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
 

At least for the German charity SOS Kinderdorf . The German gamer website gamersunity offered the proceedings of banner advertising to SOS Kinderdorf. And got rejected.

Because games promote violence. (In German)

But so do many sports, TV shows, et cetera.

To mark all gamers as violent or promoting violence is just plain wrong and stupid. There, I said it!

Don’t get me wrong—I am neither in favor of violence nor war nor promoting either.

But the picture of the violent gamer that eats little children—as painted by media and politics in Germany—is idiotic.

Tags: banner advertising charity devil gamer games germany media media and politics politics in germany proceedings sos kinderdorf sports tv shows violence
 

References—yes, but code samples?

Are you going to ask your surgeon to perform a sample surgery—so that you know how she works? Ask the body shop to change a tire to proof they are able too?
Yet in programming…

Many forget, that there are major ethical implications: Is it right to take code from your place(s) of employment and share it with others? (And sometimes it is getting really bizarre: A friend was asked to share the whole source code of a software because the sample code didn’t show enough of his skills…)
What happens with the code you shared?

Besides that—what is a code sample really telling you about the quality of a programmer?

Not much, because you might very well end up with some code that has been beautified for the pure purpose of getting hired. Or, even worst, the code of someone else (found on the net).

Does it prove the programmer will be able to perform what you need done?

Of course not!

Is it nothing than a relic from old times when nobody really knows how to figure what makes a descent programmer?


Can a code sample show you how well a programmer works in a team?


Or is it simple that hiring managers are clueless and too lazy to educate themselves?

Asking for source code tells you more about the hiring company than the programmer!

Tags: body shop code samples hiring company hiring managers new doctor programmer proof relic source code
 

Obviously we can agree on the importance of credibility and reliability of everyone leading others. Unfortunately, there seems to be an ever increasing trend that it doesn’t apply to the business world (e.g. bailouts are used to pay bonuses).

With devastating consequences: When peers and employees alike stop believing there really isn’t any possibility left to lead or manage them.

Still, way too many prefer to ignore.

Is it because there’s a—sometimes rather lengthy—delay between the questionable action and the loss of credibility?

Tags: business world consequences credibility lengthy delay peers reliability
 

We all know the old saying: “Leaders are born”.
But what about managers?

A study in Germany exposed that managers in fact are born (again; the shift happened for those born after 1965).

“What happened?” you might ask.
“Haven’t things changed? Don’t we see more and more underprivileged finishing university, getting PhDs?”

Right you are. But the reality is that what really matters for companies is who your parents are. Sure, you still need some education, knowledge and life experience but with the right parents, doors open up: More often than not a mediocre white collar child with some education will be preferred over the well qualified PhD from a blue collar family.

I wonder how true those findings are for other countries.

What impact does this have on business and society?

Tags: business and society doors education knowledge life experience parents phd study in germany