Reflections

Developing Your Vision

Arlington VA July 30, 2016

In a recent article titled "Be an Outstanding leader", I discussed how vision is so imp0rtant to success. In fact, without a clear and understandable vision, it is nearly impossible to craft success because you do not know where you want to be at some future time.

Think of a vision as a story about yourself; your goals, aspirations, and desires to satisfy customers.  As Stan Toler says, in his excellent book "Outstanding Leadership" (Harvest House Press, 2016), "The core principle of a developing vision plan is its impact on people's needs. Organizations built solely on steel and plastic, and a rigid corporate infrastructure will slowly drift into the sunset unless they have a mindset of 'customer first', and 'opinion matters'."

The basis of a vision then is your image of how you intend to satisfy customers and clients. Your 'story' is about you, your organization, what they do, how they do it, and how well they satisfy their customers or clients. A good story speaks to the convictions and motivations which led to the creation of the organization, how the leaders perceive that their skills and capabilities are what the customer wants and needs, and why they should come to you for those capabilities rather than someone else.

Leadership is the crux of the effort. The authentic, effective leader  knows the organization well; perhaps better than others. He understands what it took to get to the current state, how well that state can be supported and improved, what qualities the organization possesses which are desired by customers, and can develop l;ans to get and keep customers, with their acceptance and buy-in.

A successful business operation is not about the business itself. It is not about the infrastructure, the technology, or even the the employees per se. it is about how all of these constituent parts of the organization contribution to satisfying the needs of the customers, and even those who share the convictions of the customers.

Let me give you a short example here. Too many years ago, as i was growing up in Boston, most families bought from the local department stores, especially Woolworth's and Sears Roebuck because of their reputation for helpful service, and clothing and other items which lasted a long time. Clothing especially lasted a very long time, and was often passed between children as they grew and even to other families in the neighborhood. The department stores befitted from not just the original sale, but from the goodwill generated by the continued use of their products, and then the shoppers who came to buy similar goods, based on their second-hand experiences.  All of the department stores of the day concentrated on assuring customers of their quality, wearability, usability, and availability at a reasonable price for those goods.

The companies all developed their vision around customer service, quality, price, and availability. Using those elements of their vision, they developed their strategies and plans knowing that they could answer the four questions most recently posed by Toler:

Who are we?

What do we Do?

Where are we going?

How and when will we get there?

 

In the next parts of this series, we will look in more depth at some potential ways to answer these questions, aimed at success.

 

 

 

Be an Outstanding Leader

Arlington, VA July 14, 2016

As I often say to my students, leadership is a learned art--on which takes time and patience to comprehend and even more time to understanding enough of the principles and practices to succeed. Recently, on a stroll through the local market, I came across a small book, titled "Outstanding Leadership", by Stan Toler, published by Harvest House Press. it is a small book, only 4x6, but packed into the 150 pages or so, are some real gems on true, authentic leadership.

I want to share a few of these tidbits over several  short articles in the next few weeks, but I also found the perfect place to start. In one of his introductory chapters, Toler discusses the first voyage of Christopher Columbus to the new world:

"Before Columbus departed, he didn't have a clue where he was going."

"When he arrived, he didn't have a clue where he was."

"When he got ready to leave, he didn't have a clue how to get back home."

 

Toler goes to discuss visioning and creating strategy--activities which prevent just what Columbus went through on his voyage. Since it isn't logically possible to tie a rope to the pier in Spain, and let it out as you go forward, or try to drop crumbs into the ocean that you can find later, you have to have some form of alternative strategy that will do what you want to do. Unlike Columbus, people do not generally simply get into a boat and sail away, hoping for the best, and perhaps a few orientals indicating you have reached the Orient. At least, that was his plan for the time.

Columbus had a vision; he wanted to reach the Orient by sailing West rather than East as had already been done by others. He also has a shaky strategy; take three ships and men and sail out hoping that the world was not flat, and his ships would not fall over the end of the world. He traveled on faith rather than fact, and ended up being right, there was a way to travel west and reach something--it just was not the Orient. Instead, he ran into an obstacle of sorts--another continent--which stood in his way of achieving his goal, his vision.

The essential fact is that you have to have a vision to be successful, especially as a leader. The vision has to be real; otherwise it is nothing more than a dream. It has attributes, such as:

    - It is people-driven, or as Toler says, 'defined with people in mind'; not just any group of people, but those with a part in the process.

    - It is real as opposed to something that might look real, but in actually a fantasy. Toler describes the difference between a real Christmas Tree and a fake one bought in a store. it may look real, but the texture, the smell, and the way it ages (or does not) gives away its reality.

    - It must be practical; reflecting reasonable, people-focused goals and objectives. Where people do not relate to the vision, it quickly becomes irrelevant. Moreover, as Toler indicates, 'a definitive and easy to relate vision gains relevance and buy-in as it is developed and and distributed.'

    -It is inspirational, causing people to want to act and respond to it.

Finally, there is one more aspect to visioning, and perhaps its most important attribute: it is, as Toler relates, 'Born in the mind and Heart'. it starts with an idea, and blossoms into a full-blown solution which can be formed, organized, related, and provides the motivation for people to want to succeed because they believe in it as much as its creator.

While visioning is certainly about achieving success, it is also about how success is achieved and provides the first kindling for the development of changes to the culture of the organization. In many ways, it describes the life blood of the organization, how it work with and succeed with employees, manager,s owners, and customers alike in their shared view of success.

In the next part of this series we will speak to strategy as a means of taking vision and expressing the HOW a visioneer sees their idea gain relevance and structure in the organization.

Eight Rules for Company Sabotage

Arlington VA May 10, 2016

Some form of sabotage exists in most companies; much of it relatively benign, but some amount causes real damage, economically and administratively for management. I began thinking about that topic some weeks ago, during a discussion over lunch with several professional friends, one of whom was involved in trying to develop a company policy designed to reduce or prevent sabotage, at their request.

My concern was that it seemed to me to be virtually impossible to prevent all but the most egregious forms of sabotage, especially that which is inadvertent, coming from someone with no real axe to grind or animosity for anyone. There are always people who sometimes disagree with decisions, but ‘agree to disagree’ and simply move on. There are others who let those decisions with which they disagree become subconscious irritants, which can reduce productivity, and create untoward results.

Among the small group, we were pretty much agreed that there were no hard-and-fast rules, that a great deal depended on hos decisions are made in the organization, and how inclusive management is in getting input and feedback on changes to policy and procedure. We left it at that, and our associate went back to his work after lunch probably thinking he still did not have a good approach for his task.

Then I read an article in the recent issue of Workforce Magazine, found the digital copy of the article and sent it to my friend. In the article by Bob Frisch, Rob Gifford, and Cary Greene, titled, “Sabotage in the Workplace is an Inside Job,”, these amazingly thoughtful writers described how they discovered an old World War II-era publication from the Office of Strategic Services (OSS – Now the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)) with a set of eight (8) tactics for encouraging (believe it or not) sabotage in the workplace. Most of these tactics are what we still see today. They are:

• Insist on doing everything ‘though channels’ – Always follow the chain of command to the letter, and you will always be ‘correct’.
• Make Speeches – Be an active debater, orator, and stump speaker every chance you get, and use a lot of time to prevent decisions
• Refer matters to committees or working groups whenever possible to delay decisions even further
• Bring up irrelevant issues whenever possible
• Haggle over precise wording on communications, minutes, and resolutions
• Refer back to matters discussed and decided previously to attempt to reopen those discussions
• Always advocate caution and reasonableness as well as avoiding haste in decision-making
• Engender a sense of ‘worry’ about any decision. As the authors say, ‘Raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated is within the jurisdiction of the group,’ or whether it might conflict with some higher policy or decision.

In short, make it as hard as possible to make decisions and execute them. Active saboteurs will use these tactics every chance they get, but they still seem to be publicly supporting the effort, just ‘cautious.’

The inadvertent or innocent saboteur may not realize that their ‘conservative’ approach is actually gumming up the works for others. They may have honest principles which they use to base their questions and opposition. It can be difficult to separate the innocent saboteur from those who are knowingly trying to prevent action. The article discusses several approaches to reducing occurrences. It is a great read, and my associate, after receiving it felt a lot more secure in recommending policies and practices to his client. You just might find the same.

You can read the entire article here.  Comments appreciated.

CASE STUDY: Volkwagon & The Culture of Greed

April 28, 2016 Arlington VA

This is one of the first Case Studies we will use in the Fall Semester. Volkswagon is considered one of the premier companies in the world, yet it still succumbed to a major ethical crisis on its odometer reading scandal.  Read it here: https://genehughson.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/volkswagen-and-the-cost-of-culture/

 

What did the Founding Fathers know about Leadership that we have Forgotten?

 

April 21, 2016 Arlington, VA

The founding fathers were collectively a group of very smart men. They understood that their life depended on their decisions, and they were not afraid to make decisions based on their best knowledge and experience. What they often had, though was a good sense of ethics and virtue and the willingness to consistently display those attributes during even the most trying times.

I found a recent article by Ava Ralph of the Professional Biz Blog, which points out five of the fundamental leadership  questions and concerns which face all of us who choose to take management position, and what they did to solve their problems using these principles.  It is well worth read. You can find the original article here.

Developing and Maintaining Ethical Practices in the Workplace

Arlington VA February 18, 2016

Developing, and then maintaining ethical practices in the workplace is not just a matter of announcing expected behaviors and trying to enforce them. People generally do not react well to arm-twisting or threats--instead they leave. if they are valued employees, it is the company or agency that loses, not the employee; who will often quickly find employment elsewhere.

So, how do we avoid brain drain and lose productivity from an ethical perspective?

In my mind, there are three perspectives to the answer to this question.

First, You have to have a program in place which defines the vision, ethically and culturally, that the employees know exists, and also know how they are expected to comply. That in itself can be a difficult task. It is more than simply putting up signs with trite slogans or lists of 'You musts...'. it must be clear, in language they understand, communicated to then, along with the importance of compliance, and reinforced periodically to ensure that behavior continues to meet expectations. You do not need a club to enforce expected behavior. What you need is the cooperation of employees, demonstrations that management follows the same rules, and assurance that the rules are enforced equally and fairly.

Second, expected outcomes in terms of behavior must be as important as productivity. Too many firms place more attention on productivity--its impact on the bottom line, and its influence over executives and shareholders. The result all too often is slippage in quality of work--products or services--all designed to overlook 'minor' flaws so that numbers meet expectations. When reduced quality is know by management, but not corrected, employees see that behaviors and expectations are not longer as critical and their work quality level is not important.

Similarly, when employees are criticized for work habits, but supervisors and managers  seem to be living under differing rules, employees will eventually expect that they also can live under different rules. When this happens, further slippages will occur, and eventually major problems surface which management had not expected.

Third, behavior needs to be monitored, expectations reinforced, and unacceptable behavior needs to be corrected. There are two sides to this situation. Management should not be seen simply as a punisher; rather, enforcement of values and behaviors should be evenly enforced. Positive reinforcement should accompany good work. it costs nothing but time to tell an employee or a group that their work is well-done. Simple awards, group reinforcement, and sometimes nothing more than a thank you will provide the stimulus for people to work harder, and at a higher quality level.

Conversely, When something does go wrong; when work is shoddy and not up to expected standards, corrective action needs to be taken, privately if possible, but taken in a way that employees understand that bad work is not acceptable. This applies to both lower level personnel and supervisors or managers. Consequences should be clearly outlined and explained to employees with periodic meetings, communications, or counseling sessions. Critical behaviors should be included in evaluation processes and during considerations for pay adjustments.

Creating and then maintaining programs designed to instill ethical, value-based behaviors in the workplace are not done in a vacuum, or informally. The organization must have an organized plan--one which everyone at all levels knows and understands, which is enforced fairly and evenly, and which carries with in the strong support of management at all levels.

Related articles

When the boss's ethical behavior breaks bad

Why your ethical boss is sometimes a jerk

Why Your Boss Shouts And Screams

Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Management

Ethics and Florida Psychology Law

The only way is ethics

Is Business Ethics an Oxymoron?

Arlington VA November 30, 2015

    The concept of 'business ethics' is one of those terms which causes quite different reactions in different people--and not always for the same reasons. A recent article in Fast Company, the magazine of business management entrepreneurs, by David Meyer of the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan seems to think so, and for good reason, as he aptly points out.

    "Even before the financial crisis of the past decade, there were the Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco scandals. Before those, there was Gordon Gecko. And while the U.S. economy is finally recovering, the wealth disparity between rich and poor continues to yawn wider. Memories of Wall Street execs cutting themselves big bonuses right after being bailed out are still potent, and so is the popular impression that business and ethics just don't go together," says Meyer, in his introduction.

    The sad thing is that he is RIGHT. People simply do not believe that business and ethics can truly go together, but they can, if proper safeguards, including the opportunity to act ethically, is enshrined in an organization. Unfortunately, that is often not the case in this rush to fame and fortune world we live in.

    It's a great article, and very timely. If you don't have time to read the whole article, read the story at the start and see if that picture fits you as well.

 

 

What is more important, PROFIT or REPUTATION

Arlington VA November 24, 2015

 

You can have both, if you choose to do so!

    This is question that haunts every owner sooner or later., especially when faced with cutting costs in a downturn. Running a business is not easy--it is as simple as that. Making the wrong decision on how to proceed can be a disaster. But, there are things you can do to avoid that disaster--if you take the time to think them out carefully, and not, as the proverbial saying goes:  "Put your mouth in motion before you put your mind in gear".

    Lets look at both. Profit, the bottom line, is what determines if you will succeed and stay in business or go under.  While you can continue to exist for a short time 'in the red', there is a point along your monthly financials that it becomes obvious, if you do not do something different, you will fail. That may mean reducing costs, either through finding cheaper suppliers, reducing employees, reducing benefits, or finding some investor willing to stick with you for a period of time, or even for the long term. All of these can reduce your costs against income.

    Reducing costs against income may not achieve what you expect it to achieve--especially where your cost reductions affect the income. Let me give you several examples.

    Would you, as an owner or a restaurant or small store, with several employees who are well-liked, competent, and bring in the customer base, reduce their hours, or replace them with less-costly employees?

    Would you tell your supplier that you want to replace high-selling stock items with lesser cost items (Which may be already on your shelves but not selling well) and still expect that people will shop in your store?

    Would you consider a 'bait-and-switch' situation where you promise something, and then claim the item(s) are not in stock, but you have higher-priced items available? 

    Would you tell employees to cut the quality level of your products?  Take a deli that offers a broad selection of sliced meats. Would you tell your employees to slice thinner, getting more from the bulk item? Would you tell your employees to cut the amount of ingredients, on the hope that your customers simply do not notice?

    The answers to the questions above will tell you how important you believe achieving your desired bottom line profit means to your overall outlook.

    Then there is your reputation to consider. Look at the questions again, and this time consider if your customers find out that you are doing what is described, and they do not like what they see. if and when they do (And customers ALWAYS eventually find out what you have done), what will the knowledge do to your reputation? What will any damage to your reputation do to your income, and your bottom line?

    Warren Buffett has said many times that creating a reputation takes years, but damage to it can ruin your reputation literally in minutes.  It will take years to improve it, and former customers will eventually let everyone they know about what they have found. There is often a ripple effect here.

    So, we return to the original question--What is more important, Profit or Reputation?  I will argue the answer is BOTH. Planning and thought can design solutions that preserve your reputation, while improving your bottom line. i often tell my restaurant clients that reducing menu items, and, concurrently reducing inventory--while retaining the quality of base ingredients--produces results that please customers while reducing the variable costs. Instead of reducing employee hours, give them inducements to bring their customers in more often.

    I buy a lot at Staples, as does anyone who needs office supplies. it might not be Staples itself, it might be another firm, but the occasional discount to bring in more business; the specials well down in price on brand name items, and the other little benefits of being a valued customer make it worth coming in a little more often, and thinking about them as soon as you realize you need something. At its heart, simple marketing "The personal touch" may be all it takes to improve income, reduce the costs squeeze, and maintain a good reputation.

    Variable costs have variable solutions--it takes a bit of thinking, but it is worth the effort.

 

What are the Attributes of a Real Leader?

Arlington VA November 15, 2015

We hear so much about leaders, but what really is a ‘Leader’? What are some of the attributes that set one person apart from others, in a position to exert influence or direction of others? Are there different kinds of leaders? Let’s take a brief look at some of the attributes of leaders, because the answer to one question leads to the answer to the other.

So how do we know a leader? Well, there are some common attributes, I believe at least, that mark a leader. These include:

Character , as Alexandre Havard, in his book Virtuous Leadership (Sceptre, 2007), describes the person with character as one who possesses, magnanimity, humility, prudence, courage, self-control, and justice. These virtues of a leader show a person who strives for great things, has the ability to stay the course in decisions—the right decisions, the ability to give every person their due and respect, and the ability to overcome selfishness and serve others consistently.

A sense of mission in their professional life. They are the trail blazers, the people who not only think ‘outside the box’, but they also work and act outside the box. Oftentimes, they are the creator of ‘the bigger box’, the broader and more challenging environment where success means hard work, but yields great personal and cooperative benefits.

An understanding of the challenges leaders face. Real leaders take the time to think through what they know they must do, how it will affect others, what risk is involved, and what their character tells them they should do, even in the face of potential backlash. In short, they do the RIGHT thing, for the RIGHT reason, at the RIGHT time, and willing accept consequences.

Setting high standards for themselves and others. Leaders work by example. In past centuries on the battlefield, senior leaders stood away from the direct battle, and simply ordered what was to be done. Some leaders—real leaders—such as Bonaparte, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, George Armstrong Custer, to name a few. These men were at the lead, not rear, and their men followed them loyally, knowing the leader was just as invested in the outcome as the lowest soldier. They had faith in the leadership, and respect for authority, but most importantly they had a personal belief in their leader.

Leaders assume responsibility for their actions. A leader making decisions is the person responsible for results. When a leader holds back for altruistic reasons, rather than well-thought out decisions which a leader knows must be executed, or when a leader holds back out of fear for the consequences, that person ceases to be a leader. That person becomes a hindrance instead. Leaders who constantly blame others as an excuse for not leading aggressively themselves, are not true leaders.

Leaders take calculated risks. There is a degree of risk in any situation. There are risks simply walking across a public street, or walking down a flight of stairs. A leader does not refuse to take necessary steps because of the risks. Instead, the leader assesses the risk and determines, (1) to avoid the risk by altering the decision to achieve the result in another, less-risky way; (2) Accepting the risk and planning for potential adverse consequences; or, (3) Assessing the risk and determining that the risk is too severe to provide any potential benefit. The critical point is the leader assesses risk and makes decisions based on reality of the situation, and not on other altruistic concerns.

When leaders cannot lead, they need to find others who can do the job. In any organization, there will be others who, in particular circumstances, possess the unique skill set for a task at hand. Good leaders encourage and seek out these people, utilize and foster their skills, and bring them into the decision-making circles. That leads to the final attribute, which is:

Leaders are ready, willing, and able to share leadership with others. Good leaders recognize leadership in others, and make use of that leadership—improving the organization, and making the process of ‘blazing a trail’ to higher, sustained success more plausible and possible.

There are other attributes of leaders, and hopefully, some of you will discuss those in response to this brief piece.

Leadership and Character

Arlington, VA November 9, 2015

    I recently read a great book by Alexandre Havard, entitled Virtuous Leadership", and it set me thinking on leadership style, and the effect of character on leadership. Havard's premise is a simple one: "Leadership is about character. No, leadership is character." In that simple statement, it easier to understand several of the major commercial debacles over the past few years, such as WorldCom, ENRON, and Madoff.  it comes down to very simple premises; a real leader is one with character, ethics, and high standards.

    Havard goes on to say, "The perpetrators of corporate wrongdoing invariably know that what they are doing is wrong. And yes, they do it anyway. This is a failure of character." We often wonder why these circumstances occur, and various causes are often attributed to them, ranging from greed, to outright lack of ethics. But is the lack of ethical standards all there is to it? I think not.

    People perform because they feel the need to perform. Leaders lead because they feel the urge to provide their expertise to a situation where others have not stepped up to assume that leadership. But what about the person who steps up to lead who is unethical? What about the person who steps up out of a sense that they can make money, fame, or other type of fortune on the misfortunes of others? In my view, that person has a deficient character, as much as a deficiency in ethical standards. They will do things they would not do in personal surroundings, or in activities that affect themselves individually and personally.

    It is good to believe that people have a natural tendency to do the right thing. Most people are brought up with a sense of ethical standards--however suspect they may be later. In reading over the years of politicians, mobsters, felons, etc., it seems clear that most started out with parents who wanted their child to succeed, and in a good way. As individuals, many led reasonable lives with their families, separating their 'business' ventures from their personal lives. That seems to be the crux of the issue here; is it possible to apply character and ethical standards differently in one's personal life and in their public life?

    The answer to that question should invariably be NO. Again referring to Havard, he says, "Everybody has a mission, ...whether he/she knows it or not. A mission... is not something we invent or imagine. it is a specific calling to do a certain something, and in a specific way....Small minded men pass through life as through a tunnel, and with their 'tunnel vision', they see only themselves."

    If we see that a person does things in their personal life at variance from what they do in their professional life, we usually want to now the reason why. here, I will argue that it is a case of deficient character--caused by rationalizing away that they can act differently in the professional world than they might in their personal life. They use rationalization because they do not have the courage of their upbringing and convictions to apply ethical principles consistently in their lives. Additionally, the lure of greed, ambition, and the need for acceptance are more powerful in the sterile surroundings of the boardroom than they might be in the living room of one's home.

    Exceptional leaders know what they must do to succeed. In making that effort, they apply ethics, values, standards, and even common sense to devise a course to follow, and then perform in conformance with those principles. Anything short of ethical leadership is really a fraud.

Related articles

Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Management