While some of my blogs have been quite critical of the quality of modern leadership in corporate and other walks of life, my general view is that leadership is a generally improving skill. In other words, people are largely as well if not better led now than they have ever been.

That said, my confidence still gets dented from time to time… and most recently by the new Chief Executive of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer.

Now Ms. Mayer is a former Google Executive… so let’s start with Google and a quote from their Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette. Mr Pichette has said that the answer to anyone asking how many Google staff telecommute (telework, remote work, work from home, call it what you will) was ‘as few as possible’. He went on to say that, “There is something magical about spending the time together, about noodling on ideas, about asking at the computer ‘What do you think of this?’”.

Now that’s got to be one for the sick-bucket… but back to Marissa Mayer. She has issued a memo banning Yahoo staff from working from home. An extract from the memo reads, “Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings.” Another says… “Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.”

Given all that I have said on the subject of modern life’s pressure on working people and the effect this has on families and society, I am disappointed by these attitudes. I am particularly disappointed that they are present in ‘Tech’ companies given theirs is an industry that has shouted the advantages of modern technology from the rooftops… ease of communication, virtual office environments, more efficient use of time, lower carbon emissions and so on.

People don’t need to be permanently together to be a team. Nor does your team need to be together and visible to be led.

Unless you’re lacking in leadership confidence, that is.

Tags: advantages of modern technology attitudes cafeteria carbon emissions chief executive chief financial officer confidence efficient use google hallway marissa mayer noodling office environments patrick pichette rooftops team meetings use of time virtual office walks of life working from home
 

‘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
 

Sorry… I can’t quite get off my soapbox yet regarding the poor impact of modern corporate and working life culture on health and quality of life.

I say this having just read online in a UK newspaper that UK workers now take just 29 minutes for lunch on average. This is four minutes less than it was 12 months ago.

60% of workers don’t even have a break for lunch but eat it at their desks.

When asked why they were doing this two thirds said they had too much work to do to leave their work stations and 14% (I thought it would be more) said they did it to impress their boss.

The survey has drawn both medical and political comment.

Ron Cutler, a micro-biologist at Queen Mary University of London, is concerned about the crumbs left on desks and keyboards. Diarrhea and vomiting causing bacteria find these crumbs a great place to breed and do so readily at the 20°C temperature maintained in most offices.

And Health Minister Anna Soubry says workers should take a proper lunch break and enjoy their food. She says that workers eating lunch at their desk is disgusting.

These comments are fair enough. But I wonder whether Dr Cutler or Minister Soubry have ever been inadvertently impressed by the commitment of their short-lunch break staff over and above those who take a whole hour.

I say that because I believe few leaders fail to fall into the trap of preferring staff who ‘work through’ or work late over those who stick to their hours.

There’s a deeply embedded cultural issue at play here. It will take a lot to shift it.

Tags: 12 months bacteria biologist boss break crumbs desk desks diarrhea four minutes health minister keyboards life culture proper lunch quality of life queen mary university queen mary university of london ron cutler soapbox two thirds work
 

As David Beckham departs LA Galaxy, might he be thinking ahead to a career in soccer management back in the UK?

Well, if I were David, I wouldn’t. That’s where angels fear to tread!

Let me explain.

By 16 May 2012, 37 of the 92 clubs in the four English football (soccer) leagues had seen a manager depart.

Not in the previous ten years.

Nor in the previous five.

No… in the 2011 – 2012 season!

And we’re not talking about the smaller lower league clubs. Nottingham Forest, Sunderland, Queens Park Rangers, Leeds, Wolves, Chelsea, Aston Villa and Liverpool all said goodbye to
Steve, Steve, Neil, Simon, Mick, Andre, Alex and Kenny respectively.

I mention this because the obviously precarious nature of the role of English football club manager resonates with some of my views on the difficulties facing modern corporate leadership (new appointees in particular). That is to say:

• there are often not particularly visible owners and bosses in the background who don’t know much about the game (a bit like business owners/shareholders who neither understand the business nor the market in which it operates)
• the stench of short-termism is so all-pervading that your appointment as manager is pretty much a license to fail (business leader honeymoon periods are increasingly short – and tolerance of early struggles is in short supply notwithstanding difficult trading conditions)
• if your face simply does not fit, then you’ve no hope and the fans will be tireless in their opprobrium (for fans read major investors)
• the team assembled around you is not up to scratch but the owners like them (a bit like—as a new appointee—you inherit an inferior management team that will be a ball and chain around your feet for your all too brief time with the company)

.

So my plea is, give new leaders a bit more of a fighting chance.

Tags: appointee appointees aston villa business leader corporate leadership david beckham english football club fighting chance football soccer league clubs neil simon new leaders opprobrium precarious nature queens park queens park rangers soccer leagues soccer management stench
 

An acquaintance of mine in his early fifties was made redundant recently.

Needless to say, this has not been a great experience for my friend. It has, however, been made slightly easier by the fact that almost all of the fifty-somethings in his business and social circles have also fallen from the corporate perch.

All of them.

No exceptions.

Some were made redundant like my friend. Some volunteered for redundancy. Some were in businesses which had gone into administration. One has resigned.

It’s ‘good news’ for my friend because he feels less unusual.

In my view though it’s bad news for the companies these people have left behind.

I say this because I have a growing concern that business leadership is being centered on an age group that’s 10 – 15 years younger than may have been the case 25 years ago. Now, while people aged say, 30 – 40, may have more energy than their older colleagues, they almost certainly have less of their experience and life skills. And there’s often an absence of positive cynicism (which I define as a useful wariness of new ideas and initiatives until proven). In other words, there’s nothing to temper their enthusiasm… and that’s where the trouble can start.

How best to tackle this? Well – and I have touched on this before—companies really need to get to grips with the loss of knowledge and experience that mass departure of the over-fifties represents. Retaining them involves challenging the corporate cultural shibboleths so alluring to their younger counterparts. The over-fifties are at an age when they don’t give a *@@# about the latest corporate-speak, senior management initiatives, performance targets and training techniques.

Don’t punish them for that… they still want to apply their experience and contribute.

Tags: acquaintance age group bad news business leadership colleagues counterparts cynicism fifties growing concern left behind management initiatives mass departure no exceptions performance targets redundancy senior management shibboleths social circles temper wariness
 

How can you tell when, despite a company having leaders, there is no leadership going on?

Simple—pretend you’re a customer.

If it’s a company with retail outlets, then go in one of their shops.

Does someone offer to help you? Are staff polite, courteous and keen to sell you what you need? How is a complaint handled? Are your product questions answered in an informed way?

If you can say yes to the above and similar questions, then this does not happen by chance. There’s leadership in place—and effective leadership at that.

No retail outlets? Ok… what is the point of sale? The internet? What’s the website like? Is it secure? Is it easy to buy? Are there alternative contact details so you can telephone or email? Does a live web-chat button work ok and is there a response. Do they seek to capture your details but observe the appropriate opt-in/opt-out protocols?

Again, if you can say yes to the above and similar questions, then these are clear indicators of effective leadership.

Sell through third-parties? Well… what’s the customer experience like with the third party? If it’s good, then on-seller appointments are clearly well-managed. And if poor, then a link in the leadership chain has failed.

If you’re a leader reading this and wondering how effective your leadership is—then it’s time for some secret shopping. Become a covert customer of your organization—and then put the problems you find right.

In other words, lead.

Tags: appointments clear indicators contact details customer experience effective leadership email point of sale product questions protocols retail outlets secret shopping third parties third party web chat
 

So, you have a vacancy on your senior management team.

There are three strong candidates you’re told.

Joe.
Joe has performed really well as Senior Project Manager earning the respect of peers and reports alike. All of the projects under his control have gone to plan, on time, within budget and with great outcomes for your business. Good old Joe.

Sam.
Sam has been superb in roles initially in finance and thereafter in marketing. Charismatic and charming, Sam can lift his head from the detail and see the bigger picture. Outgoing and extrovert and ambitious… he’ll be up for the senior management role for sure. Sam’s great to have around.

Karen.
Karen really has done well to rise through the ranks in a notoriously male-dominated industry. Her performance in HR and then in sales has reinforced her reputation for level-headedness. Karen will do a great job in any role.

So, who is it to be?

The answer, based on this information, is none of them.

That’s because this data and feedback is all about their performance in their current role and not about their aptitude for the senior management position. It’s an approach that can lead to very poor senior appointments—people who excelled in back-room or junior roles whose performance suddenly dissipates in the senior front line.

So—whatever the decision you have to make (and not just those regarding recruitment)—make sure they’re based on the right inputs. In the case of this vacancy on the senior management team, what are the competencies that role requires? Could it even be that someone performing less well at a junior level would perform better at a higher level?

And could it be that the expectation placed on high fliers to be constantly ambitious for the next rung of the ladder is inappropriate?

Tags: appointments aptitude budget competencies expectation extrovert finance high fliers ladder management position management role peers recruitment reputation senior management team vacancy
 

Looking back through the entries in this blog, I notice that I have mostly looked at leadership issues from the point of view of the leader and not the led.

Are you guilty of the same omission?

If your leadership perspective is totally egocentric, ie: you just think about things from where you’re standing, then your narrow field of view is going to give you problems.

How do you change that? Simple. Think about what you do not in terms of how it will promote you and your self-interests but in terms of your audiences. How does what you propose, what you’re saying or the way you behave:

• affect your clients or customers?
• resonate in terms of PR?
• impact on your staff?
• affect shareholders?
• influence your management team?

This can be a really good ‘yardstick’ to test impending decisions against. And… while I am not in favor of 360° appraisals (see an earlier blog)… seeking the view of one or two senior colleagues whose impartiality you can trust cannot be other than helpful.

It can also help to avoid the ‘lonely at the top’ depression
referred to two blogs ago.

Tags: appraisals audiences blog blogs colleagues decisions depression impartiality leadership issues management team omission perspective point of view self interests shareholders yardstick