‘Whistleblower’ reports often catch my eye. I often read these tales of life within organizations with a mixture of fascination (they reflect what the organization is really like rather than how it appears on the outside) and horror (what is revealed invariably takes your breath away).
And so it is with the comments being made by a constable (a police officer of the lowest rank in the UK). He has said that:

• every single reported theft of a mobile phone is recorded as lost property
• attempted burglaries get reported as criminal damage
• figures are manipulated. For example, a good month’s detection rates are ‘carried over’ into a poorer month to smooth out the numbers
• shoplifting is an ‘easy detection’ so that gets priority treatment
• there are not enough people so crime isn’t properly investigated.

Four thoughts strike me:

1. organizations that operate on behalf of the Government will have the usually negative effect of politics acting on them. I pity the leaders, caught as they are between a rock and a hard place
2. companies should be more transparent. It should not have to take a whistleblower to reveal true performance
3. once again, here’s the effect within organizations of poorly constructed targets adversely influencing behavior
4. and… once again, folks… lies, damned lies and statistics.

A final sobering thought for leaders. What practices might an employee or former employee blow the whistle on in your business?

Tags: blow the whistle burglaries constable damage figures fascination horror lost property mixture mobile phone performance police officer priority treatment reported theft rock and a hard place shoplifting sobering thought statistics targets true performance whistle whistleblower
 

I am always uncertain how to react when a leader ‘falls on their sword’ as a result of the wrongdoing of others.

Take the case of George Entwhistle.

George Entwhistle took up the post of Director General of just about the most famous broadcasting company in the world, the BBC, on 17th September 2012.

Seven weeks and five days later, he resigned.

That’s not a long reign by any standards. Certainly not long enough—perhaps—to get to grip with the dynamics of a new and big job.

In many ways, George’s problem was one of unfortunate timing. Not long after his appointment, a scandal going back decades blew up—and in particular a flagship BBC program’s dropping of an episode examining that scandal. Then, a few weeks later, the same program aired an episode incorrectly implying wrongdoing of a senior public figure.

Another problem for George was his job description. The Director General is also, strangely in my view, Editor-in-chief and therefore responsible for all BBC content. In other words, he carries the can for the decisions alluded to in my previous paragraph.

The biggest problem for George, though, as for many leaders obliged to take the rap, is the public’s endless requirement for the apportionment of blame and for a senior figure to fall. In his case, events conspired against a promising appointment and as the most senior director he was the fall guy even though he was arguably too green in the role to have prevented the problems mentioned.

We might not feel too sorry for George though.
He has allegedly left the BBC with a package worth £1.3m. That’s £32,500 per working day if my calculations serve me right.

Tags: 3m appointment apportionment bbc broadcasting company decades decisions entwhistle events flagship job description paragraph rap scandal seven weeks sword timing unfortunate unfortunate timing wrongdoing
 

Question.

Does leadership include moral responsibility?

Let me explain what I mean by that, using examples.

• Example one.
  Lead generation is working really well, with sales and turnover up. Then you discover that your Marketing people are riding roughshod over Data Protection legislation, cold-calling people late at night and continuing to mail and e-shot people who have opted out of both media.
  Do you put a stop to these practices—or do you kill that goose even if it’s laying golden eggs?
  
  
• Example two.
  Your bank has underperformed. Massively. So badly, in fact, that national government has had to intervene with public money to bail your business out of the mess it’s in. Yet you’re still entitled to a massive bonus.
  Do you cry all the way to the bank—or refuse the bonus?
  
  
• Example three.
  You’re a politician. You’ve seen how you can use the expenses system to subsidise your lifestyle and just about stay on the right side of the rules.
  Do you ‘enjoy all the benefits’ or remain scrupulous, claiming only for those elements relating to your core job?
  
  
• Example four.
  You’re the boss of a top-flight cycling team who’s just discovered that doping among team members is rife.
  Do you turn a blind eye—or turn the culprits over to the authorities?

Although hypothetical examples, I have drawn on actual events to produce the above. And I could probably cite hundreds more.

My point is that leadership and morality cannot be divorced from one another. When you assume a senior position (in whatever private or public capacity) you assume responsibility for taking a proper moral view of every action you take and every action taken by those you lead. Even if that view adversely affects the bottom line.

If you don’t, you’re not only doing your self-respect a disservice, you’re running a legal risk, corrupting your people and reinforcing the lack of moral compass we increasingly see right across the world.

Sounds a bit pompous?
Well… sorry… but I feel morally obliged to say it.

Tags: bank blind eye culprits cycling team disservice golden eggs hypothetical examples late at night lead generation legal risk moral compass moral responsibility moral view morality national government politician protection legislation public money self respect team members top flight
 

The US Workplace Bullying Institute in conjunction with market researchers Zogby International conducted a survey in 2007 which showed that 13% of US employees said they were being bullied.

That’s—using the law of averages—one in every eight or so of the people in your organization.

What’s more, 24% said that they had been bullied in the past, 12% said that they had witnessed workplace bullying, and nearly half said that they had been affected by workplace bullying, either as a target themselves or having witnessed abusive behavior against a co-worker.

And over the pond, in statistics available from the Andrea Adams Trust:

• more than two million people at work in the UK consider themselves bullied
• 18.9 million working days are lost each year as a direct result of workplace bullying
• 43.5% of employers do not have a policy to deal with workplace bullying
• 93.1% of all Personnel practitioners say that bullying is occurring in their own organizations
• 82.2% say that weakness in management is the prime reason for bullying.

Most reasonable minded people would agree that bullying is appalling.

But what is just as appalling is the leader who denies it exists, or who, in recognizing the problem, does nothing about it in this misguided fear that it might make him or her look ’soft’—or that it’s a low priority.

Sorry to really jump up on my soapbox… but bullying is clearly pandemic—and needs a zero tolerance approach to all its forms.

Now.

Tags: abusive behavior andrea adams trust co worker conjunction fear law of averages market researchers pandemic personnel practitioners prime reason priority soapbox statistics target two million workplace bullying institute zero tolerance
 

Someone asked me recently for my views on favoritism in business.

I said that any leader guilty of it could expect the same result as holding a hand-grenade with the pin out, i.e.:


I have more than once in this blog looked to sport to provide an analogy. With favoritism as my subject, I didn’t have to look very far.

One of the greatest motorsport categories in the world is Formula One. Different teams tend to prosper from one year to the next, of course. This year it’s the Red Bull team.

One of the biggest events of the year is the Grand Prix held at Silverstone in the UK. At this year’s event, the Red Bull team driver Sebastian Vettel’s new-design front wing failed in qualifying. There was only one other new wing available—on his team mate Mark Webber’s car.

Now—Vettel was marginally in front in the driver’s championship. For this reason the team principal (boss) decided to take Webber’s wing and give it to Vettel for the race.

The outcomes of this crass decision (crash decision!?) were many and damaging:

• one disaffected Red Bull driver wonders openly at a press conference why he’s signed for another year at the team
• the press reception is very hostile
• the disaffected driver wins the race with the old front wing… and with the comment ‘Not bad for the number two driver’
• open hostility between the two engineering teams within Red Bull
• difficult media questions
• damaged brand?

I put a question mark after the last bullet point because that outcome is not yet known. But it is possible that the sponsors will not like an association between their brand and unfairness.

So… my question to you is…

Are you guilty of unfairly preferring one of your direct reports or key personnel to another?

If so, what problems are you storing up for the future?

Tags: analogy brand boss crash damaged brand deadly sin favoritism formula one grand prix hand grenade leader mark webber media questions motorsport categories nasty open hostility red bull sebastian vettel silverstone sin team mate unfairness
 

Because of what I do, my ears prick up every time I hear the word leadership.

I recently heard the ‘l’ word in a TV program where healthcare workers at a junior level were complaining about the high levels of remuneration enjoyed by senior healthcare executives.

“It’s time they showed some leadership,” said a union official.

She meant that the most senior executives should take a pay cut.

I wondered about this… particularly the use of the word leadership.

At first I thought that the union official had used the word leadership wrongly. A conciliatory gesture regarding their pay package from a senior executive (eg: no increase for three years while incremental salary awards continue to be made for lower ranks) was just that, surely—a conciliatory gesture.

But the more I thought about it…

… the more I thought that leadership was the most appropriate word that the union official could have used.

I thought this because part of being a leader is enjoying a level of remuneration which, while it recognizes the expertise, experience, responsibility job market ranking that goes along with the job, does not look ridiculously remote from the pay enjoyed by others in an organization.

Because stratospheric pay packages alienate those you seek to lead. They can make lower paid workers feel disenchanted and disenfranchised… and eventually disaffected and unlikely to fulfill your expectations of them.

Above all else, over-the-top Chief Executive salary packages can look, well… greedy. Now, I wasn’t sure whether that’s too emotive a word to use,

but the more I thought about it…

Tags: being a leader ears executives expertise experience gesture healthcare executives healthcare workers job leader remuneration salary salary awards salary packages senior executives tv program word leadership
 

A triple AAA rated market leading UK bank has an interesting approach to staff encouragement.

About five years ago they introduced an appraisal marking system which had the following three overall markings:


These proved too few, so ‘Met Plus’ and ‘Met Minus’ were introduced…
Somewhat contradicting the dictionary definition of ‘Met’.

Now, armed with five overall markings, everyone was happy.

Not.

You see, alongside this appraisal system, senior managers also introduced a quota system to guide bonus rewarding. The quota system demanded that each marking be given to a percentage of staff in each department.

This included 15% of all staff being marked as ‘under performed’. They were to be placed on a ‘close management’ basis encouraged to move their performance out of the red ‘under performed’ zone and into the black nirvana of Met Minus.

What goes up must come down, of course. As some are ‘promoted’ out of close management, others fall into the trap. The relentless 15% underperformed label ensures that.

A good system?

They would argue so. They’d say it was more a carrot than a stick.

I say it was an orange stick and instead of leading people they were beating them with it.

Are you leading or beating?

A subsequent blog entry will return to the subject of leading people and rewarding them.

Tags: appraisal marking system appraisal system black nirvana black nirvana of met minus bonus bonus rewarding bullshit carrot stick contradicting dictionary definition dictionary definition of met encouragement exceeded five overall markings guide bonus rewarding interesting approach leading people market leading bank met met minus met plus move their performance nirvana orange stick out of the red quota system senior managers staff encouragement three overall markings under performed
 

Way too often we find this let’s wait attitude with companies putting new products out:

• Software that has known bugs in it
• Tires that malfunction
• Cars that burn
• Medicine with killer side effects
• Baby toys with lead
• …

Still, it happens over and over again.

Is it because more mediocrity means less testing?

Or has human kind along the way stopped caring about each other?

Tags: attitude baby toys bugs cars medicine mediocrity tires toys