the company President & COO—Bob Brazier—to client and prospect meetings when I was managing the Chicago office. We had done extremely well in Chicago, I had the privilege of working with a team of exceptional professionals, and as we passed all the Airborne customer buildings I made sure to point that fact out to Brazier. After about 10 minutes of this, and I must say it was impressive because we were in very fertile Airborne territory, Bob deadpanned “yeah Mike, you really brought Federal to their knees, I hear they’re about to close up in the Midwest, maybe nationally.”
No matter how far we might have come from a single YS-11 serving the tri-state NY area the culture would never allow for celebration because that would naturally lead to complacency and then disaster. Though there are many clichés that get under my skin, none is more bothersome than “to make money you gotta spend money”. I grew up at Airborne from an entry level sales rep to a senior manager, and in the roughly 15 years spending money was taboo. Yet we outgrew the competition and made money. Sure, our lack of marketing to rival FedEx or UPS was also a cause for envy, but it further stoked our competitive nasty angry attitude.
In 2003 DHL acquired Airborne promising to take the company to the next level by spending money to make money. Though I had left Airborne a few years prior I kept in close contact and everyone was excited about “DHL and their deep pockets”, relieved that the intense never satisfied Airborne management style would be replaced by a kinder and gentler DHL.. Among the many things I learned at Airborne was “to make money you gotta have aligned management building a purposeful culture with universal understanding of what the mission is”. All DHL’s investment in Airborne could never make up for the culture that eroded over the past half decade or so.
Jay Leno is incorrect when he says, “’these are pretty resilient people’”…no, these are Airborne people and they are the toughest and most resilient people I know. To those who lived it and know... the saddest thing is: “Leno Brings Comic Relief” to Wilmington Ohio. Yet those of us who lived it and know it have the true confidence that "all of this" should and will be a painful, but temporary condition.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Springsteen a CEO? I'd like to say he sets quite an example!
I attended my first Springsteen concert over 30 years ago, I went to my first NYYankee game over 40 years ago, and it would be fair to say I’m rather passionate about both.
But as I was driving home from Monday night’s “heart-stoppin’, pants-droppin’, earth-shockin’, hard-rockin’, booty-shakin’, earth-quakin’, love-makin’, Viagra-takin’, history-makin’, legendary E Street Band’s" concert at the Nassau Coliseum listening to the final few innings of another predictably mediocre Yankee game, I couldn’t help but think about how much I got for my $110 ticket and how little Yankee fans get by now paying as much as $2500 for their seat. Oh the new Yankee Stadium is spectacular and for $2500 you get parking privileges, free food & drink, and a rather luxurious seat while Rome’s Coliseum is in slightly better shape than Nassau’s. The NY Yankees—like so many other businesses—lost sight of their value proposition, what’s important, and how real brand loyalty is solidified.
The Boss—Springsteen, not Steinbrenner—is nearly 60 years old. Last night it looked like he was battling a cold, but neither age nor feeling a bit under the weather stopped him from putting out the high-energy, truly professional performance anyone who has ever seen him knows to expect. In the +30 years I’ve never seen a bad Springsteen show. In the month of April the Yanks have lost by scores of 11-2, 15-5, 10-2, 22-4, 16-11 (blowing a 6 run lead in the process!)…on 21 games played. Roughly 25% of the time they take their stage, these Yankees haven’t even competed.
Where Springsteen never miscalculates his audience and what they expect, the NY Yankees—like many other businesses—have miscalculated an awful lot. Like many businesses these Yankees blame some of their attendance/unsold luxury seat problems on “the economy”, as if they were poor, innocent victims of events they couldn’t control. Fact is, I’d more readily spend $2500 to see Bruce Springsteen and the East Street Band without free food and the like than I would pay $110 to see this Yankee team with all the trappings…just as I’ve paid much more to purchase the 3 Acura’s we own than the inferior product put out by GM, Ford or Chrysler.
Last week I spoke to a CEO for a roughly $50 million company in a highly competitive industry who was moaning about the margin compression in his field, how the tough economy was hurting his business, how distressed he was about the state of business affairs, and how disappointed he is in his poorly performing staff. When I asked him about his client interactions I was shocked but not surprised when he said “I’ve never met any of our customers”. Though these are difficult times, there are some high-performing companies across every business category and I find a very consistent correlation: executives that are deeply connected to the front lines and involved with the core elements of their business—starting with the customer—run companies that consistently achieve while those who insulate themselves from the action rise and fall by forces they neither understand nor control.
While NY Yankee executives sit in their fancy ownership box peering over a stadium with too many empty seats as the Red Sox beat their brains in one more time, Bruce Springsteen is working every corner of the stage, shaking hands with and making direct connections to his loyal fans.
But as I was driving home from Monday night’s “heart-stoppin’, pants-droppin’, earth-shockin’, hard-rockin’, booty-shakin’, earth-quakin’, love-makin’, Viagra-takin’, history-makin’, legendary E Street Band’s" concert at the Nassau Coliseum listening to the final few innings of another predictably mediocre Yankee game, I couldn’t help but think about how much I got for my $110 ticket and how little Yankee fans get by now paying as much as $2500 for their seat. Oh the new Yankee Stadium is spectacular and for $2500 you get parking privileges, free food & drink, and a rather luxurious seat while Rome’s Coliseum is in slightly better shape than Nassau’s. The NY Yankees—like so many other businesses—lost sight of their value proposition, what’s important, and how real brand loyalty is solidified.
The Boss—Springsteen, not Steinbrenner—is nearly 60 years old. Last night it looked like he was battling a cold, but neither age nor feeling a bit under the weather stopped him from putting out the high-energy, truly professional performance anyone who has ever seen him knows to expect. In the +30 years I’ve never seen a bad Springsteen show. In the month of April the Yanks have lost by scores of 11-2, 15-5, 10-2, 22-4, 16-11 (blowing a 6 run lead in the process!)…on 21 games played. Roughly 25% of the time they take their stage, these Yankees haven’t even competed.
Where Springsteen never miscalculates his audience and what they expect, the NY Yankees—like many other businesses—have miscalculated an awful lot. Like many businesses these Yankees blame some of their attendance/unsold luxury seat problems on “the economy”, as if they were poor, innocent victims of events they couldn’t control. Fact is, I’d more readily spend $2500 to see Bruce Springsteen and the East Street Band without free food and the like than I would pay $110 to see this Yankee team with all the trappings…just as I’ve paid much more to purchase the 3 Acura’s we own than the inferior product put out by GM, Ford or Chrysler.
Last week I spoke to a CEO for a roughly $50 million company in a highly competitive industry who was moaning about the margin compression in his field, how the tough economy was hurting his business, how distressed he was about the state of business affairs, and how disappointed he is in his poorly performing staff. When I asked him about his client interactions I was shocked but not surprised when he said “I’ve never met any of our customers”. Though these are difficult times, there are some high-performing companies across every business category and I find a very consistent correlation: executives that are deeply connected to the front lines and involved with the core elements of their business—starting with the customer—run companies that consistently achieve while those who insulate themselves from the action rise and fall by forces they neither understand nor control.
While NY Yankee executives sit in their fancy ownership box peering over a stadium with too many empty seats as the Red Sox beat their brains in one more time, Bruce Springsteen is working every corner of the stage, shaking hands with and making direct connections to his loyal fans.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
More to Life (in Business) than Deals.
Yesterday morning, I received an unexpected phone call from a former colleague I haven't spoken with in about a year. He wanted to talk about the planning exercise I ran at his company through a few years ago, and he opened our call by shouting: “I got it!”
My caller friend, you see, was one of the top performers at a high-flying financial services firm I did a project for. The planning exercise encompassed all aspects of business strategy and organizational construct. Mind you, my caller friend (like most in the room at that time!), thought the project was utterly useless. In the go-go days of 2006, I vividly remember him saying: “Who needs this stuff? All we need to do is deals. That’s it, just do deals…that’s what we live for…everything else is just a waste of time.”
Fortunately, his company ownership and executive management recognized there was more to running a successful business than a series of transactions and so they instituted measures that have served them particularly well to this point.
As the economy has melted down, their company is more than holding its own. In fact, the gentleman who called me this morning was so put off by the organizational changes being made back then, never accepted there was anything more to life than deals, left the company to start his own venture.
The true purpose of his call yesterday morning? While he and his partners had done pretty well they were now really struggling and he thought about it, and NOW they’d like me to do a project for them. Yup, that same comprehensive strategic planning exercise he had "no use for" a few years ago s now something he really does need after all. To me, this is the best sign that the global economy is heading back in the right direction!
My caller friend, you see, was one of the top performers at a high-flying financial services firm I did a project for. The planning exercise encompassed all aspects of business strategy and organizational construct. Mind you, my caller friend (like most in the room at that time!), thought the project was utterly useless. In the go-go days of 2006, I vividly remember him saying: “Who needs this stuff? All we need to do is deals. That’s it, just do deals…that’s what we live for…everything else is just a waste of time.”
Fortunately, his company ownership and executive management recognized there was more to running a successful business than a series of transactions and so they instituted measures that have served them particularly well to this point.
As the economy has melted down, their company is more than holding its own. In fact, the gentleman who called me this morning was so put off by the organizational changes being made back then, never accepted there was anything more to life than deals, left the company to start his own venture.
The true purpose of his call yesterday morning? While he and his partners had done pretty well they were now really struggling and he thought about it, and NOW they’d like me to do a project for them. Yup, that same comprehensive strategic planning exercise he had "no use for" a few years ago s now something he really does need after all. To me, this is the best sign that the global economy is heading back in the right direction!
Monday, April 27, 2009
SCH's Edward Lampert Looks for Normalcy in an Abnormal Business Environment
I just can’t accept that the vast majority of business professionals I run into these days believe that today’s economic environment is normal. I have a hard time believing that these people have not read a newspaper, looked at a declining investment portfolio or a 401(k), or that their companies have not been even slightly jolted by the worst financial conditions in anyone’s memory (or longer).
Given all this, I have enormous respect for other credentialed professionals and their great command, knowledge and skill, but most people’s functional expertise, their industry expertise, and their range of experiences tend to be most suited for normalcy.
My particular industry-interest, if you will, is Volatility. There aren’t many of us out there who have this expressed interest and I invite another business to take advantage of someone who produces results in these circumstances as a matter of routine. I offer a track record of achievement in “undermining volatility” across a range of industries for a quarter century. My normalcy is high achievement when there is abnormalcy.
On that note, I was completely inspired by Edward Lampert’s incredible annual letter to Sears Holdings Corporation (SHC)’s shareholders earlier this year (you can read it here on Scribd.com). He told it like it is and did not pull any punches. Perhaps that’s why Mr Lampert is who he is and why SHC is likely to overcome its challenges…as long as his organization can truly respond to his challenges and execute in line with his directives. In his letter Mr Lampert invites those who believe they can contribute to SHC’s success to contact him. At the exact time I was reading this I was also having my own Sears experience as a consumer, and it got me thinking:
I live in Connecticut, but we also have a NY condo I stay at 1 or 2 nights a week to cut a 1 ¼ hour commute into 18 minutes from Manhattan. My daughter is getting her masters at Columbia University so she is living at the apartment fulltime. Unfortunately, sometime in December one of us broke the microwave oven…which was originally purchased from Sears. She called Sears service to have a technician come and repair it…service is one of Sears’ greatest value points.
For 6 consecutive Saturday’s Sears arranged to send a technician to the condo. For 6 consecutive Saturday’s they called mid-afternoon to inform her the tech was too busy and would be unable to make it to the apartment. So already the Sears value proposition is undermined.
On the 7th Saturday the service guy came, looked at the microwave and said it would cost $450 to fix. Clearly, a dumb idea to spend $450 to fix something we could buy for roughly the same amount. So the technician gave her coupons, one for $75 that could be applied against a purchase of a new microwave from Sears to offset the cost of their service call, and the other a 20% coupon to buy a new appliance. I picked up these coupons when I stayed at our condo last Wednesday (3/4). On Saturday 3/7 my wife and I went to the Sears store in the closest mall to our house in CT.
The store clerk was a very nice and helpful man, but when he saw these coupons he had no idea what to do with them. He acknowledged we could only buy an appliance in their store (not from a Sears service technician), but said he didn’t think the store could honor these coupons because they came from service. So he went and got his manager who was equally perplexed. That manager brought over another manager and the 3 of them, along with my wife, spent the next 45 minutes or so trying to solve this incredible problem…which they couldn’t (the best suggestion was: buy a microwave in the store, then send a letter to corporate attaching the coupons and hope they would send us a rebate).
Now, mind you, this was taking place at the exact same time Circuit City—with a store ¼ mile away—was liquidating their inventory, including microwaves. And since every other store knew people were going to buy Circuit City going out of business merchandise many were offering “we will match any Circuit City price” or other discounts. Sears? They chewed up my time and couldn’t figure out how to handle their own coupons from a couple that was intent on buying only from them!
This all brought me back to the concepts of normalcy, abnormalcy, volatility, and Mr Lampert’s stated intentions. A typical employee who wants the job, needs the job, will do anything and everything (s)he can to never let stories like my Sears service and shopping experience surface because the potential for getting “in trouble” far outweighs potential gain for fixing problems. I submit that Mr Lampert (in fact for anyone else serious about winning in the disturbed business climate) will find the talent he seeks by recruiting professionals that bring the added benefit of not caring about politics, turf, CYA, or anything else a traditional employee is most conscious of. He wants people up to his challenge, with a track record of results, with transferrable skills AND one who won’t let the typical bs get in the way. From my own experience, the professionals he seeks are looking to achieve greatness, not find jobs.
Given all this, I have enormous respect for other credentialed professionals and their great command, knowledge and skill, but most people’s functional expertise, their industry expertise, and their range of experiences tend to be most suited for normalcy.
My particular industry-interest, if you will, is Volatility. There aren’t many of us out there who have this expressed interest and I invite another business to take advantage of someone who produces results in these circumstances as a matter of routine. I offer a track record of achievement in “undermining volatility” across a range of industries for a quarter century. My normalcy is high achievement when there is abnormalcy.
On that note, I was completely inspired by Edward Lampert’s incredible annual letter to Sears Holdings Corporation (SHC)’s shareholders earlier this year (you can read it here on Scribd.com). He told it like it is and did not pull any punches. Perhaps that’s why Mr Lampert is who he is and why SHC is likely to overcome its challenges…as long as his organization can truly respond to his challenges and execute in line with his directives. In his letter Mr Lampert invites those who believe they can contribute to SHC’s success to contact him. At the exact time I was reading this I was also having my own Sears experience as a consumer, and it got me thinking:
I live in Connecticut, but we also have a NY condo I stay at 1 or 2 nights a week to cut a 1 ¼ hour commute into 18 minutes from Manhattan. My daughter is getting her masters at Columbia University so she is living at the apartment fulltime. Unfortunately, sometime in December one of us broke the microwave oven…which was originally purchased from Sears. She called Sears service to have a technician come and repair it…service is one of Sears’ greatest value points.
For 6 consecutive Saturday’s Sears arranged to send a technician to the condo. For 6 consecutive Saturday’s they called mid-afternoon to inform her the tech was too busy and would be unable to make it to the apartment. So already the Sears value proposition is undermined.
On the 7th Saturday the service guy came, looked at the microwave and said it would cost $450 to fix. Clearly, a dumb idea to spend $450 to fix something we could buy for roughly the same amount. So the technician gave her coupons, one for $75 that could be applied against a purchase of a new microwave from Sears to offset the cost of their service call, and the other a 20% coupon to buy a new appliance. I picked up these coupons when I stayed at our condo last Wednesday (3/4). On Saturday 3/7 my wife and I went to the Sears store in the closest mall to our house in CT.
The store clerk was a very nice and helpful man, but when he saw these coupons he had no idea what to do with them. He acknowledged we could only buy an appliance in their store (not from a Sears service technician), but said he didn’t think the store could honor these coupons because they came from service. So he went and got his manager who was equally perplexed. That manager brought over another manager and the 3 of them, along with my wife, spent the next 45 minutes or so trying to solve this incredible problem…which they couldn’t (the best suggestion was: buy a microwave in the store, then send a letter to corporate attaching the coupons and hope they would send us a rebate).
Now, mind you, this was taking place at the exact same time Circuit City—with a store ¼ mile away—was liquidating their inventory, including microwaves. And since every other store knew people were going to buy Circuit City going out of business merchandise many were offering “we will match any Circuit City price” or other discounts. Sears? They chewed up my time and couldn’t figure out how to handle their own coupons from a couple that was intent on buying only from them!
This all brought me back to the concepts of normalcy, abnormalcy, volatility, and Mr Lampert’s stated intentions. A typical employee who wants the job, needs the job, will do anything and everything (s)he can to never let stories like my Sears service and shopping experience surface because the potential for getting “in trouble” far outweighs potential gain for fixing problems. I submit that Mr Lampert (in fact for anyone else serious about winning in the disturbed business climate) will find the talent he seeks by recruiting professionals that bring the added benefit of not caring about politics, turf, CYA, or anything else a traditional employee is most conscious of. He wants people up to his challenge, with a track record of results, with transferrable skills AND one who won’t let the typical bs get in the way. From my own experience, the professionals he seeks are looking to achieve greatness, not find jobs.
Looking at the Big Picture of Business Today: Stupid is As Stupid Does?
In today's business environment, I don't know if "the big picture" overshadows the smaller one, or if it's the other way around. But I absolutely know they are of the same landscape. Even in its current first draft, when the history of this era is written they will report some astonishing (connected) story lines:
1. An era where professional athletes turned to steroids as a way to put up some big short-term numbers.
2. An era where the financial community went against all logical and accepted practices as a way to put up some big short-term numbers.
3. An era where the federal government initiated a war and engaged in unprecedented activities like Guantanamo Bay to meet their short-term objectives.
4. An era where a law and order crime and punishment DA cum Governor can build a career on straight & narrow ethics yet get run out of office for hanging with hookers.
5. An era where gambling replaced drinking as the biggest vice on college campuses.
6. An era where people knew they could not afford houses they were "buying," but were unconcerned because in 2 years (or less!) they could sell that house and turn a huge profit.
7. An era where lip syncing was introduced for "live" concerts to assure a better quality performance.
The list of find-the-easy-way, short-term thinking, it's only a lie or a scam if I get caught, and so on, examples can run for many pages. How did this all suddenly happen all at once? Did the "Big Picture" set the wrong example, or did a conspiracy of small individual acts conspire to just lower everyone's tolerance and expectations?
To me, politics has also been on this steady march to absurdity for well over a quarter century, but the defining moment remains the poll question that really did decide the 200 election: "Who would you rather have a beer with, Al Gore or GWB?" At the same time, people treat their obligation to vote on programs like "Dancing With The Stars" or "American Idol" well, as pretty serious business.
On the heels of Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Tyco (remember those?) and many others we didn't get reform or better run businesses. Company after company studied what those companies "did right" to boost the stock prices and then also tried to learn what they shouldn't do. Effectively, the latter was studied for "how not to get caught" as opposed to behaviors that should be eliminated.
On a micro level, I always ask the same question of every executive I meet: "Who is your customer?" At best the typical answers are stock, not well thought-out or overly insightful; in the worst cases these executives show utter disdain for the markets they serve. Is it any wonder then that employees throughout the ranks are confused, misdirected, or unable to execute very well at all? If business leaders are not deeply in tune with
their markets, with their prospects and customers, does anyone think a company can meet, let alone master, rapidly changing competitive and economic conditions?
Forest Gump and his mama shed light on all this: "stupid is as stupid does". I'll interpret this as meaning one need not be perpetually stupid because doing better tomorrow is always a redeeming option. However, excelling tomorrow means confronting the realities with logical and decisive action. Fundamentals rule, they always have and they always will. The smart leaders will take the initiative to focus their companies on the fundamentals that are always produce results.
1. An era where professional athletes turned to steroids as a way to put up some big short-term numbers.
2. An era where the financial community went against all logical and accepted practices as a way to put up some big short-term numbers.
3. An era where the federal government initiated a war and engaged in unprecedented activities like Guantanamo Bay to meet their short-term objectives.
4. An era where a law and order crime and punishment DA cum Governor can build a career on straight & narrow ethics yet get run out of office for hanging with hookers.
5. An era where gambling replaced drinking as the biggest vice on college campuses.
6. An era where people knew they could not afford houses they were "buying," but were unconcerned because in 2 years (or less!) they could sell that house and turn a huge profit.
7. An era where lip syncing was introduced for "live" concerts to assure a better quality performance.
The list of find-the-easy-way, short-term thinking, it's only a lie or a scam if I get caught, and so on, examples can run for many pages. How did this all suddenly happen all at once? Did the "Big Picture" set the wrong example, or did a conspiracy of small individual acts conspire to just lower everyone's tolerance and expectations?
To me, politics has also been on this steady march to absurdity for well over a quarter century, but the defining moment remains the poll question that really did decide the 200 election: "Who would you rather have a beer with, Al Gore or GWB?" At the same time, people treat their obligation to vote on programs like "Dancing With The Stars" or "American Idol" well, as pretty serious business.
On the heels of Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Tyco (remember those?) and many others we didn't get reform or better run businesses. Company after company studied what those companies "did right" to boost the stock prices and then also tried to learn what they shouldn't do. Effectively, the latter was studied for "how not to get caught" as opposed to behaviors that should be eliminated.
On a micro level, I always ask the same question of every executive I meet: "Who is your customer?" At best the typical answers are stock, not well thought-out or overly insightful; in the worst cases these executives show utter disdain for the markets they serve. Is it any wonder then that employees throughout the ranks are confused, misdirected, or unable to execute very well at all? If business leaders are not deeply in tune with
their markets, with their prospects and customers, does anyone think a company can meet, let alone master, rapidly changing competitive and economic conditions?
Forest Gump and his mama shed light on all this: "stupid is as stupid does". I'll interpret this as meaning one need not be perpetually stupid because doing better tomorrow is always a redeeming option. However, excelling tomorrow means confronting the realities with logical and decisive action. Fundamentals rule, they always have and they always will. The smart leaders will take the initiative to focus their companies on the fundamentals that are always produce results.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The purpose of a business is to turn a profit - you ?
I finally found time to read an interesting article that was passed along to me earlier this month by my colleague Josh Hyman at Empire Surgical called "Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership." The article was published in the Harvard Business Review last year (September 2008).
Now I must admit HBR’s stock sunk way down into a black hole for me when they couldn’t go more than 2 issues without writing some piece in high praise of Enron back-in-the-day. It’s more than being a revisionist historian on my part…HBR was Enron’s biggest cheerleader, they bought the whole “these guys are the smartest people in the world and are single handedly going to change the way business is conducted” nonsense without ever once offering critical analysis. I expected better from them and to my knowledge they never set their record straight on this.
So perhaps with a little bit of this still gnawing at me and recognizing it’s hard to really argue with the central points in this particular article, I still found it somewhat lacking because it read too simplistic to me. The article is written from a single point of view, in almost an antiseptic vacuum because it does not take into account the full range of contributing factors and stakeholder analysis. Let’s start with their subject Janice. Please don’t tell me that her interpersonal awkwardness only became apparent after she was promoted! We can only speculate on the actual reasons why she was promoted (though I can assure you it’s not what they portray) and based on the way this reads it also would appear that the company did very little to cultivate her leadership capabilities before she was promoted. Like many, she adopted a mentor after blowing up in the job. How many times do we see this? Preactive versus proactive versus reactive management; the fact her company evidently practiced the latter when the ideal state is the first (preactive is to anticipate well before) leads me to one question: who screwed up, Janice or the boobs that promoted her when she was not ready for the job?
Once the stock market became liberalized, when every bus driver and sewer worker (we’ll call them Ralph and Ed) moved on from the pool hall and bowling alley to Schwab and eTrade, becoming “expert” flipping stocks and less interested in winning the Raccoon Lodge best costume contest, companies had to adopt short-term mentality. Consequently, decisions were made to promote people who demonstrated an ability to quickly put up numbers rather than build anything. Social intelligence, at best, became a nice to have rather than an important consideration. Sure, it’s interesting stuff, it will undoubtedly get airtime at company meetings, consultants and trainers will earn big money popping off about all this, but tell me how it translates to and meshes in with a fundamentally flawed prevailing mentality?
Now let’s apply it to a more visible and recent stage. There has been no more public a flogging than Rick Waggoner and GM; I know of no company that has a more genteel socially intelligent culture than General Motors. Make no mistake about it; Waggoner is a brilliant and wonderfully accomplished man. So how is it possible that he flew to DC in a private jet for a congressional hearing in January, with no prepared notes, to ask for government money? Even a clueless dope knows better than that! Heck, a politician—the audience he was appealing to—would have driven in the cheapest Chevy car made, stopping for photo ops in cities like Youngstown, Pittsburgh, Wheeling, etc, along the way showing himself to be a sincere, humble, man of the people. With all the executives, PR professionals, etc. at GM do you really think nobody else knew this? So how did he seal his own fate by making this colossal mistake?
Because in Corporate America, the job is to go home and yuk it up with the spouse that “The Emperor Has No Clothes” but never to tell that to the Emperor for fear it would be damaging to the career. The sum is always greater than the whole…my job, my department, my budget, my preservation will always trump the corporation.
Interestingly, I spent a great deal of time in DC recently. One night, while I was there, I had dinner with two former high ranking officials in the former administration. In their world—to this day, even after serving the most failed administration perhaps in history—they remain committed to their mission…in their world the whole is always greater than the sum. These are very smart, very accomplished, incredibly skilled professionals…they’re not panderers. And while I respect them and like them, I am certainly no fan if their politics. How often do we see business people engage in turf wars, unable to disagree without being disagreeable? Rarely! I’m helping them launch a business, in fact, because we can agree, disagree, never lose sight of the goal.
The purpose of a business is to turn a profit. To me, that’s where social and emotional intelligence is applied. Whether it’s this gal Janice or countless others, typically practiced by entire companies, social and emotional intelligence falls dreadfully short because “me” is always greater than “we”.
So in my sum, the article tells us the anyhow…but Goleman & Boyzatis do not go deep enough, wide enough, or apply it well enough to be useful.
Just my 2 pennies
Now I must admit HBR’s stock sunk way down into a black hole for me when they couldn’t go more than 2 issues without writing some piece in high praise of Enron back-in-the-day. It’s more than being a revisionist historian on my part…HBR was Enron’s biggest cheerleader, they bought the whole “these guys are the smartest people in the world and are single handedly going to change the way business is conducted” nonsense without ever once offering critical analysis. I expected better from them and to my knowledge they never set their record straight on this.
So perhaps with a little bit of this still gnawing at me and recognizing it’s hard to really argue with the central points in this particular article, I still found it somewhat lacking because it read too simplistic to me. The article is written from a single point of view, in almost an antiseptic vacuum because it does not take into account the full range of contributing factors and stakeholder analysis. Let’s start with their subject Janice. Please don’t tell me that her interpersonal awkwardness only became apparent after she was promoted! We can only speculate on the actual reasons why she was promoted (though I can assure you it’s not what they portray) and based on the way this reads it also would appear that the company did very little to cultivate her leadership capabilities before she was promoted. Like many, she adopted a mentor after blowing up in the job. How many times do we see this? Preactive versus proactive versus reactive management; the fact her company evidently practiced the latter when the ideal state is the first (preactive is to anticipate well before) leads me to one question: who screwed up, Janice or the boobs that promoted her when she was not ready for the job?
Once the stock market became liberalized, when every bus driver and sewer worker (we’ll call them Ralph and Ed) moved on from the pool hall and bowling alley to Schwab and eTrade, becoming “expert” flipping stocks and less interested in winning the Raccoon Lodge best costume contest, companies had to adopt short-term mentality. Consequently, decisions were made to promote people who demonstrated an ability to quickly put up numbers rather than build anything. Social intelligence, at best, became a nice to have rather than an important consideration. Sure, it’s interesting stuff, it will undoubtedly get airtime at company meetings, consultants and trainers will earn big money popping off about all this, but tell me how it translates to and meshes in with a fundamentally flawed prevailing mentality?
Now let’s apply it to a more visible and recent stage. There has been no more public a flogging than Rick Waggoner and GM; I know of no company that has a more genteel socially intelligent culture than General Motors. Make no mistake about it; Waggoner is a brilliant and wonderfully accomplished man. So how is it possible that he flew to DC in a private jet for a congressional hearing in January, with no prepared notes, to ask for government money? Even a clueless dope knows better than that! Heck, a politician—the audience he was appealing to—would have driven in the cheapest Chevy car made, stopping for photo ops in cities like Youngstown, Pittsburgh, Wheeling, etc, along the way showing himself to be a sincere, humble, man of the people. With all the executives, PR professionals, etc. at GM do you really think nobody else knew this? So how did he seal his own fate by making this colossal mistake?
Because in Corporate America, the job is to go home and yuk it up with the spouse that “The Emperor Has No Clothes” but never to tell that to the Emperor for fear it would be damaging to the career. The sum is always greater than the whole…my job, my department, my budget, my preservation will always trump the corporation.
Interestingly, I spent a great deal of time in DC recently. One night, while I was there, I had dinner with two former high ranking officials in the former administration. In their world—to this day, even after serving the most failed administration perhaps in history—they remain committed to their mission…in their world the whole is always greater than the sum. These are very smart, very accomplished, incredibly skilled professionals…they’re not panderers. And while I respect them and like them, I am certainly no fan if their politics. How often do we see business people engage in turf wars, unable to disagree without being disagreeable? Rarely! I’m helping them launch a business, in fact, because we can agree, disagree, never lose sight of the goal.
The purpose of a business is to turn a profit. To me, that’s where social and emotional intelligence is applied. Whether it’s this gal Janice or countless others, typically practiced by entire companies, social and emotional intelligence falls dreadfully short because “me” is always greater than “we”.
So in my sum, the article tells us the anyhow…but Goleman & Boyzatis do not go deep enough, wide enough, or apply it well enough to be useful.
Just my 2 pennies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)