Leading Effectively Series
|
« February 2009 |
Main
| April 2009 »
Salted away in the midst of San Diego's glossy urban renewal is the Kansas City Barbecue and I stop by for a pulled pork sandwich and a Karl Strauss amber now and again. The restaurant is tucked next to the Trolley stop and surrounded by the fancy multi-story hotels of the Marina district. Young upwardly-mobile residents of the area run by, led by their mini-dogs, and sometimes conferees from the Conference center and hotels across Harbor drive will find their way to a red-checked table.
But mostly, the denizens are regulars who pack the bar every afternoon: bikers and construction workers, retired navy enlisted, pedicab drivers, and all the other kinds of people urban renewal is designed to displace. The restaurant prides itself on being the location for the “sleazy bar scene” in the Tom Cruise classic “Top Gun” and also on its various collections (over 350 navy caps, license plates from all over the world, signed brassieres, and life preservers from naval ships). The restaurant had a serious fire a couple years ago and was closed for most of a year and reopened this year looking pretty much the same it did before the fire.
I realize I’m a tourist here. Whatever my roots as the son of a working man (my dad was a plumber), I’ve joined the tribe of the over-educated and rootless. We are a nomadic bunch and tend to meet our kin in airport lounges and at tribal conferences. But this is a place that is a place.
It’s a place because there is the sense of community. Although one of the most diverse groups in the city, they are bound together because of a shared culture of respect and pleasure. The collections are signs of respect for the experiences of the regular navy people (navy hats, license plates, life-savers...even brassieres) who have passed through San Diego and decided to stay.
When the restaurant was shut down after the fire, for many months the restaurant held a Thirsty Thursdays happy hour event on the patio. They offered hot dogs and drinks, all for a donation, and the money went to support the staff who were without jobs during the time it took for insurance adjustments, permitting, and reconstruction. That was ‘right’ on so many counts: right for the community, right for the staff, right as a demonstration of smart business and good leadership.
I love all these things about the joint, but there’s a part of me that loves it most because it feels like old San Diego...the San Diego of my dad, the enlisted Navy man...thumbing it’s nose at the fancy new, upscale, just-like-every-other-new-downtown-in-the-country San Diego.
The NFL's Denver Broncos are in a perilous state right now. They fired head coach Mike Shanahan December of 2008. Shanahan coached the Broncos since 1995, led the team to over 125 victories and two super bowl victories. His replacement? A 32-year-old rookie coach, Josh McDaniels.
Coming from the New England Patriots, McDaniels was well-groomed for a head coaching job – he was the quarterbacks coach and then offensive coordinator. There is a growing trend in the NFL to hire younger people for head coaching jobs – this is not unlike what is going on in organizations today, or even in politics. Younger people are starting to get high-profile jobs.
So, what does McDaniels do when he first gets to Denver? He tries a trade with his old team for Matt Cassel, an up-and-coming high potential star QB who started for injured superstar QB Tom Brady last season. As he was the offensive coordinator and QB coach of the Patriots, McDaniels knew the talent Cassel had and wanted to bring him to Denver. There’s one problem...the Broncos already had an up-and-coming high potential star, pro-bowl QB Jay Cutler.
Of course, this trade rumor leaks out, and Cutler feels hurt, his ego bruised, and now holds a grudge against his team. There is now a lack of trust between the young star player, and the young coach and Broncos organization. Cutler demands to be traded. So, what does McDaniels do then? He undeniably says Cutler is the Broncos’ QB, and says repeatedly that he has text messaged Cutler, and Cutler has not returned any of his text messages.
Text messaged? Granted, text messaging is probably what Gen Xers and Millenials do to communicate. And, they are not in the same city to talk about this issue. But, if you as a manager had a conflict with one of your coworkers, would you want to text message that person and wait for his or her reply? Or, if you and your boss had a conflict, would you want to receive a text message from your boss as a way to deal with it?
CCL’s Kerry Bunker along with others wrote a 2002 Harvard Business Review articlecalled “The Young and The Clueless” where the article talks about a young, high-potential employee who was labeled as brilliant, strategic, energetic, and motivated (like McDaniels). Those qualities helped the young manager rise fast (like McDaniels). But, the young manager was too ambitious and had a lack of people skills, and eventually derailed (like the path McDaniels is going down).
Perhaps McDaniels is too young, too ambitious to be an NFL coach. Maybe he wasn’t thinking about the repercussions of what a trade rumor would do to the Broncos or his star Cutler. Moreover, what was he thinking about handling a conflict via a text message? The inability to handle conflict is part of “Difficulty Leading a Team” which CCL has found to be one of the five behaviors of derailed managers. If McDaniels doesn’t get this resolved the right way, his career may have already derailed before coaching his first NFL game.
Would you have text messaged your coworker if you were dealing with a conflict? Would you want to have a text message sent to you? Or, would you have been more proactive, and want to deal with the conflict directly, face-to-face perhaps, in a safe environment? What would you have done?
I was reading a personal finance article about how to save money, when something surprised me; on the list was advice to reduce buying organic produce. The rationale was that organic produce often costs more and that produce with thick skins or that doesn’t require much pesticide to grow aren’t likely to have a lot of pesticides in the parts one eats. The reason it surprised me was one of the reasons I try to buy locally grown organic produce is to support the local economy (and thereby increase local food security), to promote sustainable agricultural practices, because it often tastes better, and to reduce how many toxins wind up in my body. By no means do I buy locally or buy organic all – or even most of - the time.
 The author of the article assumed that the reason people buy organic produce is reduce their consumption of pesticides; which is true in some cases, but certainly not all. Two thoughts occurred to me as a read the article; 1) it’s important that I know why I do what I do so I can gauge the value and applicability of advice (and to identify the assumption, that my not be accurate that lead to the advice in the first place), and 2) it’s important to occasionally revisit how well my daily activities are in line with my values. Oddly enough, reading the article has led to me buying more locally grown organic produce (the opposite of the advice) and realizing that means not buying some things I want, but don’t need so I have more money to allocate to purchasing things I need and better reflect my values.
As a leader, how often do your day-to-day action reflect your long-term goals and your values? If you’re like me, they occasionally get out of whack – it is, after all, so easy when money is tight and the workload heavy to save an easy buck or give a quick answer.
 In Nicholas Kristof's recent editorial, the New York Times editorialist writes about the Daily Me, a term coined by Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. to describe our human tendency to act as our own editor and gatekeeper of information. We scan online news feeds, magazine titles, cocktail party conversations, and TV programs not so much because we want good and comprehensive information – rather we seek news that confirms our existing views.
From a leadership perspective, the implication is that, although we may feel a greater sense of self-assuredness, we actually become more insulated, out of step, and separated from the clash of ideas that makes for the vibrant communities and organizations in which we lead.
As a case in point, perhaps nowhere is the Daily Me more profound than in the political arena. The net result, unfortunately, are political bodies that are often divided in half, in which leaders encourage collaboration with some groups and outright conflict with other groups, and where there is precious little room for middle ground. You are either one of us or one of them.
In your leadership role, however, your job is more likely to be about bringing groups together to accomplish some larger purpose. This might involve crafting direction across two functions to launch a new product offering, seeking alignment across Asian and European regions on how to maximize organizational resources, or instilling commitment across the different generational groups that make-up your organization. In other words, your leadership role is about creating the Daily We.
To help you think about how you can create the Daily We, as well as an overall environment in which cross-boundary dialogue, creativity, learning, and innovation thrive, here are some questions for reflection:
- What are the primary “news feeds” you rely upon at work? Do they affirm your Daily Me or challenge it?
- In creating your own communications, whether they be via meeting, emails, or the telephone, do you emphasize the Daily Me (speaking solely from your box on the organizational chart, your area of expertise, your particular point of view on the hot topic of the day), or do you actively seek to bring the Daily We into the discussion?
- Based on your response to these two questions, what is a practice you could put to work today to add more We to Me?
All ideas and suggestions welcome.
 The Government is in transition. New managers are arriving in the Federal City daily, and in many cases, there is little or no transition between the old and new administrations. The New Leaders at every level in government, whether they are Presidential Appointees or Civil Servants, need to decide whether they will master the transition or be its victims.
This transition means navigating the whitewater between what is known and comfortable and ineffective, and moving through the rocks of uncertainty towards a risk-filled future that may promise high political returns through creating more effective government. Like paddlers charging towards a difficult rapid, these new leaders, whether they are Appointees or Career Civil Servants, need to decide whether they will master the transition, or be overturned in the maelstrom.
How does the New Government Leader manage this whitewater? They may want to heed the advice of CCL authors Kerry Bunker and Michael Wakefield. Masters of paddling through organizational transitions, they offer techniques to use to lead effectively when change is the norm. Kerry and Michael offer five distinct communications fundamentals to use when you are stuck in your administrative kayak and have to move through the whitewater of change:
First, Communicate relentlessly – even if you don’t have the answer – communicating transparently and sharing information opens avenue to new and creative solutions…particularly in government, and yes, even with the other branches and agencies.
Listen. As a distinguished trainer once told me, “Did you ever realize that ‘listen’ and ‘silent’ have the same letters?" If you have problems staying silent (as many of us do), then listen by asking questions and paraphrasing with your conversant. Most importantly, use the conversation to create a deeper understanding of the situation or challenge. If you listen to the sound of the river, you will hear the rapids as they approach and you can chart your way through them.
Don’t blame the old administration. This is an easy trap that ensnares poor leaders. Look to where you want to go and move people through to your objective. Constantly talking about the past keeps you there. One old river rat once said – “..if you don’t keep your eyes downstream, you will keep hitting the same rocks..”
Trust is the flip side of the ‘hope’ coin. We hope because we trust our vision and how we might get there. Be authentic and tell people the truth – even when you think they cannot handle it. History reflects that people are more resilient than we give them credit for, and are willing to rise to difficult challenges when presented truthfully. Trust your boat, your paddle and your instincts.
Demonstrate calm, resilient, and high quality behavior. If you want to tell others the truth, be prepared to accept it yourself. As Kerry Bunker says, “…set the tone and model the behavior that makes the truth-telling OK.” Or, get as mad as you want at the river – it still keeps moving…are you moving with it?
The government will continue to change – with great rapidity. How will you steer a steady course through this whitewater? You may not be able to change the rapids, but you can certainly learn to paddle with precision, getting your boat through the rocks unscathed to the quiet and pleasant waters beyond.
 Even though I'm a working stiff like most people I know, now and again I visit more exotic worlds. Recently we were working with the executive team of a five-star hotel and had the privilege of staying at the hotel. Of course, everything was lovely: the property, the staff, the resources, the rooms…really, everything.
Now, I’ve stayed at very high end (and not-so-high-end) lodgings all over the world, but this recent work got me thinking more carefully about what makes a true five-star experience. I suppose I thoughtlessly assumed it was the kinds of measures used by online aggregators like Hotels.com, Expedia or Orbitz: more amenities or features means more stars.
That’s not what does it, really. The key is not more marble in the bathroom or fluffier towels, uniformed room service or cookies on the pillow. The key is the attention paid to the individual. It comes down to this: a hotel is measured by the importance it communicates to its guests. Here are a couple of illustrations:
My colleague’s preference for Earl Grey tea with milk was known and provided whenever tea was ordered because it was noticed at her first meal. My favorite English breakfast tea likewise arrived without further requests.
When I first arrived at the hotel, after a long drive, I went for a swim. Every day thereafter, an enormous, thirsty pink pool towel was neatly folded on a chair in my room in case I wanted to start my day with a dip.
One evening I went by the popular hotel bar. There were no seats available at the time and the maitre d’ (whom I’d not yet met) approached me, addressed me by name, and offered to call me at my room as soon as a table was free.
Money can buy you access to five star service, but it can’t create it. It has to come from a genuine commitment to the care of others and attention to the very personal and idiosyncratic. It comes down to something the general manager said: “It’s all about love. Love for your guests and love for your fellow staff.” That’s five-star.
May all your experiences be five-star!
Doug
The confession: I come from a Union family (I mean Labor, not necessarily Yankee). My father was a union man, a plumber, all his working life. I have refused to pass picket lines in labor conflicts in the past and I have enough knowledge of U.S. labor history to highly value the importance the unions had in ending unsafe, unfair, and exploitative employment practices that arose with the Industrial Revolution.
But Unions are becoming dinosaurs today because they value longevity (called “seniority”) above performance. When union people were organized from the ranks of assembly-line workers or sewing sweat shops, it made sense that the protection of older workers who had devoted their working lives should be paramount. It also made sense, because unions took responsibility for certifying the qualifications of journeymen workers with the rise of craft unions (plumbers, electricians, welders, etc.). Apprenticeship programs were the unions’ means of guaranteeing the quality preparation of union workers. That provided value to employers by differentiating their members from non-union workers.
My spouse pays dues to a teachers’ union, and I’m pretty sure that her organization will be decrying the President’s proposal for merit pay for teachers. In support of their reservations, I have no doubt that the absence of dependable, valid measures of teacher performance makes this a difficult proposal to implement.
However, I’d be interested in seeing the unions return to relevance by taking up the banner of quality as their own. Why shouldn’t teachers' unions, or any unions, be the first to demand outstanding performance by their members and back it up with measures and education that ensure it? Why wouldn’t they be the first to advocate thinning the ranks of professionals who want to coast or who can’t contribute to the advancement of the field?
Credentialing seldom signifies more than the ability to persist through much school, more paperwork, and some tough exams. These are not related to excellence in education. They are merely obstacles to hurdle. Unions will be embraced by everyday people when they stand for excellence and ensure quality rather than being seen only jealously guarding their turf.
Your curious friend,
Doug
 I recently took a local cooperative extension course in an attempt to find a little balance in my life and learn a thing or two about beekeeping. Nice change of pace I thought, and maybe it’d help me be a better natural citizen. So, for two hours on Thursday nights I learned about bees and how to keep them. The connections to leadership are fascinating, but I’m not going to go into all of them. I apologize upfront to master beekeepers for oversimplifying, I don’t know enough about bees yet to get it right. In any case, below I share a few of the connections between the world of bees and leadership.
I learned that the one and only queen bee in a colony begins her life with that exact same “stuff” as everyone else. However, she is fed royal jelly while others receive less regal food. It is through this means that the colony makes their queen. There are other potential queens, but only one queen reigns in the hive; the others leave or well, meet another end – that happens in human leadership too, but it is not one of the better stories to tell. The part I focused on was the role of the collective in creating leadership. Leaders may begin to look exceptional, but they often do not start out that way.
Another interesting connection is that the queen is critical to the healthy functioning of a colony. There are bees whose job it is to spread the scent of the queen throughout the hive. Rumor has it that it only takes about 15 minutes for the bees to get agitated if they stop sensing the queen is around. I thought of organizational and community life and how important it can be, particularly in times of unrest, that a message is communicated and reinforced; leadership (in some form, perhaps not a queen) is present.
And finally, I learned that if a bee stings you included with the stinger (at no extra charge to you) is a scent that let other bees know you are a threat and attracts them to you, in a bad way. Bees protect their hive; they are willing to die for the well-being of the colony. A colony functions as a collective, with emphasis on common well-being. Upon finding a good source of food, forager bees return to the hive and do an intricate dance indicating the exact location of the food and how plentiful it is. The queen doesn’t have a lot to do with this aspect of the colony. The queen makes sure there are enough bees, but by and large the bees handle the day-to-day operations of the hive. The bees work together to determine the needs of the colony and how to meet them. The extent to which the collective needs are accurately communicated and met by the various components of the colony, determines the well-being of the hive.
It is undoubtedly more difficult for people, but I can’t help but think the underlying process may be similar.
When Terrell Owens was cut by the Dallas Cowboys last week, it mildly surprise me - granted, it was 6AM, I was half-asleep, and that’s the news I awoke to from Mike and Mike on ESPN2. After I wiped the sleep from my eyes, and really thought about it, was it really a surprise?
A little background – Terrell Owens, or “T.O.” went to college in my hometown, at UT-Chattanooga. Since being drafted in 1996, he has become the best wide receiver in the league…in terms of statistics. He trails only Jerry Rice in touchdowns on the all-time NFL list for receivers. He has the record for most pass receptions in a game. No question, on the field, T.O. is one of the best wide receivers ever.
He was initially drafted by the San Francisco 49ers, and made an unbelievable touchdown catch from Steve Young in the 1997 playoffs. His star was on the rise. Then, his “toxic leadership” started to show. He publicly belittled and degraded his then quarterback Jeff Garcia and feuded with his coach Steve Mariucci. In 2004, T.O. had enough of San Francisco, and left when he became a free agent.
T.O. then signed with the Philadelphia Eagles and was immediately embraced by the team and city and became a top NFL player. He even came back from a broken leg suffered shortly before the playoffs and ended up playing weeks later in the Super Bowl. He shined in that game despite the team’s loss to the New England Patriots. Then, his “toxic leadership” started to show. He publicly belittled and degraded his then quarterback, Donovan McNabb. T.O. also wanted more money, so through his agent, Drew Rosenhaus, threatened to “hold out” and not report to training camp. He came back to the team, only to start complaining again about Donovan McNabb and the entire Philadelphia Eagles management. In 2006, the Eagles had enough. They deactivated T.O. from the roster in the middle of the season. At the end of the season they released T.O.
T.O. then signed with the Dallas Cowboys and was immediately embraced by the team and city and continued his superior play on the field. Then, his “toxic leadership” started to show. At one time, he cried over his quarterback Tony Romo when the media criticized Romo, but the next year, publicly criticized Romo himself for not throwing him the ball enough. T.O. thought Romo and another offensive player, Jason Witten, were drawing up plays without him. T.O. kept criticizing Cowboys teammates and management, in particular, his offensive coordinator Jason Garrett. On March 4, 2009, the Cowboys had enough and released T.O.
What should you take away from this? Talent is talent and can help your team or organization in the short term. No doubt, everyone wants the best talent. But, if that talent has a continual history of not being able to work well with people; of making people feel uncomfortable; of degrading others; of demoralizing or belittling others; of bad-mouthing projects, people, management, the organization; of spreading rumors; of talking behind peoples’ backs; of believing that life is unfair; of having a sour demeanor all the time; of complaining all the time about anything and everything; of feeling that everyone is against him/her; of having an inflated ego; of thinking he/she knows everything; of immaturity; of looking out only for him/herself over the best interests of the team or organization – no amount of talent can overcome that amount of toxicity.
With all of his statistics, this particular one stands out for me – 13 years in the league, T.O. has been a part of ZERO Super Bowl championships. People with less talent and far less toxicity have been more effective in helping their team win championships (see wide receiver Hines Wardof the Pittsburgh Steelers for instance).
Looking back, I am not that surprised T.O. was let go by the Cowboys last week, nor should you, knowing what you now know. Toxicity trumps talent. But, what do you think came to me as more of a surprise than hearing T.O. was let go by the Cowboys? The Buffalo Bills picked up T.O. less than a week later.
If once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a trend, what’s four times?
 100,000 new government workers. That is one estimate mentioned in a recent Washington Post article. Over 100 Grand New Members of the government apparatus. Finding the right people to fill this number during a time of economic downturn will not be hard – making them effective members of the government administration will be.
President Obama stated during his campaign that "People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better.’ No one knows the exact figure, but in order to 'do better’ according this administration, the government will have to expand.
What will be the effect? Government is different from Private industry.In my time as faculty for the Government Sector at the Center, I have re-discovered the fundamental differences between government and non-government entities. In short, government service is focused upon the effective and equitable distribution of the people’s resources for the good of the nation. The themes of service, effectiveness and equitymake government organizations different from commercial organizations whose raison d’etre is to increase the bottom line for shareholders.
The Center has many partners in government, and all agree that service is the coin of the realm in government employ. Federal and state employees speak of service in almost mystical tomes – they serve the taxpayer and take this mission almost as a holy edict, insuring that they spend the taxpayers’ resources with great care and fidelity. This idea of service counters the idea of financial gain, a key theme of private enterprise. An oft-used adage of public service is that ‘I don’t do this for the money.’
Effectiveness is the logical conclusion of the idea of service. Effectiveness, making certain the resources provided are used appropriately and for the correct purpose, is in government, more important than efficiency. Government employees want to make sure the job is done for the right reason. This is sometimes won at the loss of efficiency.
Equitable treatment counters the idea of exclusionary preference. In the private sector, exclusionary preference creates scarcity, which allows for the setting of prices. In government, civil servants are caught in the middle between the executive branch, which dictates policy, and the Legislature, which approves and authorizes the use of funds. Democratic theory states this offset of responsibilities insures equitable treatment for all people within the nation – there should be, in a perfect world, no exclusion.
Service, effectiveness, and equity are all profound differences within government and ideas held by the public service. I am wondering if we have the right structure to bring on 100,000 more people and instill them with these three key ideas. Without internalizing these ideas, without the training needed, without vision, and without dedication, the new employees will reinforce George Patton’s idea of government service: "A Civil Servant is like a broken cannon, it won’t work and you can’t fire it.’
As citizens, we must ask ourselves what kind of civil servants will we demand and pay for? What kind of civil servant will pick up the President’s mantra and strive towards the change in priorities that will make a better life for others? How might we reinforce a sense of national service, program effectiveness, and equitable application? These are important for without internalizing these key themes, the workers simply serve themselves.
There is change occurring in Washington. In his speech to Congress last week, the President set forth a very assertive agenda and will soon be looking for 100,000 to make it happen. Government agencies across the spectrum will have many volunteers to join the government, all with their own ideas -- some based on ideology, others on economy. Regardless of their reason for joining, those within the senior levels of government must find a way to instill a sense of service, a dedication to effectiveness and an understanding of equity.
There are many detractors who believe this cannot be done, but as Thoreau stated, "To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."
Let’s discuss how we can set the foundation for 100,000 new government workers taking one step towards obtaining that better government.
|
