A VP came out of his office screaming “stop all work on xxx process – it’s broken and I need to fix it!” Of course, we complied since he was the boss.  However, we heard a similar panicky remark a week or two before that, and another a few weeks before that.  It seemed every process needed fixing when the VP thought someone outside his group asked a question about one.  In each case, those responsible for the “problem process” outlined the process steps and answered all the questions about why those steps were in place.  After a few days of panic, we resumed each process as is with a bit more work to do to catch up.
On a separate occasion, the VP suspected a few housekeepers were pilfering cleaning supplies from the company.  The VP spent nearly 10 full days personally reviewing surveillance tapes to catch them in the act.  Should he have asked the security staff to investigate – probably, especially since he never found solid evidence of theft.  Was this the best use of his time - probably not.  I view this VP as an example of a less-than-good boss.  A poor leader to be sure.  I think most of the employees had the same opinion.  The VP served as an example of what not to do as a leader.
 So, why does this matter?

• This VP served as one data point on what not to do as a leader
• Employees were less than enthusiastic about working in this group since they have a lack of clarity on what is important
• The VP represented the face of the organization to the rest of the staff which put the reputation of the company in question

As a leader (or future leader), especially in middle management, there are several important points to consider:

• People behave and respond based on how they are treated – you as the leader set the tone of the work environment
• The leader is the single most important factor in creating and maintaining an engaged workforce
• Focusing on the success of famous CEO’s may not serve you well since those in the C-suite have different motivations than most – pattern your skills based on leadership research
• Being or becoming a leader is not a passive activity – it takes work and focus on finding the right mix of skills to apply to your staff and to your particular work environment (one size does not fit all)

Consider all of those for whom you have worked – would you want to work for them again?  Think about what or who motivated you to do your best and why.  Would you want your children to work for someone like you – or would YOU want to work for someone like you?

Share this article on leadership with others.

Also, review and share these other important articles.
​
...And, feel free to send me comments or questions.

"What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker
photo from Pixabay.com

Jeffrey Pfeffer, Phd. outlined in his most recent book (Leadership: BS) a huge disconnect between the decades of leadership research and its application – namely, it doesn’t work.  He cites numerous examples where people in the C-suite continue to misapply (or just NOT apply) much of the theory outlined in the decades of research on leadership theory.  Instead, he declares the better way to reach the top is by the use, or misuse, of power and influence.  What a shock to students of management and business!

Then again, maybe he nailed it.  Maybe the real takeaway from his book is the leadership theory we all know and love really doesn’t apply as much to the C-suite.  Let me explain.  Consider the idea of three levels of employees requiring three types of leadership for the sake of simplicity.  You could view these levels based on a generalized motivational point of view:

• Hourly employee level where motivation is to optimize pay per hour. Although loyalty is a huge factor, so is the pay rate.  Finding the right balance is critical and the quality of the management is critical to employee satisfaction.  Hourly employees may sacrifice a level of pay to remain in a good work environment. To some degree, working for a meaningful purpose is a factor as well.
• Middle management level where the pay rate is generally fixed and the hours worked can vary greatly. The balancing act at this level is between job satisfaction and engagement driven by fairness in pay and work/life balance.  To a great degree, working for a meaningful purpose matters for retention.
• Upper management level (also called the C-suite and defined by me as VP and above) where the compensation is determined by the VP’s directly reporting groups. People in upper management can move further up the chain of command if they perform well over a long period of time.  To continually do well, those at this level must have significant influence (power) and few competitors.

The Upper management level differs significantly from the other two employee levels.  In a sense, this level reflects more of a dog-eat-dog world.  To avoid being replaced by an underling or someone who has ties with more senior managers, a manager at this level needs to make alliances with others at this level (particularly higher).  They also limit the exposure of high performers within the group to limit possible competitors. 
       
In my view, the motivations of the Hourly and Middle management levels are similar to each other.  They are concerned with the day to day success of operations driven by their individual efforts in general.  What is important is making an income that is on par with others in a similar position, being developed for job progression, and finding meaning (purpose) in what they do.

In contrast, the Upper management level is motivated by how well the organization performs, particularly on Wall Street.  Because of the competitiveness at this level, moving up (to company President or CEO) means doing all you can to look good and using all means at your disposal to do so.  Politics and keen maneuvering is all important at this level.

Therefore, due to the motivational differences in the levels described above, the application of good leadership principles as described in the academic literature is not same.  The “Leadership Industry” as described by Pfeffer really doesn’t apply so much to the Upper management level as it does to the other levels.  In addition, the role model approach used often to describe super-CEO’s (CEO-worship) may not be useful either – some the CEO stories may be embellished as noted by Jeffery Pfeffer in a separate article.

Here's the Point

In the end, I think Jeffery Pfeffer was right to say the “Leadership Industry” has it wrong IF you consider the Upper management level only.  Leadership theory still applies to the rest of the workforce – although the Upper management level should pay attention.  That said, until their motivation changes, they won’t.
​
Share this article on leadership with others.  Also, review and share these other important articles.
...And, feel free to send me comments or questions.
​
"What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker

In search for my replacement as division director in a large governmental agency, I discovered a remarkable dislike or fear by many to be a manager.  My role included many disciplines – from facility maintenance and engineering, to procurement, and to health and safety among others.  Few of my technically inclined friends expressed any desire to be in charge of other employees.  In general terms they just didn’t want the hassle.

My search for a replacement evolved into an impromptu research project to discover what causes this fear of leading.  Here are some of my thoughts and theories:

Fear of failure:  In many cases upper management provides little guidance on the goals of the organization, or the goals are fuzzy at best.  I see this as a lack of clarity and understanding on the part of upper management.  An alternative might be that upper management is simply putting out goals to fill a square or for show, but they don’t really have their heart in supporting the goals necessarily.  Either way, it’s a difficult positon for a manager to be in – on one hand they get little true support to meet the goals.  On the other hand, once the goals is missed they get the blame. 

“Management by objective works - if you know the objectives. Ninety percent of the time you don't.” – Peter Drucker.

Lack of training:  Organizations in general fail to provide adequate leadership or management training in a timely manner.  A Harvard Business Review article cited a lag in training for new managers (the time between when the managers started managing and the time they received formal training) of over a decade.  The problem with that, as the article pointed out, is the managers develop bad habits for that time period and pass those on to the employees.  This impacts productivity and retention.  The lack of training may be caused by ill-prepared upper managers who don’t see the need, or a lack of vision by the organization.

Lack of upper management support:  The role of management (read this as leading people and managing things) is a relatively new concept – less than 80 years old.  The real interest in management by most corporations boomed no more than 50 years ago (and therefore the boom in the MBA programs).  Many of today's senior leaders may not have bought into management as a disciple and still support the command and control approach as opposed to approaches better suited to today’s knowledge workers. 

“Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done.” – Peter Drucker.

So, what’s a new manager to do?  I recommend finding a mentor or coach who understands what management (read leading and managing) is really all about.  Pay particular attention to the leadership part since everything gets done by people - so you need to understand how proper motivation works.  Also, realize that there is no “one size fits all” on management  styles or approaches – it just doesn’t work that way. 

If you don’t feel comfortable with a mentor, find someone who understands management to coach you.  The coach can direct you to valuable resources (for self-study) and guide you through the many options available to get up to speed.

Share this article on leadership with others.  Also, review and share these other important articles.

We all have read articles that describe important attributes, or activities, or capabilities of great leaders.  It seems one pops up daily on one social network or the other, or on all of them.  They also seem to never end.  Each providing sound advice that usually is of value.

Should those interested in leadership take each article as gospel?  Is leadership really a matter of remembering all the keys in each article?  In my view – yes and no. Here’s why –

Leadership is a complicated matter.  I know this based on a research paper I’m writing on the topic that requires me to research the history of leadership from the caveman days until now (not really since I’m not sure the cavemen documented any of their lessons learned, but you get the picture).  That research covered a lot of ground to include The Bass Handbook of Leadership, a 1516 page book that weighs 5.2 pounds.  Although I’m inspired to list all the books and papers I’ve read on the subject, let’s just agree that there are a lot of views on leadership (one of the reasons leadership is not easy).

One of the principals I gathered on leadership involves three components – the leader, the followers, and the environment in which they operate.   Changing one of these components may require changes in the other two.  For example, a chief of a fire brigade may take the “command and control” approach during an emergency situation as he or she should.  In this instance, there is little time or room for discussing the preferred approach to fighting a fire – the environment demands a very structured approach to leading and following.  Once the situation is over and the brigade is back in the fire house, the leadership approach may be a softer and the followers more able to offer suggestions.

The entire idea of leadership is to inspire others (followers) to achieve desired organizational goals.  The leader may or may not be the person in the formal leadership position – he or she may be an influential person within the group.  My point here is leadership depends on influencing the behavior of others within a given environment, which in many cases is dynamic and ever-changing.  So, can you as a leader depend on just 7 keys to leadership, or 5?  And if so, which 7 or 5 are best suited to your followers and/or your environment?

 Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying these articles have no value – each article covers important topics.  My point is to realize the context in which you work and see how they apply.  In your circumstance 7 key points may hit the mark, or maybe tomorrow’s article will cover the 5 key attributes you really need.  Or maybe you really need to carry the Bass Handbook around for a while (I hope not).  In any case, keep your eyes and mind open since leadership is not a simple talent than can be boiled down to just a few key things.        

Share this article on leadership with others.  Also, review and share these other important articles.

...And, feel free to send me comments or questions.

Maybe I should rename this article to "what did the war do for me".

Part 1 of this series covered special projects that helped bring the Cold War to an end.  I happened to have been a part of those projects although my contribution more than likely made little difference in the eventual outcome.  However, serving in the military profoundly changed me and my view of leadership.

I tell people I never attended college until my graduate days.  I actually attended "institute" - Virginia Military Institute for my undergraduate education.  VMI provided the initial austere and structured environment that I would live under for years to come.  VMI cadets also followed an honor code that was like few others - "I will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do".  There was no gray area here.  Because of that, whatever you said was taken as the truth - no questions asked.  It was really a code of honor.  In fact, we could purchase items from the local town merchants just by giving our word that we would make good on the payment.

Graduation (and commissioning) happened causing me to enter the Air Force as an engineer.  During my first assignment one of the senior enlisted men acted as a mentor to me (Dave Ballinger, who could operate a road grader like no other).  I learned to respect the relationship between management and labor and gained an understanding of what leadership meant.  For example, on more than one occasion I was politely asked to just listen (clearly I was running off in the wrong direction at times).  But I did listen.  I learned to show respect to those who had more real knowledge than I did and benefited because of it.

I carried these lessons into other assignments.  Eventually, the Air Force placed me into a leadership position in charge of 250 or so technicians who maintained an air base.  Other assignments included positions at HQ NATO, working with the UN Forces in Korea, commander of a engineering squadron (500 members), and commander of a Support Group (1200 members).

In my view, all of these great assignments resulted from my initial training in leadership and ethics early in my career.  I understood early what mattered - doing the right thing and creating a team with members who had respect for one another (other leaders later in my career confirmed these ideas).

You probably are not in the military - so what's my point for you?  Leadership in any endeavor is a team sport accomplished for a higher purpose.  That higher purpose is not profit margin, or growth, or market share.  Its behavior driven by a greater purpose.  See these two links from Simon Sinek - Why and Great Leaders.    

Review part 1 as well.


Share this article on leadership with others.  Also, review and share these other important articles.

...And, feel free to send me comments or questions.

A previous new boss, the VP of my group, and I just began a conversation in his office with the door closed to keep it private.  I sat just across his desk not more than three feet away.  It took us several days for us to find time to connect...and then the phone rang...and he picked it up.

The questions that ran through my mind were these:  

o  Was the caller more important than me who was actually present in the room?

o  Does the boss think I or my programs are not important or worth the time we set aside?

o  Does the boss treat everyone this way, by essentially giving them a signal he really isn't interested?

I ran across an article that covered communication skills.  It began talking about the communication skills of Bill Clinton, which are extraordinary and part of his success.  The opening few paragraphs described how he makes the person with whom he is speaking feel as if they are the only person in the room.  He gives them his full attention making them feel important.  Regardless of your political leanings, you have to admit that is an extraordinary skill.

Further in the article it outlined another habit we all see that conveys the message they are not really listening, or that what we have to say is not important.  Here it is, the word for word:  

"While our digital habits have rewired our brains for shorter attention spans, it’s possible to reverse the process, says Tumlin. Commit to minimizing or unplugging electronic distractions, and seek out meaningful in-person interactions.

"I’m not a guy who thinks all new technology is bad, but real connection doesn’t happen through a device," says Tumlin. "Be willing to temporarily set aside screens and give your full attention to the person in front of you."

As you meet with others one on one, or in a meeting think about the hidden message you are sending to others.  Are they important and really worth your time and attention?  Will they feel like you really were listening once the meeting is over?

Share this article on organizational purpose and knowing your customers with others.  Also, review and share these other important articles.

...And, feel free to send me comments or questions.

A group of recent graduates asked my advice on creating a new and exciting startup company.  The initial discussion included a flurry of ideas and excitement about the company’s potential.  Each of the three partners brought complimentary talents, strengths and value to the enterprise.  The question for me was:  Where do we begin?

I turned to Peter Drucker, the management expert for guidance. 

The initial question for the group focused on Drucker’s fundamental question –The purpose of the organization is to create….what?  On this the group offered several replies -  profit came up first, with money a close second, then growth.  According to Drucker, the appropriate reply is “a customer”.  Without the focus on customers the organization would fail.  (I wrote a separate posting on this very topic, here.)

Now that we had a focus, we began with the questions:

1. What is our mission?  In other terms, what is the purpose of the organization – what are we trying to do?  This is where the leadership gives meaning to the organization so others have a personal connection to the work.
2. Who is our customer?  Said differently, who are you trying to serve with your product or service?   Although it sounds easy, there are primary customers and secondary ones.  The primary ones may be the end users, and the secondary ones are those who have an interest in the overall outcome of the product or service.  By answering this question, you can also determine who your customer is not. 
3. What does the customer value? Or, what attributes of your product are customers looking for that help them?  Again, the product value may be different for the primary customer and secondary customer.  One of the best ways to determine this is to ask the customers (not all of them of course, but enough to give you a sense of what is important).
4. What are our results? Are you meeting the needs of the customers?  Are you providing the value they desire?  Again, getting feedback through asking is a good way to determine your success.
5. What is our plan? What are the next steps to achieve your goals, or to adjust your current approach considering the answers to the first four questions?  What actions must be taken to develop new goals; what products should be abandoned; what risks should be assessed, etc.

(based on Drucker’s book – “The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask About Your Organization”)

Needless to say, we didn’t get through all of the questions in great depth.  The partners left with plenty to think about.  Each of The Five Questions incorporates supporting questions and other considerations making them easier to understand and more comprehensive.   In addition, the questions apply to every type of organization – for profit and non-profit alike.  Drucker’s intent was to provide a framework for organizational leaders to create an effective organization.

In the case of this startup company, the excitement is just beginning...  

Share this article with others on organizational purpose and knowing your customers.  


Feel free to reply with comments or questions on this article.

Money, or profit?  Certainly required to stay in business.  No doubt the finance driven MBAs would agree to this answer.  That said, if one was not worried about risk, then robbing banks would be the best approach to reach this goal.

Jobs?  Maybe, and certainly from a labor and economic point of view.  But, just having employees and filling jobs does not mean a successful business.

Let me give you a hint by telling you about my recent trip to New Hampshire to move my son into his new home.  The effort involved driving from North Carolina in a convoy of four vehicles with many back roads to avoid tolls (nice scenery but it lengthened the trip significantly).  During the stops for fuel I noticed similarities for each location in which we stopped – all were less clean than we hoped for and the staff not as helpful as they could be.

That trend got me thinking about what was going on.  Each operation was identical in that the staff was not well trained and the facility poorly kept – almost untouched from a maintenance point of view, or so it seemed.  Not once did I think to myself “I should here visit again and soon”.

Ultimately, I realized they were after a particular type of customer – the ones that don’t come back necessarily.  These customers would be “drive by” ones that just fill up on gas and drive on to a distant destination.  There is no intent to attract them to come back since these customers live in faraway places.  Therefore, the restrooms and surrounding areas are less than spotless (I’m being kind here) and the staff is not interested in being overly helpful (being kind again).  Although I’m generalizing, we’ve all experienced these sorts of places on the road.  Although not all are like this, many are and on purpose to minimize costs.

So, back to the original question.  According to Peter Drucker (the revered management guru) the purpose of a business is to create…(wait for it, wait for it)….a customer.  To do so, the business needs to ask what does the target customer value?  In the case outlined above, it’s a quick stop for gas (assuming no expectation of a return visit).  And that’s what the customer gets – a gas stop and little else.

Looking at a gas station that has the expectation of repeat customers (like the one up the street from where you live) I suspect the dynamic is different.  The staff might be friendlier and make an attempt to connect with frequent clients.  The restrooms might be cleaned, or at least checked a few times per day.  The food and drink items may seem more palatable based on the overall appearance of the facility.  Clearly the target customer in this case has different expectations and values than the customer discussed above.

The lesson to be learned for any organization is to determine who your target customer is and what they value.  The second part to this arrangement is to measure the results – are you actually providing the expected value to your customers?  One of the best ways to find this out is to simply ask them – get feedback by talking to them (not all of them, but enough to get a sense of what’s missing or what is hitting the mark).  I discovered a great example of customer focus in New Hampshire where the McDonald’s and Panera restaurants offer – get this – lobster rolls with real lobster obtained locally.  That’s customer focus.

In summary, the purpose of an organization (business or non-profit) is to create customers.  You have to know and offer what they value and measure your results.  If you are off the mark, you need to develop a plan to get back on track.  The outline for this approach is Drucker’s book “The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask About Your Organization”.  Although it sounds simple, the approach is very thought provoking and worth every minute of time you put towards it.

Share this article with others on organizational purpose and knowing your customers.  Review and share other important articles here.

Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

 "What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker

A group of recent graduates asked my advice on creating a new and exciting startup company.  The initial discussion included a flurry of ideas and excitement about the company’s potential.  Each of the three partners brought complimentary talents, strengths and value to the enterprise.  The question for me was:  Where do we begin?

I turned to Peter Drucker, the management expert for guidance. 

The initial question for the group focused on Drucker’s fundamental question –The purpose of the organization is to create….what?  On this the group offered several replies -  profit came up first, with money a close second, thengrowth.  According to Drucker, the appropriate reply is “a customer”.  Without the focus on customers the organization would fail.  (I wrote a separate posting on this very topic, here.)

Now that we had a focus, we began with the questions:

1. What is our mission?  In other terms, what is the purpose of the organization – what are we trying to do?  This is where the leadership gives meaning to the organization so others have a personal connection to the work.
2. Who is our customer?  Said differently, who are you trying to serve with your product or service?   Although it sounds easy, there are primary customers and secondary ones.  The primary ones may be the end users, and the secondary ones are those who have an interest in the overall outcome of the product or service.  By answering this question, you can also determine who your customer is not. 
3. What does the customer value? Or, what attributes of your product are customers looking for that help them?  Again, the product value may be different for the primary customer and secondary customer.  One of the best ways to determine this is to ask the customers (not all of them of course, but enough to give you a sense of what is important).
4. What are our results? Are you meeting the needs of the customers?  Are you providing the value they desire?  Again, getting feedback through asking is a good way to determine your success.
5. What is our plan? What are the next steps to achieve your goals, or to adjust your current approach considering the answers to the first four questions?  What actions must be taken to develop new goals; what products should be abandoned; what risks should be assessed, etc.

(based on Drucker’s book – “The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask About Your Organization”)

Needless to say, we didn’t get through all of the questions in great depth.  The partners left with plenty to think about.  Each of The Five Questions incorporates supporting questions and other considerations making them easier to understand and more comprehensive.   In addition, the questions apply to every type of organization – for profit and non-profit alike.  Drucker’s intent was to provide a framework for organizational leaders to create an effective organization.

In the case of this startup company, the excitement is just beginning...  

Share this article with others on organizational purpose and knowing your customers.  Review and share other important articles here.

Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

 "What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker

I served in the US Air Force during the height of the Cold War.  The eight years I served overseas was facing the communists in the European theater with NATO, or facing the communists in Korea with the UN.

The Air Force gave me the opportunity to lead the program responsible for the physical security of “special assets” in Europe during the ‘80s.  As a lowly Captain, I was regarded by our allies as the resident expert on what you could or could not do in regards to the rules on physical security measures.  As an informal leader in this role, I was fortunate to meet many higher ranking counterparts from many countries.

As a side story, I met with a Turkish Colonel on many occasions.  As a young man I thought I could challenge the older Colonel to a race up a security tower he and I were inspecting.  Unbeknownst to me, he was the coach of one of the Turkish national soccer teams.  I lost the race.

This assignment led to another special project focused on the planning and installation of the Ground Launched Cruise Missiles (GLCM) in Europe.  Our small group of young officers initiated the planning for the initial deployment of the cruise missiles in Italy.  I had left the assignment before the other sites became a reality.

The GLCM assignment linked me to yet another special project – the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with the former USSR.  Signed by President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev in December 1987, the treaty was the first to allow “boots” on the ground to verify compliance.  This treaty was the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons in theater – over 2500 weapons.

Although I didn’t link the two programs, I later discovered the installation of the GLCMs led to the INF treaty.  I also learned that the cruise missiles were planned and developed in the early ‘70’s.  So, someone had the leadership to develop this long-range strategy – effectively outspending the USSR since they could not keep up economically.

These programs were large and complex.  The management of them involved cooperation with agencies outside the direct chain of command.  That said, the higher purpose held the groups together.  Both programs were great successes from a leadership point of view.  

I enjoyed my interactions with the allies, the people I met in Europe, and the Soviets with whom I had contact.  I learned how leadership and management are distinct activities and the importance of each.           

The Berlin Wall fell just over a week after the birth of my daughter.  I don’t think the two events are connected, but who knows for sure.



Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

 "What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker

The title reflects a question I saw on Linkedin a few months ago from a member of a corporate human resources department.  I replied to the question with a rationale that may help in understanding the new dynamics of the corporate hiring.

Point 1 – In this new era of the “knowledge worker” (otherwise known as an IT professional), the means of production is no longer at the company like it used to be in the manufacturing era.  It’s now in the heads of the knowledge workers.

Point 2 – Knowledge workers (the means of production) are transportable and to a large degree interchangeable.  Certain IT skill sets can generally be used in multiple companies with minimal re-training.  I once overheard a conversation by some IT workers about what company they had been with recently and where they might go next – as if it was a certainty.  This occurred at a corporate “beer-bash”, one of the perks geared to keep employees.

Point 3 – The corporate perks in the knowledge worker world are common place, and probably make little difference.  One of the staff members at a tech company asked why the company puts on the beer-bashed saying it’s a waste of money.  I told them this company does it because the company across the street does it, as does Google, as does…(fill in the blank).

Point 4 - The corporate world is more concerned about what Wall Street thinks in the short term than the fate of employees in the long term.  Hardly a day goes by without a news report of a corporate “downsizing” because the company didn’t meet the projected quarterly revenue numbers.  So, the company lays off X-number of employees who were once highly sought-after.

Point 5 (this is the big one) – Recent polls by Gallup and other organizations indicate the level of engaged employees (workers committed to the company) is about 30 percent, meaning 70 percent are neutral (don’t care either way) or actively dis-engaged (really unhappy).  Other data indicates most employees (70 percent or so) leave a company due to the behavior of their immediate supervisor.  Recall the saying that “people join companies and leave bosses”.

Considering the points outlined above, is there any wonder why there are so many job-hoppers? 

So, what’s the message to the corporations? 

• Focus on learning what “leadership” really is and teaching it to the supervisors and project managers. Shift the role of the manager to one of leading and less on technical skills.
• Find a “real” higher purpose for the company so employees feel connected to their work. Purpose is not measured in “profit” or “growth”.
• Consider increasing productivity through better leadership/management as opposed to having to cut cost with layoffs. It’s not that hard to do if you understand what leadership/management really is.

Job-hoppers/employees will stay longer if they believe you (the corporate management) really care.

What are your thoughts?  Agree/disagree?





Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

 "What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker

“What staff meeting – what do you mean?”

This was the response for each time I asked about it after taking over as the boss in four organizations. 

My prior experience primarily involved large organizations with many moving parts.  The organizations I worked for provided great exposure to many types of managerial and leadership training events.  I was even fortunate to take a class from Dr. Edward Deming, who was affiliated with the Total Quality Management movement many years ago.

Subsequently, I learned about the works of several other pillars in the field – people such as Peter Drucker (the father of modern management), Warren Bennis, and others.  Based on all of this exposure, I developed a set of practices that seem to work.

First, there is no single best way to run an organization – because there are just too many variables to pick just one (this is a topic for a future posting).  The variables include you, the boss, the nature of the work environment, and the nature of the employees.  My advice is to be cautious of articles starting with “The 7 Key Things Great Leaders Do” or something like that.  Management is just not that simple to be boiled down to 7 key things or 5 greatest attributes of leadership, or whatever…If it were that simple, we would not need the thousands of books on the topic or the large number of MBA’s in the workforce (another future posting).

That said, I firmly believe a few fundamentals exist:

• Select your staff for their strengths and make their weaknesses irrelevant (this is a Drucker-ism). Do not hire your buddies, your family members, or others unless they are the right fit – period.
• Focus your staff on the organization’s higher purpose – and it’s not growth or profit margin. It has to be genuine, meaningful, and the truth.
• Pay the employees fairly and treat them as if they were volunteers – because they are (another Drucker-ism).
• Create an organizational execution plan with your team to create goals, schedules, and quality/cost targets as if it was all project management – because it is.

And then, start having recurring staff meetings so you can –

• Find out how you can help your staff achieve the goals
• Get the staff to collaborate as a team to achieve the higher organizational purpose
• Develop trust within the organization so you all can live full lives.

Feel free to ask questions about running an organization or other management topics.

Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

 "What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker

Managers often get the feeling their organization’s performance just isn’t what it should be, and can’t put a finger on why not. It’s a frustrating feeling for everyone involved – the manager, the employees, and the end customer.

Business performance is a measurable thing. Typically, managers measure key metrics in one or more of four categories – cost, time (schedule), quality, and scope (determined by size of a project or production run). Performance in one category influences the others in one way or the other – if you want something done quickly, the quality and/or scope may suffer; and if you want something done well, the cost will generally rise. Metrics are the indicators of performance, but not the critical driver or cause. These measurements only indicate the degree of success relative to set goals.

A general organizational framework addresses the four basic components of any organization – infrastructure, processes, technology, and people. In the world of management improvement, organizations may employ proven methods to become more efficient by taking a hard look at many of these areas. Notably, an organization may use the “Lean” and “Six Sigma” processes (among others) to minimize waste and improve the quality of a product. These methods may treat the symptoms of the problem rather than the most critical issue.

It’s worth noting that the people component of the framework influences the other three organizational components. In other words, it’s the people who decide what technology, infrastructure and processes are best for what you are doing. So, a key to success is to have the right people in the right places within the organization (see Jim Collins’ book “Good to Great”). The most important key is knowing how to treat them.

For example, I witnessed this comment told to a seasoned leader by the leader’s boss: “You need to change your management style so your employees fear for their jobs – you’ll get more out of them”.

In a different organization I overheard an employee respond to his supervisor when asked to get something accomplished: “I’ll give it my best”. The supervisor’s response was: “I don’t want your best, I want it done”.

Both of these examples indicate the type of leadership culture in those organizations – neither of which instills a positive work environment. Leadership as a practice means how the bosses influence the attitudes of the employees to achieve goals. The more positive the leadership, the better performance you get. Although there are circumstances where a “command and control” style is useful (the Marines who need to charge an objective, or fire fighters during an emergency), a business setting usually is not one of them.

The Bottom Line - Leadership is Critical

Peter Drucker, considered the father of modern management, separated business practice into the components of “management” and “leadership”. With that in mind, he considered himself in the people business as opposed to the metrics business – indicating people make the business work, and effective leadership is critical. Considering that 70% of people who leave their company leave because of their immediate supervisor (supported by multiple polls by the Gallup and others), learning effective leadership skills should be on the top of any supervisor’s list. Many books and theories are out there to learn ways to achieve success (for a good start, see the book called “Primal Leadership” by Daniel Goleman and others). The point is to create a positive working environment where the employees feel part of the team. Think of your employees like volunteers - because they are.

Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

"What do you want to be remembered for" - Peter Drucker

Congratulations on being selected to your new role – it’s a big responsibility. So, what does that really mean? What is your role within the organization? And how do you go about performing that role?

The father of modern management, Peter Drucker, provides a wealth of advice on the subject. Most of what we think about management and organizations is based on Drucker’s decades of experience and study.

In broad terms, the essential role of a manager is to make the resources under your control productive. That means selecting the right tasks to accomplish to meet your given objectives, and do it efficiently. After all, without clear objectives that fit into the big scheme of the organization, how would you know if you are headed in the right direction? To paraphrase Drucker, management by objectives works when you know what they are - 90 percent of the time managers don't. If you don't know what your objectives are, find out. How can your select your tasks to perform and measure progress if you don't know what you are trying to achieve?

Another area of focus for a new manager is realizing how to be effective (as opposed to just being efficient). Effective managers efficiently perform those tasks that should be done. Some may be efficient, but on tasks that may not need to be done at all. Knowing the difference is being an effective manager.

Drucker separated the function of management (being a manager) into two parts - managing and leading. He used the term managing in the sense of knowing what tasks needed to be accomplished and measuring performance. We commonly use metrics to demonstrate these results - knowing what to measure and reaching goals is part of being a manager. Managing in this sense is more about measuring performance and results than actually performing the tasks.

The Art of leadership

Leading, or performing the tasks through your staff is the harder part of being a manager since it involves the art of leadership. Your job as the leader (the term meant as a function as opposed to a position in the organization) involves managing the attitudes and behaviors of the employees to enable them to be effective. Being successful at leading involves knowing the strengths of the employees (and focusing on those versus trying to fix the weaknesses) and possessing an understanding of human behavior. For example, a manager should realize each person responds to input differently and values things differently (in other words, one leadership approach doesn't necessarily work on everyone the same way). A good starting point in understanding leadership is a book by Daniel Goleman (and others) called 'Primal Leaderhip'. The authors address the critical component of emotional intelligence that many managers fail to understand.

A very effective book addressing what to stop doing as a manager is by Marshall Goldsmith - 'What Got You Here, Won't Get You There'. Goldsmith covers 22 behaviors of managers that they should stop doing, since those behaviors really irritate everyone else (and greatly hinder performance).

As a new manager, realize most people seek a purpose in what they do (see Dan Pink's book called 'Drive'). That purpose isn't just making a living to survive - its typically to serve a higher purpose. To really be successful, find the higher purpose for your group. The idea is not to manipulate your employees to serve this purpose - its to find the real reason you do what you do.

As you may now realize, being a manger may be more complicated than you first thought. Its a bit scary at first and takes practice. Managing is not a strength for everyone (so if its not a strength for you, its not fair to you or others to stay in the role). Those who are good at it raise the performance of the overall organization and are appreciated for what they contribute.

Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

"What do you want to be remembered for" - Peter Drucker

According to IBM (2011) in their review of business markets, company executives generally share three problem areas. First, subordinate business unit leaders need goal alignment with stated organisational goals. The goals of each subordinate business unit should support the higher goals of the company and support other business units as necessary. For example, the facility performance goal of a warehouse operation has significantly different levels of performance than the goal of a business office that hosts important clients. The level of importance of meeting each goal is equal although the performance levels differ significantly.

Second, business unit leaders require clarity on which goals are important relative to others. The company goals generally flow from the organisational strategy. From a facility manager’s point of view, specific FM goals may differ based on the particular business unit supported. Some business units may desire to minimise costs, such as in an unoccupied storage space. Other business units may require high expenditure of labor and materials to maintain reliable performance, such as in a production area.

Third, organisational leaders require accountability and ownership of each organisational and business unit goal. A goal without a name assigned to it remains unmeasured and at risk of not being accomplished adequately. Executives typically assign facility managers broad goals in categories such as energy management, environmental sustainability, and performance of service levels (quality of maintenance, timeliness of response, etc.). Each subordinate business unit leader may require separate performance goals to support the unit’s particular requirements, which may differ markedly from other unit’s requirements.

Organisational goals link directly to the organisation mission (National Research Council, 2005). This is true at the corporate level as well as at the business unit level. Each business unit leader’s specific goals relate to the part of the organisation’s mission assigned to the unit. In other words, the goals are relative to the assigned mission. Facility managers support specific goals for each business unit as well as broad goals.

The global business consulting company Towers Watson (2011) reported on the link between facility management performance and employee engagement (the level of dedication an employee has to the organisation). In one case study, an employee survey of 51,000 employees (in 43 counties, covering 15 languages) included indicators of engagement linked to 64 production measures and 79 maintenance measures, or KPIs. The authors of the survey suggested a connection existed between the work environment and level of employee engagement. Facility managers should interpret this study as linking the expected quality of the work environment to the broader corporate goal of enhancing productivity. The link of FM to employee productivity may be an unstated goal in some organisations, whereas in others it is a key metric.

Facility mangers require KPIs to demonstrate their contribution and value to the overall success of the organisation. Points to consider when creating relevant metrics, or KPIs include (The Value of Key Performance Indicators, 2011):

• Start with measuring where are you now (starting point benchmark)
• Determine where you want to go (your measurable goals, which may be compared to other similar organisations, or past performance in the company)
• Decide who receives the data and what do they do with them (are the telling you anything actionable or of value)
• Derive conclusions from the data and how they are communicated appropriately

Other helpful points include:

• Quantity does not equal quality
• Measure a few key/important metrics
• Ensure people in the field and management agree on what is important
• Test the KPIs to determine the value of measuring them before implementing them
• Understand the value of what a metric tells you to the cost to gather the data (in other words, is the metric worth the effort to collect the information?)

In summary, successful facility managers recognise the importance of KPIs as tools to demonstrate their contribution to organisational and business unit goals, the overall mission of the company, and the impact of the work environment on the attitudes of employees (Performance Measurement). Facility managers also employ the KPI measures to gauge internal performance to assess the degree of progress towards the desired future condition of the company’s infrastructure. In that regard, the managers may use the metrics to forecast future investments and budgets needed to achieve goals, and validate past investments.

Appropriate use of KPIs enables facility managers to show the value of the facility team to the company executives. The managers who neglect the metrics risk high-level recognition, but not necessarily the kind they desire.

(This original article appeared in the Clean India Journal, 1 May, 2012)

Generally, outsourcing is a competitive necessity in an increasingly global economy. The overall objective for outsourcing may include any or all of the reasons stated. Outsourcing support functions provides several advantages to an organisation. Not only can outsourcing enable scalability, flexibility and agility in changing the size of the outsourced function – it can change the labour cost and level of expertise much more easily than an in-house function.

By outsourcing, you can be kept up to date with the latest methods via the vendor as opposed to having to update an in-house staff (training costs). If you outsource several functions to a single vendor you gain economy of scale. Also, the size of in-house support functions such as HR and training can be reduced since there is less in-house staff. In other terms, the company gets to focus on the core work (unless the wrong vendor is selected). By changing to a vendor, you generally can reduce the labour cost overall, especially if you have legacy employees who have a high rate due to raises over the years.

There are some disadvantages; however, if the company is not prepared to maximise the capabilities of a vendor. For instance, the organisation should consider what performance levels (service level agreements), what measurements are suitable, etc. The organisation needs someone who can tell a bad job from a good one – sort of like a local in-house subject matter expert – to oversee the work (belongs to purchasing or is a “technical representative” of purchasing). If there are too many vendors on site then it gets confusing who has what responsibility, you lose the advantage of economy of scale, and you can get vendors in-fighting for scope.

Sub-vendors may compete between themselves to the point of unprofessional behaviour to gain favour in the eyes of the prime-vendor or end-client. The cost of the conflict impacts the level of trust between the end-client and the prime-vendor not to mention the potential of missed expectations.

Vendors who self-perform the majority of the work may offer the client the best of all options in reducing costs and minimizing risk. Most of the advantages of the self-perform model emanate from concepts described in “agency theory” – how one group, the agent, performs duties for the principle, or client. The concepts generally focused on the following:

Clients generally possess imperfect information on the vendor allowing the vendor to potentially overstate capabilities and over-promise performance.

• Each party (client and vendors) focuses on self-interests which may compete.
• The impact of the cost to change relates to the commitment of the client to resolve goal differences with the vendors.
• Vendors require a high level of monitoring until the vendors establish a trusting relationship with the client.

The “self-perform” model by a single vendor minimizes many of the risks addressed above and offers clients other advantages. For instance, the described concepts occur in each client-vendor relationship regardless if the “client” is the primary vendor, or the overall end-client. Each vendor requires an earned level of trust, a level of monitoring, and incurs a cost of doing business. As sub-vendors, these issues translate through the prime vendor to the end-client either formally or informally.

Additionally, the level of risk driven by self-interest multiplies for each additional vendor or sub-vendor. Performance may also suffer for the end-client if sub-vendors have competing self-interests. For example, one sub-vendor may possess the capability to perform tasks delegated to another sub-vendor. In this instance, sub-vendors may compete between themselves to the point of unprofessional behaviour to gain favour in the eyes of the prime-vendor or end-client. The cost of the conflict impacts the level of trust between the end-client and the prime-vendor not to mention the potential of missed expectations.

The self-performance model decreases the cost of the overall contract by lessening the amount of pass-through costs. For example, in a highly sub-contracted model each vendor adds overhead costs and profit to billed work. The prime-vendor typically adds overhead costs and profit to the sub-contracted work as well. In effect, sub-contracting the work adds a multiplier effect to the overall cost of the operation. Conversely, a self-performed operation minimizes the amount of billed overhead and profit.

Overall, it can work well if it’s set up appropriately and runs like a team.


(an original article first published in Clean India Journal, March 21, 2012) 

You never know how your treatment of others impact their lives.

A recent data shows less than 35% of employees are engaged at work.  Other studies demonstrate approximately 70% of those who voluntarily leave a job do so because of the immediate supervisor.  The data implies the treatment and leadership of staff is critically important.

One definition defines leadership as an influence on a person’s behavior.  In that regard, everyone possesses a degree of leadership although many don’t realize it.  Others may realize the influence they have and choose not to use it well (and that’s a problem – more on that later).  Some use leadership for the overall good of the organization realizing some difficult choices are necessary.  Let me explain.

Those in a position of power (supervisors and managers) wield influence in important ways.  Managers must realize those who report to them (either as employees or contractors) have a certain level of stress or hidden fear of doing something wrong in the eyes of the manager.  The manager drives the stress or fear in two ways – clarity in setting expectations, and response to things that don’t go well for reasons other than intentional insubordination. 

Leaders Need to Take Action

A critical responsibility for the manager involves taking action on those who create havoc.  I witnessed supervisors who treated their employees as if they were stupid and were allowed to do so by upper management.  I also witnessed organizations who knew managers were dysfunctional creating a poor working environment for all but elected to keep them in place.  In this particular case, the organization’s upper management elected to keep the dysfunctional manager in place for training purposes.  The message sent to the rest of the organization is less than good – the organization doesn’t care how the employees/contractors are treated or doesn’t have the fortitude to take the necessary action.  In either case, the morale and performance of the working force is reduced not to mention their respect for the managers as well.

The message for managers is this – think about how you use influence at the individual as well the organizational level.  Everything you do and say (or not do or not say) is influence.  Know that everyone is watching at all times to see what you choose to do or not do.  Your treatment of others has an impact – so it’s up to you what kind of impact that is.

This link to a TED talk video demonstrates how small things can make a difference.         

Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

 "What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker

Many companies recognize the importance of employee engagement. The Towers Watson Strategies for Growth, December 2010 study of 700 global companies listed the four top workforce areas of concern as “Loss of talent in key skills area, lack of succession planning/management, inability to attract necessary talent, level of disengagement among workers”. In assessing solutions to these problems, studies indicate leadership as a key factor in retention and engagement. A study by Wyatt Watson (Watson Wyatt’s WorkUSA Survey Feb 2009) stated new employees arrived on the job with high levels of engagement - 71%. After six months on the job, this rate dropped to 57%. One of the key factors in this significant drop was leadership. Employees sensed a lack of encouragement, empowerment, and clarity from company leaders and primarily from their immediate supervisor.

As the data shows, companies that achieved high levels of employee engagement outperformed others in nearly every category. It’s a deciding factor. Jack Welsh, the former CEO of General Electric, said according to the Gallup Organization, “Any company trying to compete. . . must figure out a way to engage the mind of nearly every employee.”

One of the primary success factors for companies links directly to the attitudes of employees. According to a recent survey by Towers Watson (Professional service firms – Re-engaging and retaining employees, 2010) covering 50 global firms, those with highly engaged employees improved in operating income by 19.2 % over a 12 month period versus a drop of 32.7% for firms with low engagement levels. During this same period, growth in net income rose by 13.7% for high engagement companies and decreased by 3.8 % for low engagement firms. The evidence shows employee engagement (indicated by levels of absenteeism, turnover, and discretionary effort) as a key ingredient in achieving financial success for companies.

This same study presented revealing statistics about the employees. According to the study, “Engagement reflects the bond or attachment between employee and employer. It incorporates willingness to give discretionary effort, and buy-in to company values and objectives.” Disengaged employee indicated the desire to leave, or make themselves available for other opportunities at a rate of 84 percent. The comparable figure for engaged employees fell to 49 percent, a remarkable difference. The current economic environment drives part of this difference since employees have been asked to do more with less, and with less compensation. An analysis of the aspects of engagement indicates several areas of importance for focus. Factors include a rational component linked to the employee’s support for the organizational strategy, goals, and values; an emotional component related to the employee’s sense of commitment to the organization; and a motivational aspect reflecting the willingness to extend effort above and beyond normal expectations.

The facility manager possesses the means to significantly influence the attitudes of employees, and therefore the company’s level of employee engagement. Over a period of 5 years, highly engaged companies enjoyed an advantage of 26% higher employee productivity rates, lower turnover rates, and 13% greater total returns. The highly engaged employees tended to be the top performers by far, and had significantly lower levels of absenteeism (Watson Wyatt’s WorkUSA Survey, Feb 2009).

Facility Managers and Company Success

Facility managers fit into the success model in two important ways. Several studies demonstrated the role of the facility, or work environment, and the services in creating a positive work environment in the minds of the employees. Specifically, employees bring an individually developed and unwritten set of expectations to the work place setting a benchmark of how they want to be treated and cared for by the company. Employees viewed the work setting and service they received as an extension of the level of care by management. Working in poorly heated (or cooled) spaces, or buildings that appeared shabby as compared to other comparable facilities nearby or in the same industry, set a bad example. Perceived poor service from support staff, such as maintenance personnel or cafeteria staff compounded the problem. Employees perceived the lack of attention in these areas, and a lack of amenities (wellness programs, on-site cafeteria, etc.) comparable in competing organizations, as a direct reflection on senior leadership and created negative attitudes in the minds of employees. Negative attitudes in employees often translated to poor treatment of customers of those client facing employees. Facility managers control these aspects of the work environment to a great degree, and therefore significant aspects of the success of the company through the attitudes of the employees (Bitner, 1992; Lin, 2004).

For example, facility managers directly impact the environment important to four work modes considered key in effectively leading today’s knowledge workers. These modes include spaces required to encourage employee focus, employee collaboration, employee learning, and socialization (Gensler 2008 Workplace Survey). Effective use of these environments translates to significantly improved performance. Top performing companies used learning, collaborative, and socializing modes over twice as much that average performing companies. All the survey respondents indicated an overall improvement in performance of 22 percent by incorporating the concepts important to a better designed workspace. The improvements resulted in levels of employee engagement and job satisfaction three times higher than average companies.

The facility manager’s knowledge and ability to leverage the work space design and quality of perceived service influences attitudes of employees and significantly impacts the bottom line. The manner in which the service staff treats clients, as established by the facility manager, greatly effects the attitudes of those served. Unquestionably, the facility manager influences the ultimate success of the organization in a very significant way.

Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

Sources:

Bitner, M. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, Vol 56, 57-71.

Gensler 2008 Workplace Survey

Lin, I. Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: The effect of cognition and emotion.Hospitality Management, 23, 163-178.

Towers Watson Offers Resolutions to Retain Talent, Engage Workers in 2011

Towers Watson, Professional Service Firms – Re-engaging and retaining employees, 2010

Towers Watson Strategies for Growth, Dec 2010

Watson Wyatt’s WorkUSA Survey Feb 2009

The business world has changed significantly over the past several decades.If we look at the overall evolution of business, the need to focus on leadership is clear.

Here are some of the key milestones:

• In the late 1800s there were very few large “business” enterprises or organizations - the railroads and the US Army were two of the largest.
• By the early 1900s, the manufacturing process was in full swing - Fredrick Taylor devised the scientific method approach to make the process driven business more efficient.
• WWI and WWII drove the emphasis on efficiency and large scale organizations, generally focused on skilled labor.
• IBM, GE and the automobile industry emerged with large organizations in the early part of the 1900s, generally employing the “command and control” model of management.
• Peter Drucker effectively wrote the first volume on modern management in 1954.
• The GI Bill sent many to college after WWII, resulting in a boom in MBA's in the 1960s and after (noting that the command and control model of management still ruled the day).
• Globalization of corporations happened in the latter part of the 1900s - they no longer were large national companies, but large international/global companies.
• The internet became a reality in the 1990s as did the proliferation of computers.
• Automation of manufacturing and the increase in education of the work force shifted manufacturing overseas (where labor was cheap) and gave rise to today's “knowledge worker.”

In short, business started out as farms and small shops. That evolved to a few large companies using command and control management. The work force was generally separated into skilled labor and managers (although few middle managers at first). After companies grew into international corporations with the advent of computers and the internet, skilled labor was replaced by knowledge workers as the dominant labor source.

In a workforce dominated by skilled labor, the most knowledgeable “plumber” becomes the leader in the plumbing shop. It's a matter of efficiency since the skill can be learned by others relatively easily.

In a knowledge-based work force, the leader of the shop may not necessarily know how to do the knowledge workers' job. The “boss” has to rely on the employees to know what they are doing to meet goals.

So, the management needed to evolve with the evolving work force. Under the skilled labor model, command and control (and the “fear of getting fired”) may have worked since a replacement could be found rather quickly. With the knowledge worker model, the demand for capable workers is high. Command and control no longer works. Innovation and creativity is now in the minds of the knowledge workers. Command and control must give way to effective leadership, focusing on effectiveness of the knowledge worker. And, effective leadership is a matter of behaving in a way that creates a positive work environment and maintains a positive attitude for the work force.

For leaders, it is critical to learn leadership approaches, styles, and behaviors and when to employ them.  The success of your company depends on it.

Tim Parker is a Business Consultant focusing on Executives and Leadership. He is President of Parker Resource Management, LLC in Raleigh, NC.

"What do you want to be remembered for?" - Peter Drucker