The Consequences of a No-Sacrifices-Environment

Several recent news reports caught my eye, not as individual stories but as closely connected pieces of the same continuum:

1. Adam Davidson's November 20th "Skills Don't Pay theBills" piece in the NY Times Magazine highlighting the fact that despite high unemployment rates and advanced jobs training programs nearly 80 percent of manufacturers have jobs they can’t fill.
2. The tragic factory fire in Bangladesh that killed 112 workers, earning on average $43 per week apiece, and the leading consumer brands the garment factory was producing for.
3. Mixed reports on 2012 holiday season retail sales, where the one accepted fact seems to be deep discounting is the only true stimulus for making the cash registers ring, following a 0.2% decline in October consumer spending.
4. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' report showing record profits for US corporations in the 3rd quarter 2012.
5. Around the clock coverage of the looming fiscal cliff that pretty much says nothing because it sure doesn't seem as if there's been any progress in DC.

Business' truest measurement is profitability and if Q3 2012 produced record profits then executive management is doing its job, superbly.  In part we can attribute the nearly $72 billion increase in 3rd quarter profits to greater cost-efficiencies, but top-line revenue growth certainly had significant impact. But where cost management and sales/marketing might once have been opposing forces, the trends further convince me the lines between revenue generation and cost controls have not only blurred they have merged.

If consumers now value every product and service as little more than a commodity then companies have no option but to meet this demand by so reducing costs they can profit by winning the discount game.  Labor usually represents a substantial business cost and it is little wonder that manufacturers are finding it difficult to hire trained workers if they are paying less than a McDonald's shift manager earns, as Adam Davidson reported.  I have nothing but contempt for modern day sweatshops like the Bangladeshi factory, but racing to the bottom is inevitable when any industry is caught in commodity hell.

It's very easy to blame business and "heartless executives", and whenever there's an easy answer for anything I grow suspicious. Consider this:

The consumer is really the most accountable participant in this vicious cycle by making price the single largest success factor! The same person who laments stagnant wages, off-shoring and the overall shaky economy demands prices that are sure to perpetuate these conditions. 

Politicians are usually the best reflection of the era they serve in. As the Obama administration and congress continues its food fight over the massive problems we will face at midnight December 31st they seem no closer to resolving anything because they, too, want easy answers with no sacrifice on the most complex issues.

Leading the Art of Positive Change Outweighs Its Science

I spent the day with an extremely bright IT professional capable of creating the type of needed change his company is depending on him to produce. Throughout the day he kept proclaiming "I don't do politics" with equal doses of superiority, ferociousness and judgmental frustration. Perhaps not coincidentally, yesterday I was with a different equally talented IT leader who spent his day encouraging our mutual client to join him in a crusade against paper, chanting "I hate paper" to open and close every session (I'm convinced he tortures a Dwight Schrute voodoo doll each night before going to bed).

Any day now we will start seeing year-end features from all media outlets, and more than one is bound to pay its annual homage to the billions (or is it trillions?) companies waste each year on strategically sound IT initiatives that fail to produce expected returns.  To help get this ball rolling, I'd like to frame the subject through these two different professionals in two different settings trying to solve two different company problems. Especially because their attitudes are quite similar to most highly competent IT consultants and professionals I've worked with over the years, and I believe the experts represent the biggest hurdles for getting better universal ROI on technology projects.

I've previously debunked certain aspects of the cliched "people hate change" myth in this blog, but when ideas and ensuing transformation is managed by someone who arrogantly campaigns against politics as a critical change component, of course the people effected will resist with real hatred! These resisting masses will enlist managers at all levels because every good business leader recognizes humans are political animals that are best motivated to do the right things when they fully buy in-clinically as well as emotionally.  Equally, when a project leader sets his or her sights on the wrong objective, employees will quickly reject the direction and see it as a threat to their collective and individual security.

Eliminating paper is not a widely applicable business objective is, but creating greater cost efficiencies certainly is.  Every successful IT project I've ever been party to ultimately does eliminate paper, but as a by-product not as the goal.  Even if this consultant didn't mean it literally, it was received that way by the vast majority of the people he met with (I know, I had to undo the damage).  Nobody will get others to follow them if the audience believes the person in charge is attacking the wrong problem.

By way of a contrast, I will cite another IT leader that will also dominate the annual year in review features.  Of course, I'm talking about Apple, but not from the product design or consumer market standpoint.  Look around and you will see Apple products becoming a bigger part of the corporate landscape despite the aversion almost all CIO's, CTO's and their staffs have to bringing Apple into the workplace.  Apple's successful penetration of the corporate market is due to their going over the heads of the IT experts, appealing directly to users who ultimately insist on iPads for sales presentations, iPhones for marketing campaigns and the like.  Apple certainly seems to understand that the science of changing minds starts with the art of owning hearts and guts.  That's why they are a great corporation, not merely a great technology company.

The intentions, objectivity and execution of a successful organization

In today's mail I received a very lovely talking birthday card from the NY Jets, with a personal note from head coach Rex Ryan.  Of course my birthday was almost two weeks ago and the card arrived the day after Coach Ryan's team lost 49-19 to their fierce AFC East rival New England Patriots. The Jets have now lost their last 2 home games by a combined score of 79-28, both to fierce AFC East rivals.

The Jets are proud professionals; I have no doubt these Jets want to win every game and even if I pay an absurd price for Jets club seats and personal seat licences, sending me a birthday card is a very nice touch from an organization that clearly wants to do the right thing. But the utter consistency between the lousy play of an utterly undisciplined team and their sending birthday cards two weeks too late is reinforcement the NY Jets is still an organization that can't execute on anything.  At this juncture, I'm rather convinced that Matthew Broderick based his character Jimmy Winter on Jets owner Woody Johnson in the terrific Broadway musical "Nice Work if You Can Get It."

Under-performing companies tend to take operate much the same way the lost and wounded NY Jets do: breakdowns in every facet of the business conspire to keep them from achieving very much. Mediocrity becomes the norm, miscues are rationalized, management does more to justify why they have been victims of bad luck or bad economies rather than engaging the strenuous process that will really fix the apparent and growing structural problems.  Just as Rex Ryan continues to defend the embarrassingly horrible play of his poster boy QB Mark Sanchez, most managers in troubled companies strenuously defend their direct report employees guilty of their own on-the-job fumbles, interceptions and routine bad judgment.

Businesses are a collection of human beings and it is only natural that people who spend so much time together in the same workplace in their chosen field will develop close relationships with one another.  I'm always particularly wary of those proclaiming "we're so close and we so care about each other we're like a family!"--- because they are guaranteed to be the least objective of all.  Just as being a player's coach serves Rex Ryan well when he has talent that can win games, I can't fully blame management for failing to stop a company in decline when it is built on a culture of camaraderie.  Clearly, I'm not suggesting organizations should not foster positive working conditions, but when they are plagued by poor execution it becomes necessary to bring in professionals who do not carry the baggage of established relationships.

Without objectivity even the best intentions won't be sufficient. Bringing in external help to navigate through diminished performance is not a sign of weakness, in fact excellent executive teams recognize its importance.  My experience is only the strongest executives, those with the serious intentions of winning have the good sense to engage objective professionals to align intentions with objectivity that will drive desired results through superb execution on all levels.

Omnishambles

The Oxford English Dictionary set a new standard for yearly awards by naming "omnishambles"--defined as "a situation that has been comprehensively mismanaged, characterized by a string of blunders and miscalculations"--the 2012 Word of the Year by the BBC.

Last Tuesday, Mitt Romney was so convinced the national election would go his way he reportedly didn't even draft a concession speech. As a proven top flight executive, it defies logic that Governor Romney would be so unprepared regarding an outcome he could not control.  I have to attribute this miscalculation mostly to his staff that apparently didn't have a firm handle on electorate variables and realities to properly advise Mr Romney last week's outcome wasn't certain.

Mitt Romney is hardly the first last or only leader to get insufficient insights and direction from trusted staff. With alarming consistency across Corporate America, mid and senior managers filter and package information designed to either make themselves look good or to have their executive team feel good. The end result is always omnishambles.

Even during flush economic times successful businesses engage a series of problem solving exercises. Clearly, problems cannot be effectively solved if they are not fully evaluated. When facts are altered and factors shaded, even the best and brightest executive teams cannot make wise decisions. But the omnishambles cycle is not restricted to a activities below the C Suite.

We are all familiar with companies that run board meetings like they are dog and pony shows, designed to entertain and mollify board members instead of using these critical sessions to address serious issues and get the board's advice and counsel. More often than not these boards are comprised of mostly investors or others captive to the company's success so they accept what they are told, triggering even greater degrees of omnishambles.

Based on my professional experiences, I strongly believe the short-term mentality that has taken hold of Corporate America is omnishambles' primary culprit. The courage necessary to tackle difficult problems simply poses greater risk than it offers reward when companies are guided strictly by each moment. While true leaders don't neglect the short term they remain ever-mindful of longer-range implications and consequences

Given the inadequacy of true leadership in 2012, Oxford English Dictionary got it right! Omnishambles is the word of this year. And as always, true leaders will determine 2013's Oxford English Dictionary's word of the year.

Fundamentals Always Rule

Election week ended with a bang, bringing news very much in line with this year's vote to maintain the status quo.  JC Penney's Ron Johnson continued to reinvent retail, this time coming up with the outrageous new idea of offering coupons and discounts to get holiday shoppers in the door while David Petraeus reinvented Washington-sex-scandals-as-an-older-man-in-a-powerful-position, having an affair with a much younger woman.  But even these great stories weren't enough to turn our attention away from continued east coast hardships created by Superstorm Sandy.

Take these two NY-based companies that have both severely crippled by Sandy and the storm's aftermath: Both have suffered damage to their operations, both have had a difficult time getting gas for their vehicles, both serve customer bases equally impacted by Sandy, and both are in extremely competitive industries.  Both companies also have longstanding records of valuing employees, caring deeply about respective workforces. However, one of these companies has had a very strong 2012 ( "Company A") while the other ("Company B") has posted declining revenues and profits this year. I was very intrigued to hear how these companies made such vastly different decisions on how to handle rather substantial payroll for the days employees couldn't get to work due to the storm. Thus I believe is truly newsworthy as this difference illustrates real action that supports turning-around of the US economy.

After much discussion and deliberation, profitable Company A decided not to pay employees for days they didn't work, instead having workers take them as either vacation or personal days.  By contrast, the struggling Company B CEO made a snap decision to pay everyone for the lost days without even bothering to talk it through with his senior staff.  Seems like that CEO is a better executive to work for and his pro-employee stance is certain to better motivate the workforce, doesn't it?  Think again.

I marveled at Company A's careful examination of all the facts and possibilities before making such an enormous decision.  They fathomed that the price of raw materials, notably gas, would continue to rise and likely squeeze profit margins if even temporarily.  They also projected a spike in customer demand which would increase use of overtime hours, while further forecasting that many of their clients would pay slower than usual which might compromise cash flow.  Their conclusion was to base the decision on sound fundamentals: if their conservative views proved wrong they could then elect to distribute greater bonuses at year end and if they proved right they would not then be forced to take more drastic measures in reaction to full payroll days that weren't worked. 

Little wonder this company has been consistently profitable, weathering several recessions, post-/9/11 trauma and other challenges the business has faced in over 30 years of operation, never taking a layoff or forcing salary cuts on its workforce.  By working as a team, they also incorporated the best in managerial due process.

In his haste, Company B's CEO didn't consider any of these trailing issues.  How could he?  He didn't even bother to discuss it with staff.  Sure, all the employees getting paid for days they couldn't get to work for no fault of their own will be thrilled...at least in the moment.  But how long will that last? If they run into the same or even similar problems Company A's management team evaluated, you can bet Company B will face another round of austerity measures.  Indeed, it should not be surprising that since the broad economic downturn 4 years ago Company B has regularly eliminated jobs, imposed pay cuts and frozen hiring. 

Fundamentals aren't interesting enough to make news, especially because they are the anti-reinvention. But in the end, regardless of the endeavor, fundamentals always rule.  Perhaps this is why JC Penney has learned selling other company merchandise is not the same as selling proprietary technology in today's retail environment, why the incredibly qualified and talented head of the CIA can't stay in his job if he violated the trust of his family, and why Company A will continue to thrive as an excellent organization with a true commitment to its employees while Company B will likely join the scrap heap of businesses that failed in the not-too-distant-future.

Unfortunately, no surprises--we're all in this together.

With predictable regularity the business press can be counted on to run feature articles that "change is hard" and "most change management initiatives are very expensive and time consuming yet fail." These pieces are usually accompanied by tips for creating the right change environment so that the reader's company succeeds with its change management strategies.

In an election cycle that seemed to have started the day after John McCain conceded in 2008, after billions of dollars spent, and public opinion polls consistently showing politicians--of all stripes--are less popular than wicked storms on the east coast, the same population that doesn't successfully implement business change management programs voted to keep the governmental status quo.

The House of Representatives, Senate and Executive branches of government will look rather identical to the very group we overwhelmingly find distasteful. From my experience leading business transformation across a range of industries this, sadly, comes as no surprise.

The barrier keeping companies from realizing change management objectives is rarely a matter of sound process and subject matter expertise. Rather, it is the people and lack of purposeful determination to make an occasional sacrifice, grow, adapt and learn for the benefit of an organization (and, more importantly, an individual's career). When I initially assess a company, the vast majority of its time functional managers are certain their department runs superbly, but can point out shortcomings everywhere else in the organization. Senior executives and boards are usually right there with them, convinced they are brilliantly leading the business, only to be undermined by a lousy workforce, unfair (foreign) competition, or government.

Our public opinion polls might express strong desire to replace under performing politicians, but our votes say "my guy's great, yours is the problem." These are the same sentiments and actions I routinely see and fight through in the workplace. The same strategies and tactics I employ in business apply to voting and all other phases of life: It starts and ends with what you see in the mirror.

Shortly after Ohio was called for President Obama he tweeted, "We're all in this together." For the health of our nation and vibrancy of our economy, let's do more than hope this is more meaningful than "another Twinkie."

Undercover Boss, Visible Anarchy

I hadn't previously seen CBS' "Undercover Boss" until they aired an episode featuring someone I know and have done business with. Though it was an entertaining 60 minutes, some of it very funny and quite a bit highly emotional, I'm deeply troubled by this program's premise and message.

Executives most likely appear on the show to get publicity for their companies (as opposed to taking the time and effort to put on a disguise to learn about what's really going on), for what should be obvious reasons, and I do hope that's the case, but I have to believe this: What's troubling is the apparently great things that happen as a result of these close encounters between high ranking officials and lower level employees must unleash the laws of unintended consequences.

As a result of spending time with four rank-and-file employees, by the (new season premier) show's end, this CEO awarded three promotions, two salary increases, promised to review compensation structure for two entire departments, and awarded substantial bonuses to each of the four people he spent time with. Seems nice enough until you consider it all from an organizational perspective.

How many layers of management did this CEO bypass to make these major decisions?  How many direct report supervisors had their credibility shattered as a result of the CEO intervening?  Of course, the majority of staff didn't catch the lucky break of getting directly exposed to the CEO; does this make them less deserving of being awarded 5 and even 6 figure bonuses?  Going forward, can there be a true unity of command in an organization featured on "Undercover Boss" if employees know their CEO can and will override managerial decisions, or even policy?

In 1961 "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" debuted on Broadway, telling the story of J. Pierrpont Finch's morally questionably rise from window washer to vice president. Certainly, everyone on "Undercover Boss" was far more committed to their jobs than Finch, but 50 plus years later the entertainment industry's view of corporate American seems to be roughly the same: "Who you know matters far more than what you know." Lucky breaks and style is more often than not more meaningful than substance and structure. In the highly transformative economic climate we live in, I can't think of a worse message to deliver than this.

Performance and Competitiveness

Hurricane Sandy's tragedy continues to unfold in ways I can't describe. While the media will rightfully focus on the horrible loss of life, property and commerce, I want to contrast the remarkable work being done by combined public and private forces post-Sandy to those failing.

As Sandy was barreling up the east coast, die hard NY Jets fan and season ticket holder that I am, I went to the Jets-Dolphins game on Sunday. On my way in I was stopped by a gate security supervisor who aggressively told me I could not bring the small bag I was carrying in to the stadium. Despite my showing her the bag contained towels and rain gear, and despite the fact I've been toting the same small bag to MetLife Stadium since it opened, she wouldn't relent. Of course the Jets went on to lose 30-9 as they once again limp their way through a mediocre season. The organization's judgment and execution--on the field, its personnel moves, or the over-officious security supervisor--is consistent, typically resulting in being on the short end of a 30-9 score.

After the worst of Sandy cleared my Connecticut neighborhood, I went out for a walk and saw literally dozens of well-coordinated crews working on different streets to clear roads blocked with enormous trees, fix power lines and ultimately restore electricity. Undoubtedly each crew was led by a supervisor, but I couldn't tell because everyone on each work team was furiously working intent on getting the job done. Clearly, they were well trained and inspired to produce results despite many challenges. Both the town and state officials have provided regular updates throughout this ordeal.  Everyone impacted by Sandy will suffer, but for most of us it's a pain of inconvenience. Thank goodness the companies and agencies managing Sandy clean-up operate at the opposite end of the spectrum from the NY Jets!

Shorthand and oversimplification remain two of the biggest problems US businesses face. 

When we think of athletes we automatically assume "competitive" yet the Jets have lost 2 of their 4 home games this year by scores of 34-0 and 30-9...nothing competitive about that.  By contrast, government agencies are routinely ridiculed for not performing and if there is any business sector that gets the same scorn it's the utilities.  My professional and life's experience continues to lead me to one absolute truth: 

Great organizations can be built and are to be found in any field, but it certainly requires great management PLUS leadership.  

Vote! But Not For Jobs

Every eligible voter should exercise that right come November, but nobody should vote for a political candidate based on a promised jobs program. Delegating up has become the scourge of US businesses in recent years and this year’s election confirms we have now reached the point where this plague has now moved from the CEO’s office to POTUS.

No elected official can cure the epidemic at the root of little to no job growth yet politicians willingly accept the mantle of these profound problems delegated to them by a workforce that eschews accountability they demand in others.  I further submit “The Asian Jobs Flu” of low cost offshore labor isn’t nearly as influential as it’s made out to be.  No, the problem is mostly attributable to what have become normal behaviors in the workplace, a problem I can illustrate from this one of many examples I can cite from my experience in business turnarounds and transformations.

I last saw him 9 months ago when he controlled a multi-million dollar budget for a large company, we were on opposite sides of a negotiating table. At that time he was totally dismissive of my showing him over a decade of data proving that the entire industry I was working in was both without prosperity or profitability and he had little interest in statistics that verified the rate of raw materials inflation was putting the industry in greater peril if it couldn’t generate higher price levels.  Back then it was a scheduled meeting in his well apportioned office where he repeated these lines “that’s not my problem, if you want our business you figure it out”, “I already have several of your competitors willing to go 35% lower than what I currently pay”, and “I will get the best price and then demand the service.” My well-researched and supported analysis was of such little interest to him he refused to even take a copy and he “didn’t have time for a long meeting”…he just needed our best price.

This time we bumped into each other on a Manhattan street corner where I must admit I didn’t recognize him at first and had a bit of trouble recalling his name. And this time he really wanted to spend time with me, as he opened the conversation with “can you believe those bastards fired me after all those years as a senior manager?  After all I’ve contributed over the years?  What jerks, they don’t know anything about my profession, they replaced me with a couple of 20 or 30 something year old kids!”  Because his primary reason for treating me like a close associate was to help him land a new job, I couldn’t resist trying to explain to him that the very attitude he took with me in early 2012 was behind the reason for him losing his job.  True to form, he didn’t see the irony here and became somewhat agitated when I tried to equate our two encounters.

“Not my problem” has become so pervasive it has created chronic knee jerk syndrome. 

Prior to that early 2012 meeting senior people from the company I was working with advised me to not waste my time putting together analysis with a chorus of “nobody wants to hear that stuff.” Of course, after that meeting it was a round of “I told you so” and “so are we going to cut our price?” But what my coworkers were on to speaks louder volumes than just commercial print: everything from national elections to how everyday business decisions are made has been debased by making problem-solving a zero-sum game and by steering clear of topics that will make people think or otherwise feel uncomfortable.

It’s always been easy for management to blame a lazy workforce or for workers to point the finger of blame at out-of-touch management for inadequate business results. Blaming the Indians or Chinese even easier.  But politicians are always the easiest targets, especially because they seem to relish the opportunity to become so. Job stability and growth is a function of competitiveness; companies, indeed entire industries, simply can’t sustain competitive edges. 

If you’re looking for the candidate to vote for find the one who insists on better education, demands accountability in business where it belongs, insists on higher standards rather than relaxing them in everything from finance to energy. Better yet, if you’re looking for a job or have one you want to grow in vote for yourself by doing these very things at your place of work.

Happy Anniversary! Now get real or get lost...

A media professional, who I have a great deal of respect for, recently urged me to read as much of Forbes.com as I could. Thanks to this wonderful advice, I came across "5 Reasons Why J.C.Penney's Ron Johnson Will Reinvent Retail....Again" --an opinion piece the author will undoubtedly follow-up with "Why I Want Alex Rodriguez Batting Clean Up For My Team in The Post-Season!"

Ron Johnson has now been running J.C. Penney for almost one year. His track record is defined by (1)  quarterly losses, (2) 25% decline in the share price, and (3) wild shifts in strategic plans. Can we attribute this track record solely to Mr Johnson, or might we recognize that large companies in complex businesses during an era of rapid change are neither saved nor screwed by one heroic figure? Yet it seems as if everyone involved, from the business press to boards of directors, insists on an oversimplified hyperbole with just about everything.

Clearly, Mr Johnson has an incredible track record of success most recently and notably at Apple where he last reinvented retail. Or was the success due to Apple reinventing product design?  Or Steve Jobs reinventing the world?  I've lost track of all the reinventing Apple is responsible for, yet  in my view their greatest achievement is that Apple continues to excel a year after Mr Jobs' death and Mr Johnson's leaving for J.C. Penney. Perhaps the real story at Apple wasn't reinvention, but something far more basic: sustained achievement by a company dedicated to sound fundamentals in everything from organizational structure to product performance.

Regardless of the field, successful people and organizations (business or athletics) have one thing in common:  they are fundamentally sound and the best of them fundamentally superior. Strong fundamentals create the basis for continuously managing to higher standards and performance. A track record of success is more like incremental advancement than reinvention. Unfortunately, our short-term society has little interest in something as boring as fundamentals!

Ron Johnson has already enjoyed the greatest success he will ever know at J.C. Penney all by himself. If he's able to build an organization that can actually perform on the most basic levels then he might be able to truly turn J.C. Penney around. Having worked with  J.C. Penney as both a supplier and customer, in my opinion, instilling these fundamentals won't be easy. I can't think of any company (in any industry) with a culture as consistently lousy the one as I've seen out of J.C. Penney. And if Mr Johnson approaches his job the way the press claims he does then his J.C. Penney tenure will be painfully short, unhappy and expensive for all stakeholders. 

Let's skip the genius talk and reinvention nonsense and get real about it: J.C. Penney's problems are so entrenched that one person can't solve them and if you really believe something can be reborn or reinvented without proper fundamentals, then as a Yankees fan, I'd also like to sell you a superstar 38 year old 3rd basemen who can't catch up to a fastball!

It's back to business for Merisel--winner of American Business Awards Turnaround of the Year

and updating my blog... 

Last night the American Business Awards were handed out at the Marriott Marquis in New York City. I was a finalist in two categories and I truly am honored to have lost to the likes of Ford's Alan Mulally (Executive of the Year-Manufacturing).  

As many of you know, the American Business Awards --part of The Stevie Awards program--honors the achievements and contributions of US-based businesses and their employees.

Individual awards are never as meaningful as team accomplishments and I am privileged to report that Merisel won Business Turnaround of the Year at last evening's 9th Annual American Business Awards. As a member of Merisel's executive management team, I couldn't be prouder of this accomplishment. 

More updates to follow.

RIP Amy

My cousin Amy died earlier this week. During the late 70's and early '80's Amy was one of the few who could actually pull off the Farrah Fawcett look-alike style. Back then her eyes smiled and she could light up a room when she broke into a full facial smile. When she died this week she was alone in her apartment. The Amy I remember from when we were kids could have never conceived she'd have a mostly sad adulthood spent trying to find her meaningful place in life. I hope the Amy still had memories of the Amy that once existed. She was a young girl filled with potential. I'll never know if she died too soon or too late when her body was discovered earlier in this week; she was in her mid 40's.

On the day I went to Amy's memorial service I spent most of my time working with a couple of different cross-functional teams trying to solve frustrating operational problems and institutionalize improved cost-efficiencies. The teams were comprised of skilled professionals, highly knowledgeable in their craft, all extremely passionate about their work. The issues we were confronting weren't easy. Every time the stakes in our problem-solving excercises were raised or when we would get to oftentimes difficult truths, someone would invariably say "look, it's not like what we do here is life-and-death important" (or some similar version of that remark) as a way to let everyone off the hook.
Today I won't digress in to one of my rants or dissect the meaning of or implications of cross-functional team members letting one another off the hook. No, the real subject here is way too important as I think back on Amy's life not lived---considering that there are probably millions of people in the world who have said or thought the same ("it's not life and death") about the work they do.


If my cousin Amy had found her meaningful place in the world, had she found a fulfilling career in a field she was passionate about, where she had been respected for her knowledge, admired for her skill, I dare say she would still be alive today and those expressive eyes and the mile wide smile would still radiate life that was really and sadly extinguished long ago.

So, please, for your own sake and for my cousin Amy's memory, no matter what you do, no matter what your industry or career path, never ever demean yourself or the work you do by even thinking anything as absurd as "it's not life or death." I'm here to tell you, with Amy as a haunting image, what you do, how you do it, and the meaning you get from all significant aspects of everything you do is very much a matter of life and death.

Perhaps 49er Coach, Mike Singletary's "Getting-Results-Style" could be an example of how to succeed in business for 2010?

I couldn't have wished for a better end-of-year lengthy discussion than my lengthy session with Chris this week. He's one of the brightest, curious and most committed young professionals I've ever had the privilege to work with. As we get set to bury the truly God-awful 2009 reconnecting with Chris is the best reinforcement that better days are ahead because ambitious emerging talent always leads to a better future.

During our discussion Chris talked about a particular department he had been working with that certainly had issues but he said was thankfully comprised of "many experienced people." He reeled off a rather extensive list of issues, but the headlines were:
1. The department didn't have a true manager;

2. Each of the department employees did things their own way;

3. 2009 was a disappointing year for the company, revenues were off and although they had made great progress, costs were still higher than they should be. As he assessed it, the biggest cause for higher costs was waste due to breakdowns in the order entry-to-production cycle;

4. The department was supported by tools that were decent enough and although they were constantly being upgraded not everyone in the department thought it necessary to use them;

5. The company and its industry was going through radical and perhaps even painful changes but not everyone in the department was sensitive enough to these changes to adopt new methods.
So here I am with a wonderfully gifted individual who represents the future, fascinated by his apparent celebration of the past--one that was no longer working--who valued experience.

Clearly,"experience" can mean a great deal of many positive things, but in an environment that is defined by change, I'm rather certain that captivity to experience --for the sake of it-- is a guaranteed losing strategy. Of course Chris, like all of us, must respect and honor proven experience yet I believe it is just as important to keep in mind that experience is not a synonym for expertise.

Given the five isolated problems (listed above), does this seem like an expert group?

Shortly after speaking with Chris I found the time to finally check out the 2010 NFL Pro Bowl rosters. The first thing I noticed was, although named an alternate, NY Jets' Left Tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson didn't make the AFC roster. A classic case where voters confused experience with expertise because in his 4th year Ferguson played so expertly he deserved to earn Pro Bowl. But the selection that really leaped off the page was San Francisco 49er Tight End Vernon Davis earning the starting Pro Bowl spot for the NFC. That's the same Vernon Davis who wanted to do things his own way during the 2008-2009 season his coach, Mike Singletary, publicly blasted him, more than once. A year ago it sure looked like Vernon Davis was headed for the scrap heap of "uniquely gifted athletes never to be heard from again, destroyed by a lousy attitude."

Singletary, an NFL Hall of Fame player and a 10-time Pro Bowl selection himself cared enough about excellence, followed his convictions to push Vernon Davis, and one year after Davis was shocked by his head coach's tirades against him, undoubtedly was the catalyst for Vernon Davis becoming an NFL all star.

For Chris and his company and all others, I wish only the best things for you in 2010 and suggest it can be a wish-come-true by applying a bit of Mike Singletary's style of getting results to succeed in business climate more volatile, competitive and exhausting than the NFL.

Happy 2010 Everyone!

It's Time for Business to Focus on Meaningful Performance Standards: Let's Get Back to Inspiring and Teaching

In recent weeks I've heard from a surprisingly large number of you urging me to post a new column. This space is intended to share useful information and insights from my interesting business encounters and experiences; quite frankly I thought I was becoming redundant and not breaking new ground. So I've resisted the temptation to write for the sake of it and am now reappearing because I've got something worthwhile to share.
As the economy plods along, as adjusted real unemployment figures are estimated at nearly 18%, as companies struggle to compete, the great strains are showing in most insidious ways. Not enough managers are truly leading their organizations by inspiring them, teaching them, better equipping them and it's creating greater levels of fear and suspicion in the workplace. At a time where organizational strength is an imperative far too many employees are looking to play the hero; freelancing and pushing others away from what they believe is their turf. In many respects this stands to reason: the fear of being unemployed is now so powerful that otherwise capable and rational human beings are determined to prove themselves to be indispensable. It's happening at alarming rates and these misguided efforts are universally making bad situations worse. I won't go as far to say we're approaching organizational anarchy, but there are too many signs of it coming from too many companies to not put a spotlight on this dangerous trend.
Signs of this self-indulgent behavior are evidenced throughout society, whether it's the Henne's of Colorado or Salahi's of Virginia who aspire to fame through outrageous and no-value behavior that will earn them starring roles on (anything but) reality tv. Just as the Salahi's believe they're worth a few hundred thousand dollars so a television network can interview them, many in the workforce evidently believe crashing their organizational structure or undermining corporate unity of command will not only guarantee their continued employment doing so will earn them big bonuses. I find the seeds for the twisted logic were sewn well before this diabolical behavior became apparent.

In one case a senior executive had delegated virtually everything in his business to tenured staff, but over time both company staff and their customer base eroded. This is hardly coincidental; employees developed deep resentment for a leader that hadn't been involved for quite some time but ruled his business as an emporer so they left and took customers with them. His reaction was to further wall off access to his staff and customers as an attempt to be the hero to parent company executives that had lost patience in direct correlation to the control he had lost in his business. Even though steps have been taken to prohibit this senior manager from following a disastrous course of self and turf protection, it will be a constant effort to stay on him and manage the situation that will undoubtedly further drain corporate resources.

Another example is a sales person who recently closed a couple of deals; his first significant sales in roughly 18 months. Between 2007 and ytd 2009 this sales person's business was off by nearly 60%; of course he attributed this to "the economy" and nothing he had any control over. Emboldened by a couple of new deals he is now attempting to hold his company hostage by demanding no less than a 50% increase in his compensation. His rationale is that he's owed extra pay to compensate him for the tough couple of years he's had, never mind his company continues to lose substantial money or that his tough couple of years was a direct reflection of his poor sales performance.
It's as easy to make this a story of individual behavior as it is for me to cite other examples, but I believe the root cause is deeper. Any system that seems to have replaced merit with entitlement, achievment with grandstanding, is badly broken and must be repaired through compelling leadership and reinforced management. We've all let standards devolve over the years and as companies prepare themselves for 2010 I urge them to put an immediate and significant focus on meaningful performance standards.

Let's rebuild our businesses through the sincere efforts of the committed professionalism of top performers...

With Kirk and many like him still very much in my face and on my mind, I was thrilled to run into the Anti-Kirk the other day. The timing couldn't have been any better because focusing our attention on professionals that are part of the proverbial solution, rather than those who define the problem, is the ticket to creating and sustaining high achievement.

For many years I've commuted home on the 8:04 PM Metro North train out of Grand Central Station and it was on this ride I got to know Joe the Conductor. If Joe ever told me his last name I've long since forgotten it, but I've gotten to know him rather well and have always admired his work. When bucketed in to stereotyped categories, Joe (a proud union member working for the Metropolitan Transit Authority on the Metro North New Haven Line where the train cars date back to the 1970's), would seem to be a leading candidate for a horror story. But Joe the Conductor served as a nightly reminder that pride in workmanship, a keen sense of professionalism, and a deep understanding of customer service transcends even the most hardened stereotypes.

Over the years I learned a great deal by watching Joe; the way he handled belligerent drunks, resolved disputes between passengers, calmly dealt with the occasional rider who didn't see any reason to buy a ticket, kept order when trains broke down or were forced to endure delays. Whether it was a cold winter night where several cars didn't have heat or brutally hot summer days when the air conditioning didn't work, Joe stayed in calm control. From time-to-time he would tell me about MTA policies or management decisions that made no sense, occasionally observing that the New Haven line was in sorry shape. Like all of us he undoubtedly had his bad days, felt pressures from professional or personal challenges, but Joe was the rare talent who was able to rise above any of these forces. I never saw him have a bad shift, I can't ever recall him mishandling any situation (and on the 8:04 there were many tough ones, none of them could have been predicted), and he lit up every car of every train with his constant smile.

Joe retired earlier this summer and yet there he was the other night, kicking back as one of the passengers. Maybe it was his farewell tour or perhaps he simply missed being at his office, but it was great seeing him one last time. Seeing Joe the (retired) Conductor again was a much needed reminder for me that companies, industries and the entire economy as a whole can only be rebuilt through the sincere efforts of the highly knowledgeable, the deeply skilled, and the committed professionalism of top performers like Joe.

Continue to let Kirk Grow Into His Role ----How Does That Kind of Decision Impact Any Company's Growth?

For several weeks now I've had opportunity to work closely with a mid/high level manager we'll call Kirk. He's a sincere guy with a work ethic anyone would respect and seemed reasonably competent. However, it's often difficult to know this about Kirk because he fell into the nasty habit of rarely thinking before he spoke. If this self and organizational destructive behavior was limited to Kirk I wouldn't bother writing about it. However, we've all encountered any number of Kirk's so discussing how he is progressing can be quite useful.

Kirk's on-the-job behavior fit a very familiar pattern. Pick any subject and he'd instantly tell you he knew all about it, but went no further than that one-liner. Because he was an expert in every field he was extremely busy all day long, "putting out fires" (as he would say) --which is why he just didn't have time for anyone else or anything else especially in-depth dialogue! Of course, high on the list of things he didn't have time to evaluate was why his day was dominated by putting out fires in his areas of responsibility. But more insidiously, Kirk the know-it-all had mastered the art of delegating every decision up the ladder, which then relieved him of any accountability. One thing Kirk always seemed to make time for was to bemoan the fact that his boss made some really dumb decisions, which explained why he had to fight so many fires.

In truth and fairness, though, Kirk's boss and other company executives fed into this nasty cycle because they not only enabled him they created conditions that allowed Kirk to delegate decisions large and small to them while he escaped accountability for anything other than always knowing everything and always being right. Whenever Kirk presented an issue or problem up the chain of company command executive leadership quickly supplied answers, always putting themselves in the middle of the most mundane business matters. Kirk always had time to run into his boss' office throughout the day or send dozens of emails, always asking for instructions never even making any recommendations. Internally, Kirk was held in high regard because he was such an important employee, always incredibly busy, and to anyone's knowledge the single most informed human being on any subject. But I write in the past tense for a reason.

Slowly, the tables have been turned in a way that's benefitting all. due to his obvious brilliance, Kirk was asked to lead a very important company project. Because he had greater knowledge and experience than anyone else could ever imagine he was given full control for developing and implementing an action plan. However, in this case, whenever Kirk tried to delegate his project work up he was met with the same reassuring response: "I really trust your judgment Kirk, what do you think we should do?" Yes, Kirk's prior pattern of behavior was a great cover-up, a defense mechanism, for a managerial incompetent....and now it was getting exposed.

Early in the process Kirk tried to continue his charade by giving his recommendations. In every instance his ideas bordered on the painful or comical...I mean you could have picked someone at random off the street who knew nothing about the company, someone who had never even worked anywhere before, and that person would have come closer to offering a useful idea than Kirk did. Indeed, he went from not thinking before speaking by serving as a router to not thinking before speaking when he was thrust in the role of accountable leader. But credit to Kirk, in remarkably short order he checked his ego at the door and started to work better with others by sincerely talking to them rather than deflecting and talking at others. Over the course of the past week or so Kirk has done some of his most meaningful work because he is actually now thinking through his own solutions, doing his own research to figure things out, and making himself accountable. He even went as far as telling one of his direct report employees that he didn't know something! Interesting, but not surprising, the junior employee first reacted in stunned silence--Kirk had never made such an admission before. But that employee then flashed a small smile...yes, she knew Kirk was not the man he pretended to be all along. The two of them then spent 15 minutes diagnosing the problem and coming up with a solid business solution.

While it's nice to see these small improvements where real progress is being made, it begs a couple of key questions for me...one rather large, and the other as finite as you can get.

The larger issue is how many companies have allowed themselves to similarly get set back, particularly when confronted by the most terrifying business conditions in recent history, how do they quickly recognize and permanently change it?

On the smaller matter, this company's ownership now has to do some serious thinking of their own. They pay and treat Kirk like a senior manager, but he's not even close to being one. Do they continue to let him grow into the role or do they replace him with someone who is actually credentialed?

The National Review Calls Home: A Brilliant Move by the Team at National Review--social media at its finest.

Since my last post featured Teddy Kennedy, it's only right that I give equal air time and praise to the other political viewpoint. Just as the late Senator Kennedy's best attributes are useful for business people, so too is this example:

At a time when everyone seems to be planning "old media's" funeral, Jack Fowler--National Review's savvy publisher, is blazing new trails by integrating disparate media with a live and interactive event his publication is launching on Tuesday, September 22nd. Featuring some of NR's best and brightest minds--Mark Steyn, Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg--you can learn more about and even register for National Review Calls Home at: http://www.nationalreview.com/callshome/.

Certainly the publication William F Buckley founded in 1955 is not immune from the same dilemmas faced by other publications; the nearly 55 year old National Review assuredly has wrestled with changes forced by "new media".  But as a business leader, NR's Mr Fowler isn't throwing up his hands, shaking his head and asking for pity because the web changed all his industry's rules or because the economy tanked! Rather, Jack Fowler is a student of his field and is highly committed to his craft, thereby positioning him to be a true innovator. By the way, someone at NR (or?) should post an official Wikipedia listing for Mr. Fowler here soon.

The National Review Calls Home concept marries the magazine's strong brand with its extraordinary talent that has a loyal following. By extending NR's reach to now include intimate phone conversations, one can now interact with Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry and Mark Steyn in print, on the Web, TV, and radio--come September 22nd, like you would with your neighbor. In my view a truly brilliant strategy, one that other organizations in any field can emulate! Considering Mr Fowler is doing this at a time when most other businesses are focusing on cut backs, he's showing real leadership.

If nothing else, I would urge serious business professionals to sign up for National Review Calls Home on September 22nd just to see how it is done. My best wishes to Jack Fowler and his staff for their continued success!

Teddy Kennedy would not have been tolerant of lip synchers in his midst.

This last week, a top professional I know admitted to a guilty pleasure: She had been to the Britney Spears concert the night before at Madison Square Garden (she was a fan). Naturally, I had to learn more about what a Britney Spears show was like!  My colleague said she had a wonderful time; it was an exciting show, very entertaining, but that it appeared as if Ms Spears lip synched all but one of the songs and only twice did the pop star even bother to address with the audience.  Yet even after all that, yes, my business associate said she would certainly attend another “live” Britney Spears show in the future.
This last week we also all learned about Senator Ted Kennedy’s passing. Say what you will about his politics, the scandal at Chappaquiddick or anything else regarding his life, but by all accounts Senator Kennedy was passionate about his work, sincere in his beliefs, and truly genuine. Consider this one tribute from Edward Rollins, someone who certainly didn’t share many of Senator Kennedy’s views:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/rollins.kennedy.gop/index.html.

As I went about my day-to-day business affairs this past week I couldn’t help but connect what I unfortunately encountered to Britney Spears’ re-emergence and Senator Kennedy’s death (strange--but read on).

Edward M. Kennedy earned respect, particularly by his adversaries, because he held strong beliefs and was focused on driving results he thought to be important. He was at the eye of many legislative storms, but he built extraordinary working relationships over the course of a nearly 50 year career in the senate. Similar to the work team I wrote about back August 27th, he forced others to bring their best game and they brought out no less the same from him. By contrast, Britney Spears fans seem to not only tolerate the apparent lip synching portions of a live concert,  they enthusiastically cheer it.

The workplace remains dominated by too many people who physically show up to work each day, but who don’t bring the same intellectual or emotional commitment. I truly hope that we mourn the death of one man and not the passing of a much-needed approach to one’s work. To me, the best way to remember and honor Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts is by adopting the same principled, passionate, collaborative and results-oriented energy to our careers as he did and perhaps become less tolerant of the lip synchers in our midst.

Who would have guessed: August -- a prime time for engineering high rates of sustainable growth.

Although I’ve always been told that not much business gets transacted mid-late August because everyone is on vacation, I’ve always found August to be a particularly productive month. Not only has August 2009 not been an exception, my experiences this month tell me that there’s heightened focus and purpose in the business world…clearly a very positive leading indicator! I’d like to use the remainder of this space to relate my highlight for the week to the encouraging signs I’m seeing in general.

Presented with an opportunity to launch a new business line, a company I’ve been working with (that defines the word “conservative”) had the good sense to pursue the initiative with cautious optimism. The company assembled a project team that did more than simply evaluate the venture’s worthiness. This cross-functional team was comprised of members that brought subject matter expertise and a strong willingness to challenge every assumption. From day one it was clear that this was a highly capable group of professionals and it soon became even more evident that this team has uncommon maturity. Members didn’t make the process easy on one another, yet at no time did any meeting devolve into finger-pointing, egoism or turf protection. This team collaborated in a most impressive way: each member demanded goal-oriented excellence from himself and his peers.

Along the way, the project sponsor had moments of doubt—even thought at least one participant was going to do everything he could to kill the initiative. As it turned out the (apparently) most negative group member proved to be the driving force for transforming concept to reality. Had any member, particularly the project sponsor, lost sight of the business objective; had anyone reacted to legitimate business challenges in a personal rather than professional way; had they lacked individual and collective commitment to the absolute best work product theirs would have been abandoned like so many other excellent ideas unfortunately are in Corporate America. Without the sincere efforts of the team’s toughest critic, their high-potential initiative would ultimately fall short of its objectives. This team set a very fast pace, accomplished a great deal in a short period of time, yet all had to keep up with other job responsibilities. They never missed a meeting, none of the participants ever came unprepared, and none allowed other responsibilities to be slighted either.

As they practiced it, collaboration wasn’t pandering nor was it about compromise. Theirs was collaboration as I believe it is intended to be: each sum intensely driven to create a superb whole. Though they did ask the question that is on everyone’s mind these days, “is this the right economic climate to try something new?” They didn’t obsess on that ever present excuse in most business environments today and they also concluded that the best remedy for poor results is growth and growth will come from innovation. As more companies and project teams adopt the “We Must!” mentality, removing all vestiges of finding reasons why not to do something (always the easiest path) economic vitality will overwhelm anything that has ailed us.

I was privileged to work with this group and what they did, in August no less, is the model for engineering high rates of sustainable growth for many years to come.

Change the person or change the person.

Driving institutional change requires far more than executive buy-in to the concept, leaders themselves must set the fast pace through their own performance. Particularly when the stakes are high, when a company has urgent matters to solve, I know of no better method than: change the person or change the person.

This approach allows organizations to rehabilitate real talent that simply requires assistance yet also allows for terminating those who may be too myopic or incapable of professional growth. Either outcome also reinforces positive company attributes because transformed professionals are able to instill growth & development throughout a company while terminations become so obvious to all they can be conducted without friction, fear and raw emotions typically associated with a high-profile dismissal.

When properly conducted, changing the person or changing the person is anything but a long drawn-out affair. Driven by clear-cut objectives, evaluated through meaningful performance metrics and measures as a highly collaborative effort I find it’s rather easy to quickly get to the proper destination.

This morning I concluded a brief project for a company that has had significant problems in a small but once highly profitable manufacturing division. While the business unit VP had once been a rising star in the company, corporate executives were so convinced he was now their biggest impediment to restoring profitability they had apparently made up their minds to terminate him quite a while ago.

However, fearing nobody else in the organization could step up and not having a detailed understanding of the division’s daily sales and operations themselves, parent company executives allowed a condemned man to stay in his role until they could find the right time and figure out what to do. During my initial meeting with corporate leadership, I introduced the change the person or change the person concept and got the typical response: “Oh, you can’t teach this old dog new tricks…he’ll never change…”

Though I must admit the first couple of days were tense and this VP was highly suspicious about my stated intentions, it didn’t take long for him to distinguish himself. He was clearly a very bright, very motivated, very committed, and very willing top-tier professional who had encountered market conditions, competitive forces and performance pressures unlike anything he had ever before experienced in his career. He wasn’t unwilling to learn and change; in fact that was the furthest thing from the truth! He just didn’t know how, and because what had once worked for him was now failing he had lost total confidence in himself. Perhaps more telling, his initial distrust about my role was really about his now distant relationship with corporate executives.

By working closely together in this intense process we quickly discovered a number of revenue-building and cost-improving measures that were successfully instituted. August will be the division’s first break-even month in roughly 2 years and all indicators are they’re on track to eek out profitable months for the remainder of 2009. Though a far cry from the business unit’s best days they are on course to get there. And because the division’s leader has successfully transformed himself he’s now requiring the same from all staff which is why I’m quite confident they will once again be the parent company’s darling much sooner than anyone realizes. I’m equally certain that they would be much further behind, quite possibly on the road to eventual company shut-down, if we just focused on changing the person when the company already had its best VP in that role…he just needed help and direction so he could change.