Now there’s a novelty!

Common sense should be the watchword of every good leader. It certainly should have been one of the main characteristics that enabled achievement of his or her lofty position.

So why is it always so easy to elicit tales of inept leadership from every corporate person I ever speak to?

Here’s some examples from a conversation with just one weary 50-year old former executive…

• a charismatic boss, able to command great loyalty among his staff… yet turning ‘on a sixpence’ in his own loyalty to them and mocking them openly in front of others
• the middle manager who takes the additional hours of a hard working member of staff totally for granted and then takes them to task for going home on time for unavoidable domestic reasons
• a Head of Marketing (HoM) who gets his secretary to make a late night call to a member of his team to set an early next day appointment which the HoM is then two hours late for
• the Managing Director who measures meeting effectiveness in terms of time spent rather than goals achieved
• the MD who arrives at 10.00, leaves at 15.00 and enjoyed his two hour lunch.

These are all real examples of what I term ‘crass leadership’, i.e.: leadership that is demonstrably thoughtless, insensitive and lacking refinement.

I know that even as I write this, leaders all over the world are passing asinine comments, instigating inane initiatives and making blundering decisions.

The shame is that many of them have common sense. They have just got too wrapped up in corporate culture and over-elaborate training courses to trust in their innate judgment and instinct.

Pity.

Tags: appointment boss common sense corporate culture corporate person crass leadership going home home on time initiatives instinct judgment late night lofty position loyalty managing director night call refinement shame sixpence training courses watchword
 

Is this a typical day in your middle managers’ lives?

• arrive in office
• spend one hour updating employee’s sick absence record (used to be done by HR but that department has been downsized)
• spend one hour processing invoices (used to be done by Finance but that department has been downsized)
• spend one and a half hours resolving laptop issue (used to be done by on-site IT people but that department has been downsized)
• lunch
• spend one and a half hours resolving air-conditioning issue (used to be done by Facilities but that department has been downsized)
• spend one and a half hours on emails (used to be done by Assistant but role had to be cut following recent budget round)
• spend half an hour on job they were recruited for before leaving for home.

In a seven hour day (of course, they’re all working a lot longer than that to make up time) half an hour represents just over 7% efficiency.

And working longer hours to make up time represents an even less efficient approach, particularly as morale starts to get affected.

Now I’m not saying that they’re aren’t good reasons for rationalization of business functions. Dead wood, archaic processes, over-staffed departments… they all exist and leaders need to tackle them.

But if this is at the expense of important middle-ranking Executive efficiency… then you need a different approach.

In other words, can you let your managers manage please?
That’s what you pay them for.

Tags: absence air conditioning budget business functions downsized executive efficiency finance half an hour half an hour half hours invoices job lunch middle managers rationalization typical day
 

Well, it depends on how old they are. If they are aged 6 or below, then the answer’s probably yes.

And if they’re above, then the answer’s probably disappointing.

Which means that the HR/appraisal/discipline industry is wasting its time. At least, it’s wasting its time trying to change people.

Let me try another tack. One of the latest corporate mantras is that ‘we need to embrace diversity’. Now, if that’s the case, why are so many leaders trying to get everyone to be the same?

The answer is all about control. If everyone in an organization is broadly similar in personality, outlook and thinking then the perception is that directing them will be easier.

The trouble is, with everyone the same, there is no internal challenge and teams suffer because they usually thrive on the differences among their constituent parts.

So, what I’m coming to, in a roundabout way, is that difference is good. And that what the HR/appraisal/discipline industry needs to do is harness differences and apply them for the corporate good. The customer facing guy who’s over assertive and should never have been let near customers in the first place should be allowed to move and apply his talents in, say, procurement (where his assertiveness may strike better purchasing deals). And the procurement guy who likes to please people can take his place in Customer Service.

It’s called horses for courses. And it’s common sense.

And where you cannot change someone and there’s no other course for the horse? Well… that’s one for the non-culpable inefficiency route, I’m afraid. And a mental note to look at recruitment procedures.

Can you change people?

Tags: assertiveness change common sense constituent customer service discipline diversity horses inefficiency internal challenge mantras perception personality procurement recruitment procedures roundabout way talents
 

Bringing in outsiders is an interesting step for a Chief Executive or Managing Director to take.

Before I continue I have to declare an interest, of course. I am an ‘outsider’ for those companies who employ my consultancy. I will return to that point at the end of this blog entry.

Bringing in outsiders is an interesting step to take because it’s often expensive financially… and in terms of morale.

The first bit’s self-evident… but I should explain the morale bit. There resides in your workforce a collective knowledge about your business that you cannot replicate. No amount of briefing will ever bring outsiders up to the same point of knowledge of your business and marketplace that your employees have.

Why then ask someone outside your business to consider an issue when you’ve probably already got the answer on your doorstep?

I think the answer lies in the ‘t’ word… ‘trust’. Many business leaders have a psychological mistrust about what their employees might tell them about their business and a massive willingness to believe an outsider. Employees therefore see a consultant brought in and morale dips because they feel their own standing in their business undermined. This usually happens when the business is in the cost-cutting part of the ‘investment/cost-cutting cycle’… so the expenditure on outsiders sits uneasily alongside internal budget cuts, further undermining morale.

And the morale of this story (sorry… puns are a weakness!). Look inside your business before you look outside.

Oh… and why am I different?

Because I work with you as the leader… and am prepared to tell you how it is, as I’ve done in this article. That’s something you really might not get from your employees.

Tags: blog entry business leaders chief executive collective knowledge consultancy dips doorstep internal budget managing director marketplace mistrust outsider outsiders puns trust willingness workforce
 

I planned writing this article. There was a time when I was going to do it and a place. I knew the resources I would bring into play (my training and experience) and how it would be published. I knew why I was writing it and my expected return on investment (more traffic to my website and more prospective clients who I hope will sense the value I can add to their businesses).

So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you planning… a rational deployment of simple logic and common-sense that sets out how one or more objectives will be reached.

Right?

Well no, actually. Wrong.

Apparently, corporate planning has to be a lot more challenging than that. It’s got to be a tortuous, tough, man-hours consuming nightmare with output measured in double-figure iterations of elaborate documents that no-one ever refers to because they’re over-written, full of jargon and exhausting long sentences just like the one you’ve just read.

In other words, it’s got to be a waste of time.


Let me suggest some strategic planning guidelines for you

• don’t feel it has to be a democratic process that involves everyone. It doesn’t.
• do feel that it should be driven by the marketing department (and not the finance department, please) – because marketing and strategic planning should be one and the same
• don’t feel comfortable with a 100 page document that’s destined for dust gathering on a nice appointed shelf in your office
• do feel comfortable with a simple plan that analyses your marketplace and the development of your offering within it
• don’t keep it to yourself
• do share it with everyone (yes, that’s what that conference is for).

I could go on… but I don’t need to. And neither do you at the next planning round.

Tags: common sense corporate planning deployment finance department iterations jargon ladies and gentlemen man hours marketing department nightmare page document planning guidelines prospective clients return on investment sentences simple logic simple plan strategic planning tough man waste of time
 

I have alluded in past blog entries to the dangers of an overly democratic approach to leadership. In other words, take the opinions of the many on board in your decision making, and the resulting business direction could be a very watered down facsimile of what it should be.

It’s about time, then, that I flipped the argument over then to consider the dangers of an overly autocratic approach.

Leaders who go it alone run a massive risk. The risk is that any gaps in their expertise or experience or any flaws in the personality intrude unhelpfully on the decision making process. Brilliant and compelling leaders can falter as they rally the troops marvelously to less than robust strategic plans.

Even the most expert of leaders therefore need what I will call a ‘leadership team’. This should comprise senior people who can fill in any gaps in the leader’s style and abilities.

Some strong-minded and strong-willed leaders might throw their hands up in horror at this, so I feel obliged to provide a very serious history lesson.

Who was Britain’s Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) during the Second World War? Winston Churchill? No… the CIGS was Alan Brooke (later, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke), foremost military advisor to Winston Churchill who was, of course, the Prime Minister and Minister of Defense.

Brooke was a counterweight to Churchill, whom he described as a ‘genius mixed with an astonishing lack of vision… quite the most difficult man to work with I have ever struck.’ He was one of the few to stand up to the formidable Prime Minister, one without whom the outcome of the war would have been quite different. Churchill acknowledged Brooke’s ability to resist him, once saying ‘When I thump the table and push my face towards him what does he do? Thumps the table harder and glares back at me.’

There are lots of strong leaders out there. I say to you that your strength could also be your company’s weakness. Make sure that your self-knowledge includes recognition of your fallibilities and there’s a good counterweight team around you—including those prepared to thump the table back!

Tags: alan brooke autocratic approach business direction chief of the imperial general staff cigs counterweight democratic approach gaps genius history lesson leadership team military advisor minister of defense prime minister second world war self knowledge strategic plans vision winston churchill
 

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
 

Reviewing performance…

Last week’s blog talked about the mutual anxiety shared by manager and member of staff when it comes to annual target setting.

I’m afraid that same anxiety often comes into play when it comes to reviewing the year’s performance.

Why?

I believe that effective performance review comes, among other elements, from the following:

• frequency
• preparation
• constructive approach
• qualitative as well as quantitative
• recording.

Let’s take those in order.

Awkward appraisal interviews often arise from shock. In other words, a whole year goes by—and then someone is told that there performance has a number of shortcomings. This is why frequency is so important. Periodic 1-2-1 discussions throughout the year are far more effective in keeping performance on track—and avoiding year-end surprises.

Preparation is closely linked to responsibility and responsibility for effective performance review resides with both the appraiser and appraisee. Members of staff should have as great an opportunity to prepare for a performance review as their manager.

Preparation is part of the constructive approach which I believe is the lynchpin of good performance review. If a clearly stated aim is for both sides to provide feedback which improve not only the member of staff’s but also the manager’s performance… then the result is coalition, not demolition.

Measurable objectives are important, of course—but the danger is that performance reviews are just an exchange about numbers. That’s why I encourage inclusion of a more qualitative dimension to performance review. What are the appraisee’s soft skills like? How are they managing the demands of their job alongside other areas of their life? What steps are they taking to make sure their career goes in the direction they desire?

Finally… recording. By which I don’t mean microphones and a tape recorder! Notes should be taken and agreed… so when it comes to the next 1-2-1, you don’t sit opposite each other scratching your heads!

Tags: aim anxiety appraisal interviews constructive approach demolition effective performance elements inclusion lynchpin measurable objectives microphones performance reviews qualitative dimension recorder notes shock shortcomings surprises tape recorder target year end