When in Doubt, Cut it Out

So you've found a cancer somewhere in your organization.  Perhaps it is criminal activity.  Maybe it is a violation of trust.  Or it could be something as inocuous as one employee systematically taking advantage of another.  The point is, you've discovered it and now it is time that heads must roll.

One of the questions you need to answer is -- how many heads?  How far do you need to go to completely eliminate the problem?

In my experience, you should go far enough to make sure you catch everyone involved.  Even those on the periphery.  Even if you're not 100% positive they were involved in the entire scheme.

I once discovered a determined effort on the part of an employee to make illegal shipments to an embargoed country.  It was clear who the ringleader was, and equally as clear what was going to happen to him.

He was going to be fired.

Unfortunately, there were two other employees involved on the periphery.  Without their cooperation, the scheme would have never worked.  But when interviewed, they claimed the lead conspirator (their boss) forced them to participate through threats.  And they claimed they were sucked into the scheme through ignorance -- believing the claims their boss made that the clandestine operation was completely in compliance with both law and company policy (an absurd, but still possibly true, claim).

I was sympathetic.  I could see how they might have been innocent bystanders.

And I kind of needed them.  Removing all three employees would have seriously damaged our capabilities in what was a small office.

So, rather than firing the two peripheral employees, I had a note added to their personnel file, and we allowed them to both continue in their jobs.

That turned out to be a mistake.

Keeping them on had a negative impact on morale at the location, as many of the employees there assumed the pair were deliberately and deeply involved in the legal violations.  Since the investigation was continuing, I didn't feel we could disclose all the facts in order to set the record straight, or even to rationalize our decision.

The lead conspirator, took a job with a competitor, and began assisting them in setting up a distribution network in the territories he formerly covered for us.  Within six months, both of his co-conspirators quit and joined him.  In the process, there was no telling what information they took with them -- information that ultimately proved damaging to our organization.

In hindsight, I should have fired all three of the participants in the scheme.  At the least, the two lower level employees showed extrodinarily poor judgment in the situation -- judgment that should have called into question their viability as managers.  At the worst, they had already tipped their hand as liars and cheats.

When you uncover corruption worthy of termination of employment, make sure you root out all of the corruption.  In the long haul, it will improve morale, and prevent you from being further victimized by unethical employees who have only their own interests at heart.  13.2

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013)-- note, the ebook version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time at Amazon for $4.99.

These novels are all based on extensions of my experiences as a senior manager in the world of public corporations.

Comply, Or Else

U.S. Embargo laws tend to be loom much larger for manufacturers than most service businesses.  Perhaps this is because the products themselves leave an obvious trail back to the companies that produced them.  Or perhaps it is because there is so much unique and cutting edge technology coming out of the United States that manufactured goods from here have a heightened desirability -- kind of a "forbidden fruit" aspect.

For whatever reason, if you are involved in an International U.S.-based business that manufactures products, or in one dealing in sensitive services such as consulting, you're eventually likely to hear from someone somewhere that your work product has found its way into an embargoed country.

When that rumor surfaces, think long and hard about what you'll do in response.  Because, you see, the U.S. government is serious about these laws, and if there is any chance at all there might be any truth to the rumors, you can expect every action you take (or failed to take) in response to be put under a microscope.  How serious are the laws?  Enormous fines.  Personal criminal penalties.  Jail time, potentially for you, personally -- at least if you ignore warnings, fail to take action, or turn a blind eye.

Learn the law.  Take the time to have an expert explain, in painful detail, how these laws work.  They aren't the same from one embargo to another.  Then put in place a compliance program.  You might not stop every violation with it, but your efforts to ensure compliance are definately worth something if the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan.

And never, ever, let the rumor of a violation come to rest on your desk without action.  Do that, and you are effectively shouldering the blame yourself (and providing cover for those above you in the organization).  Don't kid yourself into believing that by burying this kind of problem, you'll earn any loyalty from above -- senior execs will eagerly feed you to the government sharks to save their own skins.

I had several personal experiences with embargo rumors during my career.  The first one involved a possible sale of my division's products to a customer in Canada, of all places.  It seems this entity owned assets in Cuba, and had previously purchased goods in Canada for their operations to the south, thus earning blacklisting by the U.S. government.

Unfortunately, I soon learned that while my company was strictly forbidden by the U.S. government to sell to this company, Canadian law made it illegal for my Canadian-based sales manager to refuse to complete the sale if that refusal was based on the provisions of the U.S. law.  Catch 22.

To correct the situation, we had to set up a crazy system where all Canadian sales had to be referred to our U.S. office for final "approval" before a sales contract could be accepted.  The sole purpose of that "approval" was to check the customer's name against the blacklist.  Ultimately, this solution proved to be workable, but for a while we worried we might actually have to give up our Canadian sales office and its employees.

In another situation, my business was preparing to sue a former licensee, when the company threatened to turn over "evidence" that we had "authorized" them to sell into an embargoed country.  I knew it was a preposterous claim, and after examining the documentation behind this threat, we realized it was forged.

But the mere threat of getting the government involved led us to conduct our own forensic investigation, and it turned up a different, more incriminating document.  That document was an email from one of our salesmen to a customer in an embargoed country, telling the customer we would be unable to do business with him due to the provisions of the U.S. embargo.  That part of the email was fine.  The problem came when the salesman then referred the customer to a competitor in Europe who wouldn't face the same restrictions.  Yep, that was a violation, although the salesman had no idea it was against the rules.

In that instance, we weren't required to report that particular incident to the government, but in some ways I wished we would have since not doing so took the wind out of our sails.  As a result of that one email, we backed down in our lawsuit against the licensee, and that decision ultimately had major competitive repercussions.

In the worst incidence, which I won't go into here as it is too long and complex a tale, the business I was running lost millions of dollars when an internal investigation turned up a scheme to sell product into an embargoed country.  We also lost several key international employees, were forced to self-report the incident to the government, and had to sit on pins an needles waiting as the government decided what action (if any) to take.  It took years.

Fortunately, in that case, the government decided to let the statute of limitations run out without assessing a fine or engaging in their own investigation.

The bottom line is U.S. Embargo Laws are serious stuff.  Violations carry huge fines and potential personal criminal liability.  If you're selling your products or services internationally, you have to be prepared to deal with these laws.  To do so you must:

  1. Know the details of the laws.  What specific actions are permitted and prohibited?
  2. Set company policy so that you are clearly in compliance.  There are a few ways you can try to get "cute" with the laws (such as pretending you didn't see certain red flags), but I recommend you stay far, far away from these.
  3. Have a compliance program that documents your efforts to stay within the law on each and every sale.  Policy is nice, but this is where the rubber meets the road.
  4. Never, ever let any rumors or other evidence of violations come to rest on your desk -- at least not without a thorough investigation.
  5. Make sure every action you take, and every word you speak on this subject, is something you feel comfortable having printed in the newspaper, or repeated in church.

There really isn't any viable alternative.  Comply, or else.  13.1

 

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013)-- note, the ebook version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time at Amazon for $4.99.

These novels are all based on extensions of my experiences as a senior manager in the world of corporations.

Running to Mom (or Dad)

Conflict is a part of the fabric of Corporate life.  Divergent backgrounds, personalities, objectives, and priorities pretty much guarantee that at some point you'll find yourself in the midst of a battle with a superior, peer, or subordinate.

As a senior corporate manager, I came to expect it.  If an employee somehow managing to avoid all conflict, they weren't invested in the company, and probably were not a long-term keeper.

But I also recognized there was plenty of room for legitimate (and unfair) disagreement.  The trick is -- how to handle them.

When you enter into the realm of conflict management, there are many avenues open to you.  A few examples from among them:

 

  • Roll over and give in to your opponent's demands
  • Directly engage in negotiating a compromise
  • Get a neutral third party to broker a compromise.
  • Redoubling your efforts to win, and strengthening your arguments or coalition.
  • Try to discredit or otherwise damage the credibility of your opponent.
  • Take your disagreement up the chain of command.

The order I've arranged these options span the least to most risky choices.  Notice that I placed running to Mom/Dad (Taking your disagreement up the chain of command). last.  That's because, in my experience, it is often the riskiest and trickiest option to use successfully.

Why is that?

Because bosses, by the nature of their positions, hate to get involved in these kinds of conflicts.  They take emotional energy, waste time, and almost always seem like the should have been resolved without our direct involvment.  And we usually ascribe some of the blame for the situation to both parties, regardless of who is right and who is wrong (if that can even be determined).

Which means, even if you're dead right in the context of the conflict, you could still lose.  Maybe a little.  Or maybe a lot.

Likely casualties, when escalating a battle to superiors, include:  your reputation, favors owed, your next raise, promotion or lateral move, and in extreme cases, your job itself.

And yet, appealing to a higher authority is sometimes the only viable alternative.  In my last post 

"Me and my Big Mouth, er, I Mean Email"

I described a situation where I escalated a vitrolic email to my boss in an attempt to get him to settle a major conflict I had with a peer.  I ultimately "won" that battle.

But I left out part of the story.

My boss sat on the issue for months, taking no action.  During that time, bad feelings between our two organizations simmered just beneath the surface, occassionally boiling over.  Cooperation between the business units eroded. Nothing happened with the conflict, in fact, until it looked like the entire corporation would be in violation of SEC reporting rules without settling the issue.  As I'm sure you can guess, the situation had taken on much greater significance by then, becoming a career altering situation.  Definitely for one of us, if not both.

I managed to "win" that battle, but ultimately I lost something in the process -- my boss's respect for my ability to manage through conflict.  And probably a knock against his assessment of my intelligence.

Today, I would still handle the situation the same way.  Why?  Because my opponent gave me only one other option -- total capitulation.  Under that set of choices, I decided that fighting back -- even to the point of running to Dad -- was my best option.

So here is my advice when you find yourself in a situation with a persistent and seemingly unsolvable conflict:

 

  1. Exhaust your other options first.  Make sure you can't achieve a reasonable settlement of the dispute without taking it "upstairs."
  2. Lay the groundwork carefully.  Try to be objective about the correctness of your argument, or get someone else to validate it.  Make sure you're behavior in the matter is beyond reproach -- something you wouldn't be ashamed of seeing on the front page of the newspaper.
  3. Assess the likely risks you're taking.  How is the boss likely to react to being dragged into this mess?  Base your assessment on previous behavior, if possible.  Make sure the risks are worth taking.
  4. Play to win.  Use political capital with influencers.  Stack the deck in your favor.  Do whatever you can to make sure you win this high-stakes poker game.  When you go this far, you at least want to have the final judgment on your side.  While both of you may get dirt on you, the loser will almost certainly have more.

 

Run to Mom/Dad only as a last resort, reserving it for only the most critical of conflicts to resolve.  12.3

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013)-- note, the ebook version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time at Amazon for $4.99.

These novels are all based on extensions of my experiences as a senior manager in the world of corporations.

Me and my Big Mouth, er, I Mean Email

Ever say something you regretted.  If you haven't, you're probably mute.  If you're like me, after you make a verbal gaff by either saying something you shouldn't have, or failing to say something you wished you had, you mull those words (or lack, thereof) over in your mind time and time again.

I find it curious that I don't have the same reaction to the written word.

Perhaps it's because writing is already so much more contemplative.  In order to get a thought down on paper requires a certain amount of deliberate effort.  And if the writing is important, I usually go over it at least once.  Possibly, several times.

So I might not always get my spoken words right, but writing -- now that's a different story.

Or is it?

One place where people seem to write with the same reckless abandon with which they speak is in short messages -- emails, text messages, tweets, and the like.  This form of communication has a hybrid of written and verbal characteristics when it comes to forethought, preparation, and deliberation.

Which might be why so many people seem to make mistakes with them, first and foremost using them in emotion-laded exchanges.

Big problem when it comes to business communications.

Any electronic message has the fortunate (or sometimes unfortunate) characteristic of being permanent.  That means it can be easily copied to others, easily broken apart and taken out of context, and can become the subject of lengthy analysis and interpretation.  These things makes them absolutely unsuitable for use in emotional business battles.

Just ask any one of a number of celebrities who have had their "tweets" embarrassingly hit the news.

Any time you are putting any business communication into writing, make sure to take the time to think through how it might be viewed by others.  And how it might be used against you.

Leave out sarcasm.  Don't demonstrate that you're angry.  Certainly don't threaten, name-call, or berate.

I once had a peer who got into a huge battle with me over the price of goods being sold between our two business units.  After a short verbal exchange, I decided to take the next round onto email.  I was exceptionally careful, however, to write my email to be both concilliatory and factual, and I took great pains to make sure all elements of the argument in favor of my position were clear.  I must have read that email ten times, and tweaked it each time before finally sending it off.

I expected an emotional barrage in response, and wasn't disappointed.

My colleague's answer dripped with sarcasm, resorted to insults, and did nothing to state his counter-arguments.

A little later, that email exchange ended up in the hands of the corporate staffer who was asked to settle our dispute.  You can imagine how his childish outburst looked to our "judge."  Of course, the decision ended up going my way for the most part.

If he'd called me on the phone, or stopped me in the hall, and said all the same things, however, there would likely have been no consequences.  Even if I could have remembered all the sarcastic comments, I doubt I could have repeated them in a way that made the exchange seem like anything other than a spat between immature toddlers.  Without a record of the actual words used, the impact of them on outsiders would have been reduced to practically nothing.

Save your anger, your emotion, and your sarcasm, for verbal exchanges only -- and then deliver them when there are no witnesses or recordings.  And skip the name-calling completely.  In the long haul, it's better to put your foot in your mouth than it is to sign your own (career) death warrant via an embarrassing email. 12.2

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013)-- note, the ebook version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time at Amazon for $4.99.

These novels are all based on extensions of my experiences in the world of corporate management.

Does Analysis Lead Intuition, Or Is It The Other Way Around?

In courses on business, future managers learn about Net Present Value, Discounted Cash Flow, Return on Investment, Payback Intervals, and other useful concepts that can be used to analyze the attractivenss (or unattractiveness) of potential investments.

But do real, practicing executives actually use these analytical tools the way they are intended?  Or is something else going on?

Let me start by saying that one person's analysis is another's pipe dream.  Almost all financial analysis is built on assumptions about how things will go in the future.  Typically, the bigger the decision, the further into the future these assumptions extend.

In some cases (such as a well defined cost reduction, for example), it is possible to get pretty definitive figures to perform the analysis.  If you know that by investing in a new machine, you can reduce the scrap from a particular operation by 8.73%, you can probably compute a pretty accurate NPV for the project.  But even here, there are still assumptions that go into the analysis -- future volumes, cost to purchase the machine, installation and debugging costs, etc.  The thing that tends to make this type of short range analysis work well, is that none of the assumptions is likely to be too far off of the real outcome.

In such cases, analysis does seem to lead the decision-making process -- in most cases.  And analysis tends to dictate which projects are most attractive, and which are the highest priorities.

An acquisition analysis at the other extreme.

In mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, the time period for analysis is usually at least five years, and more often ten.  And at the end of the analysis period, there is normally an additional critical assumption about something called the "terminal value" of the contemplated investment, that can have a huge impact on overall valuation.  Additionally, assumptions about volumes, prices, costs and competive responses are built upon other assumptions, often about a product, market, and/or geography where you have, at best, imperfect knowledge.  I picture the financial model of an acquisition as a house of cards, precariously balanced and on the verge of coming crashing down with the smallest disturbance.

Is it any wonder, with all those assumptions, that more often than not, intuition leads analysis when making decisions on this type of investment.

What do I mean by that?  Simply that the sponsor(s) of the project FIRST decide that the deal is attractive, and they bend and twist the assumptions to come up with an answer that confirms that answer.  Often, the sponsoring executive even tries to craft a convincing argument as to why their assumptions are "conservative" or "worst case," when they definitely aren't.  Why?  Because the sponsor already covets the deal.

Not too many years ago, I witnessed an extreme example of this related to a greenfield factory.  The boss I was working for desperately wanted to build a new plant (this all happened before I arrived, offering me the  rare opportunity to critic without having any skin in the game).  The analysis used to justify the project had a terrific rate of return and NPV.  The board enthusiastically approved the project.  And then I entered the picture, and was handed this "developing opportunity."

The problem was, there were a few critical assumptions in the project that just didn't work.  For example -- the building, improvements, and equipment ended up much more expensive than what was assumed in the original justification.  It was also assumed that volume could be freely transferred to the new facility without a negative impact on absorption at the old one.  The most damaging assumption was a huge annual productive improvement -- a staggering 10% per year for five years!

In my experience, the only way to achieve that degree of productivity improvement is to either start at a very, very low productivity level (not the case here), or make some massive investments in tooling and equipment (not budged in this project).  As I tried to figure out how I was ever going to deliver on the promises my boss had made for the project, I was continually frustrated by other absurd assumptions made in the initial project -- assumptions that set expectations at an unreasonable level, and would have inevitably led to the project being labeled a "failure" no matter what I did.

How did it get that way?

All of the involved executives were intelligent.  And all of them were quite familar with the ins and outs of financial analysis -- perhaps too familar!  The problem was, the boss WANTED the new plant.  Intuitively, he had already decided it made sense.  He and other staff members manipulated the assumptions in the analysis to make sure the overall project showed the kind of return the board would fall all over themselves to approve.

In this case, the high risk assumptions were fairly obvious, and I think the board failed to do its job when it approved the project without really investigating things thoroughly.  But I've also seen clever executives bury critical assumptions so deeply in the analysis that you'd have to be a forensic accountant to find them.

The point is:  beware.  Try to avoid letting your intuition lead your decisions about major investments, and watch out for others who may be trying to slip one past you.  12.1

 

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013)-- note, the ebook version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time at Amazon for $4.99.

These novels are all based on extensions of my experiences in the world of corporate management.

If it Quacks Like a Duck...

"Jane, we're going to reassign your responsibilities on Project X to Tony.  You seem to have your hands full with Project Alpha, and it is critical that you're able to focus your attentions there and turn Alpha into a win."

"Justin, I'm going have the XYZ business unit report directly to me.  Phoebe, the general manager in XYZ, is ready for a promotion and I can't very well have a president reporting to a president."

Should Jane be worried?  Has Justin just passed the zenith of his career?

In my experience, the answer is an unequivocal YES!  Increasing scope and responsibility are the hallmarks of a career on the rise.  Decreasing scope and responsibility are certain indicators of decline.

Always.

In my more than twenty-five years in business, I've never seen an exception to this rule.  No matter what convenient story may be offered, no matter what excuses are made.

And while it doesn't necessarily mean that the end is inevitable, it should be a piercingly loud wake-up call telling you that you'd better turn things around fast.  Now.

So what should you do?

Never, ever argue about the decision.  It has already been made, discussed, vetted and approved, and no argument you can possibly make will reverse it now.  Arguing will just seem silly and childish, or possibly irritating.  Even a little is likely to anger your manager.

Instead, I recommend a three-fold approach.

1.  Turn on the afterburners.  Make sure that the turf you are still holding onto is managed to perfection.  Leave no stone unturned in your quest to succeed there.  No matter what else you do, if you fail with this you will be tossed out the door.

2.  Keep a watchful eye on how your former responsibility performs under new management, but be careful not to get overly aggressive pointing out mistakes.  You have to hope that the "newbie" does no better with it than you were doing -- at least that way it looks more like the position was the problem, rather than the person.

3.  Start looking.  You've already started down the slippery slope.  You'll land a better position on the outside if you leave on your own volition, rather than at the company's insistence.  You need a back-up plan because the future is, at best, uncertain. 

Read the actions, forget about the explanations.  If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...odds are a duck is exactly what you've got.  11.6

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES -- note, the ebook version of DELIVERABLES is on sale for a limited time at Amazon for $4.99.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

Living with Your Business Autopilot Engaged

Those who are fully committed to their careers tend not to be a particularly self-reflective group.

Most "career primary" types determine their goals and ambitions fairly early in their lives (becoming "the boss," or some variant thereof being the most common of these).  After this direction-setting decision, the deepest they normally go is to examine the practical decisions and tactics necessary to advance toward the goal.  As long as positive reinforcement continues (praise, awards, promotions, raises, etc.), indicating the person is still "on track," chances are the quest will continue on without measurable deviation.

What such people should do, however, is take time out on a regular basis to reflect on the goal itself.  Is becoming the CEO of a corporation shaping up to be everything you thought it would be?  Or are there aspects to the job you never really grasped, ones you don't particularly find appealing?  Is the path leading to such a job the right one for you?  Can you stomach the things you might have to do to get there?  Do you have the right natural combination of talents and personality to be successful?  Or do you seem to be trying to insert a square peg into a round hole, ignoring the pain as your "corners" chip and crack?

Such reflection is difficult.  It calls into question the meaning you've ascribed to many of your decisions and actions up to now.  It forces you to come to grips with who you really are, and not to continue to carry around an unrealistic picture of your "ideal self."  It may mean making tough decisions, and changes of direction that other important people in your life have difficulty understanding and accepting.

But most likely, it is coming at some point in time.  After all, how many people are running in the race for your coveted job?  How many can win it?  The odds are stacked against you.   At some point in time, you're likely to come face to face with the fact that your dream won't be realized.

And the longer you wait, the more abrupt and life-shaking that realization is likely to be.

I had my wake-up call at age 47 -- fairly early by most standards.  It started with a firing, which I managed to shrug off when another similar job came along a few weeks later.  But something was eating away at me on the inside.  My carefully adjusted autopilot had been disturbed, and was beginning to oscillate out of control.  I began to realize something was wrong, I just didn't understand exactly what it was.

I eventually found myself at a seminar one day, listening to a speaker talk about how we reinvigorated ourselves for the later stages of life.  How we could reconnect with people, goals and interests that were important to us in earlier times of our lives -- things that had typically been pushed to the side in the relentless quest for "the goal."

It was the right message at the right moment.

With the benefit of years of experience, better self-knowledge, and the recent traumatic firing that left me feeling strangely uncomfortable, I began to see that my career ambition was looking a lot more like a snipe hunt than the noble quest I had always envisioned it to be.

That started a process of reflection that ultimately changed my life.

But it doesn't have to happen that way for you.  You don't have to go so far down the road before your period of re-evaluation and reflection.  You don't have to leave it until late in the game to make a big adjustment -- you can perform these checks along the way, making smaller, incremental adjustments, and getting to the right spot sooner and less painfully.

Specifically, I recommend you do the following:

  • Take advantage of every opportunity for self-evaluation.  Tools, tests, advice, etc.  The goal should be self-knowledge for it's own sake, rather than to "make you a better manager."
  • Listen to frank feedback from others with an open mind.  You will begin to see things in yourself that you've been ignoring or minimizing for years -- things that might make your ultimate goal incompatible with who you really are.
  • Develop an appreciation of your core relationships, interests, loves, and pleasures.  Focus particularly on things once important to you that you've subsequently pushed aside.
  • Dedicate some quiet time at least once a year to reflecting on your ultimate goal, and seriously question your chances of getting there, and if you will really be happy when it happens.

While striving consistently and relentlessly to achieve a goal is an admirable business trait, it probably isn't serving you well as an individual.  Turn off your autopilot, at least once in a while, and make sure you're still headed toward a goal you eventually want to reach.  11.5

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES -- note, the ebook version of DELIVERABLES is on sale for a limited time at Amazon for $4.99.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

You're a Genius!

Brilliant until proven otherwise.

That seemed to be the rule at every employer where I was in upper management.  For some reason, the newest senior manager hired from the outside always seemed to walk in the door with a halo circling above his or her head.

Until it faded.

Sometimes it took only a few days, other times it would be a gradual process over years.  But fade, it did -- in every case.  And usually there were identifiable reasons for this.  Sometimes as obvious as a major error in judgment on a critical project.  Other times as innocuous as a misused word, or failing to grasp someone else's point quickly.

I've often thought about this strange phenomena.  Is it universal, or have I just stumbled across particularly fertile ground for it?  Is this rooted in human nature, or perhaps in particular person's weakness?  Is there any way to prolong the period of perceived genius?  Can it be exploited?

It seems to me that this "presumption of brilliance, and search for mistakes" has its basis in insecurity.  The initial reaction is one of caution.  "I wonder if she's smarter than I am?" is perhaps the underlying question on the minds of insecure peers and/or bosses.  The possibility pricks fragile egos, and leads to a lot of overbearing examination by those feeling threatened.  Then an event pops up which allows those destabilized by "the company's newest and smartest person" to conclude:  "Naw, he's not that clever."  Such an observation might be the result of a simple miscue, the misreading of a situation, or an inconsequential error.  The "audience," however, is searching for just this subtle indication of inferiority.

In some cases things stop there -- the new guy is no longer a threat, and can be considered "one of the group."  In others, I've seen peers, bosses, an even subordinates, begin to circle the person like vultures, hoping to pick him or her apart piece by piece.  It can be a disgusting display.

In one instance, one of my subordinates entered the company with the familiar genius halo, but soon afterward made a misinterpretation of a remark during a discussion with one of the senior corporate accountanting staffers.  Soon after this, I overheard the accountant whisper to the CEO, "Fred doesn't understand financial statements."  That led to a prolonged torture session at a subsequent presentation over the subject of proper inventory reserves by the CFO and CEO.  Probably the CEO verifying the "truth" about Fred.

The conclusion:  Fred was a dope.

Of course, I had hired Fred for his project management skills, not to be an accountant.  The label stuck, and Fred struggled for years afterward, trying to shed an irrelevant and cruel reputation.  Eventually, he quit and moved on -- probably the right move.

I've observed this pattern repeated time and time again, and have never seen anyone successfully avoid an ultimate demotion from the "genius" category.  Sometimes they stop at "average," but often the demotion becomes an express ticket to the "idiot" category.

But some senior managers stay geniuses longer, and others are able to dramatically exploit this phase of their time in a new company.

Prolonging your brilliance seems to mainly depend on avoiding mistakes.  Typical advice seems to hold up well here -- avoid topics you aren't strong in, carefully consider your comments before speaking, and know when to keep quiet.  I've also seen a few people succeed by boldly offering new, and sometimes controversial, opinions.  This has to be done carefully and confidently, and not everyone can pull it off.  If you can, however, it is likely to cause peers to continue to wonder about out (or maybe fear) you.

If you are willing to take big risks, the early period of employment is the perfect time to propose and implement big changes.  During this period, you are much less likely to be denied the opportunity to go forward with controversial projects -- after all, you're a genius!  While the risks are high with big changes, and you have to make a fast read of the situation in the business to get it right, those early days offer a huge opportunity to make your mark in the company.  Just remember, if you screw it up, the mark will be a big ugly one.

Be aware of the "genius" halo, and manage it as best you can to your advantage, because it won't be long before it fades away.  11.4

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES -- note, the ebook version of DELIVERABLES is on sale for a limited time at Amazon for $4.99.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

Winning Corporate Battles

My favorite bit if advice in Sun Tzu's The Art of War, is that "every battle is won or lost before it is fought."  Sun Tzu was referring to the preparation, positioning, and planning that make the difference in the success of a war.  That, and knowing when to refuse to fight.

Corporate "battles" usually consist of behind the scenes politicing, and only rarely break out into visible "combat." Nevertheless, Sun Tzu's sage advice still applies -- you have to carefully think through the entire scenario, including how you could win (or lose), and how your opponent is likely to act before you engage in a pitched battle.  Otherwise, you're likely to be on the receiving end of a defeat that could include a damaged reputation or even termination.

I personally preferred to get my opponents into a spot where their only option is to do what I wanted, or suffer worse consequences.  These usually result in "bloodless" victories, but not always.

For example, I once got into an ongoing conflict with one of my peers over interdivisional pricing.  He supplied product to me, and wanted to significantly raise the price.  I had an easy solution to the problem -- make the product myself -- but it was not a great solution from the perspective of my boss. Making the product myself was cheaper for me, but it would have added significant transportation costs to the corporation if I went that direction.  What I really wanted was for the current arrangement to continue.  So rather than calling his bluff by taking the business away from him, I sent a polite email detailing why I didn't think his demand for a price increase was "fair", and also describing why my internalizing the work was a bad idea for the company as a whole.  He replied with a nasty email, and eventually both notes ended up on the desk of our mutual boss (which I had anticipated for the beginning), who settled the dispute in my favor.

The point is -- I could see where this was going right from the start, and I laid out a plan to make sure I would win the battle with minimal casualties (damage to my reputation).  I could have very easily agreed to my peer's demands for the price increase, and then made a big deal about the lack of comparability year on year in my own business, but that was a less attractive option.  In this case, it was better to fight, and critical to have a winning strategy before the battle began.

One of my former bosses wasn't quite so insightful.  He declared war on his own boss (our company CEO) by having a private meeting with the board's lead director where he explained why he would be a better choice to run the company.  Unfortunately for him, he had lost the war as soon as he decided to fight this particular battle.  The CEO had an excellent performance record, and he spent plenty of time managing his relationships with the board members -- particularly with this lead director.  There was no way the usurper was going to ever convince the director that the CEO was a bad choice for the job, and there was even less of a chance he'd persuade the man that he would be the ideal replacement.

The lead director called the CEO right after the meeting, and explained to him what my former boss wanted, and gave the CEO permission to get rid of him.  That's how he became my former boss.

Proper planning, strategy,and  execution of your political battles is essential to preventing a painful loss.  If you don't have a winning plan, then if all possible, you should avoid fighting the battle.  11.3

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

The Tone at the Top

Corporate Leaders impact a business in numerous ways, but one of the most important is the standard they set for interaction between management team members.

Find an organization rife with conflict, and you can almost guarantee the CEO encouraging it.  If the firm is hyper-competitive, chances are high the boss is as well.  And if the senior management team works together well, in a fractionless and cooperative fashion, most likely the company leader treats them as peers and team members rather than as lackeys.

Corporate leaders set the tone for the organization in a number of ways.  Managers who want to "get ahead" tend to watch the leader, and do what she does.  Those whose styles hopelessly conflict with the CEO's tend to leave the company (or are asked to leave).  New recruits, to the degree possible, look for organizations that operate in a way as close as possible to their comfort zone -- although, I've noted before there are many reasons a person might find themselves in an organization where they don't fit.

As a practical matter, what does this mean for the average management employee?

Watch the CEO and other top officers, and judge how they conduct themselves.  What tone are they setting at the top for the organization at large?  Is their way compatible with your way?  Can you hammer yourself into that mold?  If the answer is "no," you might consider getting out, or at least staying far enough down the management ladder that you don't have to become a CEO clone to progress.

When you consider a new employer, ask a lot of questions about the leadership style.  How aggressive is the CEO in meetings?  Does he yell?  Does she make it personal?  Do assignments often devolve into contests?  Does the leader roll up her sleeves and get into the work herself, or does she step back and act as jury (and executioner)?  It may be challenging to get good answers, but be persistent -- this is your life and pursuit of happiness you are taking into your hands when you change jobs!  Pick a company with a tone as close to your natural comfort zone as possible.

One CEO I worked for was a screamer.  Meetings with him rarely ended in any way other than expletive shouting , fist clenching, and neck vein bulging.  That tone traveled through the management team with many imitators trying to "one up" the big boss.  If you thrive on that kind of thing, so be it, but I hated it.

Another corporate leader was consultative.  I always felt I was on the inside of everything going on, and my opinion counted.  People worked together in a low conflict way that validated our contributions.  That particular tone brought out the best in me, and I was able to achieve more in my role there than in almost any other in my career.

I also had a boss who was a huge conflict avoider.  He left a vacuum which encouraged all kinds of errant behavior on the part of others in senior managers.  The environment ranged from paternalistic to highly disfunctional, depending on who's personality was holding sway at any given moment.

Another CEO was a micro-manager.  You can probably imagine what this tone at the top did to interactions up and down the management ladder.  Lots of CYA action, plenty of over-management of subordinates, and a good deal of fear and suspicion permeating typical interactions.

I always wondered if these leaders were blind to their tones, or if they thought they were doing something that was adding value by continuing to stress them.  Maybe changing the tone was simply beyond them, although at least one of the leaders, I know for a fact, was "acting" most of the time.

In my experience, the tone at the top doesn't change until the leader changes, and then it is only a "maybe."  And the change takes time.  If the old leader was "successful" in the mind of the board (who are normally blissfully ignorant of the company tone), then the successor is likely to be a carbon copy of the former leader.  Even when boards want to "change things," their lack of connection to the tone of the company makes it likely they will still select someone in the old paradigm.

Assess the tone at the top, and make sure it is an environment where you can flourish.  If it isn't, you should either consider leaving the company, or adjusting your expectations/ambitions.  11.2

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

Expressing Interest in a Promotion.

You might think there is little that could be wrong with saying that someday you would like a senior executive job three rungs further up the ladder, but as is true with a lot of other sensitive situations, such an expression of interest can be easily muffed.

What could go wrong?

You could sound impatient, giving people the impression that you expect to be promoted before they think you're ready.

You might sound wistful -- as if you were expressing a birthday wish that you didn't really expect to come true.

You might be completely unrealistic given your current position, experience, and recent performance, which could cause people to judge you're out of touch with reality.

You might be so ham-handed in your statement that you convince those higher up you are insensitive or can't read situations.

Your ambitions might even threaten other executives.

Yes, a lot can go wrong.  But at the same time, if you don't express your interestin some way, how will anyone know you want to move up?  The answer is, you express your ambitions with finess, and to do that, you follow some basic rules...

Work from strength, rather than weakness.  You do this by expressing your interest on the wave of a big personal success.

Ask for advice.  Asking what a senior executive thinks you need to do to reach a certain position is a lot more palatable than just stating it as an expectation.

Be realistic.  If you're not sure, ask friends or peers before taking a risk with senior management.

Keep time frames indefinite, but not open ended.  Too specific, and people will think you're on some kind of a timetable, too vague, and your ambition sounds more like a wish.

Point at positions out of your direct chain of command.  Even if that's not ultimately what you want, it will be less threatening to all concerned.

Make the expression part of normal conversation, not an "event."  Don't ever make an appointment with someone much higher in the company to "discuss what you can do to get ahead."

I once had a subordinate several levels down in the organization who broke most of these rules.  He actually made an appointment to see me in my office to ask "what he could do to get ahead" and then proceeded to tell me he wanted my job sometime in the next 3-5 years (a totally unrealistic ambition).  This very odd meeting was timed to co-incide with a particularly rough time in the project he was currently supervising.  The entire encounter felt more than a little strange, and I concluded at the end of it, that there was no way I could ever accommodate his expectations.

Needless to say, I worked hard to become less dependent on him over the next six months, and ultimately let him go when a downturn gave me a good reason to do so.  11.1

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

When You Threaten to Quit...

I'm often amused when watching employees ask for a raise on TV or in film.

There are a few ways this appears to be done in the fictional world -- perhaps you storm into the boss's office, pound the table, and demand more money, or maybe you timidly creep in and beg.  In a few instances, the employees have material to use to blackmail the boss.

In the real world, I've rarely heard of any of these approaches used to wrangle a raise -- in fact, the last one would have immediately resulted in the employee being fired as I would have never submitted to blackmail.  (I admit, however, there might be some bosses out there who have something in their past that makes them a more vulnerable target.)

But there is an approach, that, when used with the right touch, did cause me to grant raises.

Threatening to quit.

For this tactic to work properly, the employee first had to have a realistic picture of their value to the company.  I believe I've stated this before, but somewhere around 90% of employees seem to think they are in the top 10% of performers.  But, of course, 80% of them are wrong.  And even if you are a top performer, you might not be an employee that the organization is critically dependent on.  Clearly understanding where you stand should help you plan this action (or turn away from it) more effectively.

If you're really a critical employee and a top performer, you're clear to move on to the next step.  If not, when you threaten to quit, the response is likely to be:  "don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out."

Even if you're the number one employee in the company, before you say a word, you better have a back-up plan.  That means some other way to earn a living in case your bluff is called.  Before you go in demanding more money do your homework.  You might just find that you're actually paid competitively, now.

Next, you need to get word to the key decision maker (probably not your direct boss, but someone further up the ladder), that you need to be paid more.

This is best done indirectly.

Whenever someone came into my office and demanded, begged, or argued for more money, I was immediately oppositional.  No matter how it happened, I couldn't escape the feeling that there was a threat involved.  And since I was the focus of their appeal, I often felt like there was thinly veiled criticism of my decision making up to that point, as well.  That never set well.

Instead, talk to someone in management that is outside of your direct chain of command.  Mention that you're frustrated over your pay level, and are thinking the only way to get it addressed is to look for something different.  Then step back and wait.

Most managers will bring that message to the key decision maker.  If the thought was pitched correctly, what gets back to the decision maker is something like:  "that Janet feels she's being undercompensated, and might be looking around for something else."

One of three things will likely next happen:

  1. Within the next year (perhaps immediately, perhaps at the next scheduled raise/review) you'll get a sizable increase.  It is quite possible nothing will actually be said to you about the situation at all, other than a big increase coming through.
  2. You'll be called in and asked about the situation -- in which case you need to be very circumspect and definitely focus on all the things you love about job, boss, company.  Under this scenario, you're likely to get an answer sooner, but it is less likely to be favorable.
  3. You're invited to leave immediately.  Once again, your back-up plan is critical.

Most managers I've worked with, when given the choice between being forced to do something "or else," will always pick "or else."  To perform this maneuver with the lowest risk possible, you need to do everything in your power to make sure it doesn't feel like a confrontation.

Even if you're so critical to the buiness that you know there is no way the boss can refuse your demand (much less, fire you), don't be tempted to confront.  Managers can be patient, and I can almost guarantee that the day you confront him/her, will be the day the manager develops a long term plan to become less dependent on you.

The very best job of wrangling a raise I've ever seen happened when a critical technical employee casually mentioned to a manager in a different department how much people with his background seemed to be making in the local market.  The manager drew his own conclusions and then came to me, and shortly afterward, with the help of the HR manager and some data, we gave the employee a sizable raise.  No one felt forced or coerced.

In an approached that worked, but only short term, one of my direct subordinates had a "casual" conversation about wage levels and opportunities with my boss.  The boss  called me later, and suggested I grant the subordinate an increase, which I did.  But I never forgot that the subordinate used my own boss against me, and when I needed to pick a couple of subordinates to let go in a lay-off, that one was at the top of my list.  And while there were other reasons for the selection, part of my rationale was the way the subordinate had tried to manipulate me and might do so again in the future.

Yes, you can convince management to give you a raise under certain circumstances.  You need to operate from a position of strength, but with a very light touch, however, if you don't want to end up out the door sooner or later.  10.4

Other Recent Posts:


If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

We're All Hypocrites. Except Me, Of Course?

Human beings appear to be uniquely constructed to ignore our own hypocritical behaviors, and at the same time, seem to easily spot the hypocrisy of others.

I recently read an article on the subject of bias in decision making that pointed out, when it comes to our own beliefs and behaviors, we tend to ignore information that contridicts our preconceived notions, and have no problem rationalizing behaviors that are inconsistent with what we espouse.  For whatever reason, we filter out our own inconsistent positions, ideas, behaviors, and interests.

In fact, if the article is to be believed, pretty much everyone is guilty of one form of hypocracy or another.

And it is ironic that while we are so bad at identifying our own inconsistent behaviors, people seem to recognize them in others without difficulty.

As a manager, there are two things to take away from this -- that you probably have some inconsistencies between what you advocate and what you do, and people are pretty well tuned into seeing them even though you don't necessarily recognize them yourself.

In fact, as a manager, executive, or other leader, people are watching you a lot closer than they do others.

Have you ever noticed what happens when someone uncovers one of those hypocritical elements? It is often used to try to invalidate much of what the "hypocrite" says -- especially if whati was said is something unpopular with the listener.  And if the hypocritical element can somehow be twisted to appear to be self-serving (or if it actually is self-serving), it's potency increases by an order of magnitude.

For example, when Al Gore was advocating reductions in CO2 emissions in order to slow global warming, many people commented about the hypocracy of his lifestyle (private aircraft, large home, etc.).  And while the fact that there was hypocracy involved (for whatever reason) in this, it didn't make him wrong.  But I've heard numerous people mention it in an attempt to invalidate his position, and it definitely damaged his credibility.  The net effect was to often prevented more serious consideration of his message.  [disclaimer:  While I'm not a climate change denyer, I did not, and still do not, agree with Gore's proposed course of action.]

In the business environment, we see this kind of thing happen a lot.  A supervisor is "unfair" because she grants a vacation request to a perceived ally, and rejects one for someone she is perceived as not liking.  While there may be perfectly valid reasons for the action, that is rarely the conclusion drawn by her subordinates.  And we have to remember, my hypothetical supervisor might very well have a personal reason for the preference she is showing in the above example, and not even realize it.  As I originally argued -- it is much harder to spot this kind of thing in yourself than in others.

Once a manager is branded as "hypocritical" (or, more commonly, unfair), the observation erodes credibility, authority, and trust.  Even small transgressions are then extrapolated by employees to be a damning representation of a flawed character.  In other words, the manager losses the benefit of the doubt.

This is exactly why consistency -- particularly, where your own personal interests could be interpreted as being involved -- is of paramount importance to leaders.

How do you make sure you aren't labled a hypocrite?  Here are some suggestions --

  • Be aware that your own behaviors are probably a blind spot for you, and think hard about how your decisions, actions, and statements may be consistent (or inconsistent) with the rest of what you do.
  • Whenever a decision might have a personal impact on you -- even if it is third order -- bounce it off of someone you trust to check for how is likely to be seen and interpreted by others as hypocritical.
  • If someone says you're being unfair or hypocritical, take it seriously.  Don't just aggressively defend yourself, but really try to step back and see it from the perspective of others.
  • If you think you've made a mistake, admit it and ask for forgiveness.  Since we all make these kinds of errors, you'll disarm criticism by fessing up.

If you work hard to be consistent, and recognize your own pitfalls, you can continue to build trust and credibility, which in the long run will make you a much more effective executive.

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

Unknown Corporate Enemies

"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you."  Joseph Heller, Catch 22.

...Or that you don't have enemies, as one of my former bosses used to say.

We all face opposition to our ideas, efforts, and agendas in day-to-day business activities.  Usually our opponents are easy to identify, and conduct much of their maneuvers out in the open.  With a little ingenuity and effort, they can often be counteracted.

Sometimes, however, there are hidden opponents acting against you.  An unknown enemy strikes using unexpected tactics, delivered through unsuspected agents, and clandestinely undermines you.  And the worst part:  Considerable damage can be done before you are even aware there is anything wrong.

I've seen this done many times, and I've also been a victim.

One of my direct reports once crossed a corporate staffer.  I'm not ever sure he knew exactly he'd done to create such hostility, and I was never privy to details of the initial offense, but whatever happened was enough to produce an enemy.  Rather than confronting my subordinate, however, the staff member conducted an undercover campaign to discredit him.  I became aware something was going on when she remarked to me: "Kevin seems remarkably unknowledgeable about accounting and finance for so senior a manager."

I'd seen nothing to indicate the weakness, and defended my employee.  But I could tell there was more to this than met the eye.  I later learned that the same comment had been repeated to the company's CEO and CFO, and given the corporate culture, the two of them poked and prodded at every opportunity to see if my subordinate would trip up and make a mistake, thus proving the staffer right.  I knew it was only a matter of time before some weakness was uncovered and exploited – regardless of its significance or relevance to doing his job effectively.

Besides defending the subordinate, the only other thing I could do was to let him know (confidentially) the source of the hostility.  That gave him the opportunity to address whatever problem existed between the two of them, and ultimately stopped the witch hunt.  It is important to note that without being able to identify the enemy force, my subordinate would have never been able to end his persecution.  Ultimately, it would have likely cost him his job.

In the situation where I was a victim of an unknown enemy, my opponent was not quite as clever.  He was a subordinate several layers down in the organization who seemed to get his jollies by starting outrageous rumors -- some of them targeted at me.  Nevertheless, the situation had potential to be quite damaging to my reputation, and initially I was frustrated at not being able to identify the person responsible.

I did some serious investigating and eventually one of my allies in the company pinpointed the source of the rumors.  All it took was for him to realize I knew he was behind the gossip to get it to stop.  He eliminated any temptation I might have felt to retaliate by quitting a few weeks later.

In both instances, and many more I've experienced/observed over the years, fighting back against an unknown opponent was proved to be impossible.  That is why the first thing you must do once you realize you have an unidentified enemy is to do everything possible to discover their identity.  Once you've got your enemy in your sights, you can develop a reasonable strategy to end their assault and repair any damage.

 

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

How to Handle Gossip

Gossip -- most managers become the object of it, hate it, yet handle gossip by basically ignoring it.

The best way I found to address gossip is head on.  Almost without exception.

There are at least two reasons for this.

  1. Silence gives those on the inside of the rumours a point of leverage that they can (and very well may) use against you.  When they can threaten to reveal the truth behind the gossip -- and often times there is a kernal of truth there -- it gives them power over you.  By addressing gossip head on, you remove or eliminate this point of leverage.
  2. Gossip loves a vaccuum.  In the absence of being addressed by management, gossip tends to snowball, becoming more and more incredible with each retelling.  It is a sort of "telephone game" for adults.  By addressing gossip, you place some boundaries around the subject which normally will limit the insanely stupid levels that rumours will sometimes escalate to.

Here are a couple of cases in point. 

  • At one of my former employers, we had recurring rumours running through the workforce every year that there would be no wage increases.  The stories were based, as far as I could tell, on a single instance that had occurred more than ten years before.  But people have long memories, and the employees were confessing their own fears through the gossip surrounding this subject.  The problem was, I had a tough time addressing the rumours early on because they inevitably began before management even started considering the question of wage increases.

So here is how I addressed this -- during an all employee meeting (where I always asked the employees to identify the rumours -- which they rarely did -- and I would address them) I took the employees through the factors management would consider when thinking about wage increases.  Things like our business performance, actions of other employers in the area, and the likely positions of the other divisions of the company (that also needed to agree with my management team's opinion).  While I couldn't say definitively what the increase would be, I could normally make it clear to the employees that there was a process in place to work through this, and management fiat would not rule the day when it came time to make the final decision.

While I felt this helped quite a bit, it never completely stamped out the gossip.  The only thing that silenced it was the actual announcement of the increase.  And the next year, the same set of stories would again raise their ugly heads. 

  • In my second example, I was the direct subject of the gossip.  In this case, the story when it reached my ears was completely outrageous -- that for every 100 employees my business unit laid off, the company would provide me a new car!  And this rumour had it's origins in my salaried support staff, rather than in the shop where I would have expected it to come from.

The problem was, I could kind of see how this rumour might have gotten started.  First, I had just recently taken delivery of a new flashy car -- one I'd ordered almost a year earlier.  And we were going through a larger than usual seasonal layoff due to some disappointing sales numbers.  Even though I thought the story was outrageous and completely unbelievable, I could sort of see how employees might connect the two things.

In our next regular review meeting, I took a few minutes to repeat the rumour to the group (which included most of our salaried staff), and explained how the car had been ordered a year ago, and was not a reward for laying off employees.  I'm sure some of the folks in the room didn't believe me, but by then I think I had a pretty good track record established of always telling the truth when in front of people.

That move squelched the rumour and, in fact, delivered the source of the story to me as well.  One employee, disgusted by the utter stupidity of the tale, informed me who had started the whopper.  I didn't use that information against the employee in any way, but I do admit I was predisposed afterward to suspect that individual when wild rumours circulated.

So, while not a perfect solution, hitting those rumours head on definitely helped me manage them.  I must say, however, that to be believed the manager has to be unerringly truthful with their employees, and also very forthcoming when they know something,  suspect something might happen, or when they really don't know.  One error here will take many, many accurate revelations to be offset.

Of course, there are some circumstances where you simply can't meet the rumour head on -- when it involves confidential information, when doing so might injure an employee, or when you'd be forced to speculate about someone else's motives.  In those circumstances, a simple "I don't know" or "I can't say" may be the best you can do. 10.1

 

 Other Recent Posts:

Hold Your Praise and Criticism

When to Pull the Plug on an Employee

Getting What You've Always Gotten

The Boss's Widget

Backchannel Communication

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

Hold Your Praise and Criticism

 Over the years I've had quite a few problem employees.

Some were good performers, but socially challenged -- meaning they couldn't get along with their peers.  Some were hard workers that had one or twof fatal flaws that were going to make long term success a challenge.  Others were mediocre performers (or worse) that seemed to have convinced others they were stellar, and thus valuable beyond measure.  Some had no real clue if they were good or bad, and usually didn't want any feedback on the subject.

Dealing with these problem employees was often challenging enough by itself, but what really turned things into a three ring circus was getting my boss in the middle of it.

Over a number of years, I learned the hard way to keep my "boss commentary" as close to "down the middle" as possible when it came to subordinate's performance.

In one early incident, I recall mentioning that a particular direct report had:  "...managed the development of many of our current products."  When discussion turned to his complete inability to maintain a schedule or keep his commitments, however, my boss was willing to forgive those flaws because of the way I'd previously praised his track record.  Of course, he wasn't interested in giving me a pass on schedule or performance.  I ended up responsible for the outcomes, but forbidden from making the change that would have had the most impact on the improving the results.

In another incident, I casually mentioned that a particular direct report seemed a little slow on the uptake.  This employee was a strong performer, and I was quite happy with his contribution, but the impression this comment caused seemed to hang around his neck like an albatross.  The boss missed no opportunity to try to upstage and embarass the employee in public settings.  I was eventually subjected to interrogations on a regular basis by the boss concerning when I would be firing him.

I've mentioned this observation before, but it bears repeating -- managers have limited time, and tend to form opinions of others rapidly, as a result.  The higher in the organization you go, the quicker the manager tends to pass judgment, and the less likely they are to accept the possibility they are wrong (perhaps this can at least partially be blamed on "leader-worship" and a general unwillingness of anyone to challenge the top executives).

That's why it is best to keep most of your opinions about your key people to yourself.  Only offer criticism or praise when you're sure you can deal with the likely consequences of the boss'es meddling -- such as when you already plan to make a change, or a promotion.  9.3

 

Other Recent Posts:

When to Pull the Plug on an Employee

Getting What You've Always Gotten

The Boss's Widget

Backchannel Communication

Doling Out Raises

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

When to Pull the Plug on an Employee

In a hiring seminar, the instructor offered the following bit of shocking data:

He asked us to guess how much time normally elapsed between the moment a manager knew with certainty an employee was not going to make it in their job, and when the actual action (firing, reassignment, etc.) was taken .

When I heard the question, I thought back to my own experiences.  Usually, this situation began with hints of problems -- hints that I normally tried to ignore.  Eventually, enough evidence would stack up against the person, that I couldn't justify or overlook it anymore.  Once I came to grips with these facts, there was always a delay prior to taking action -- for any one of a number of reasons.  I might decide it would be difficult to find a replacement, or a change might derail an ongoing project, or perhaps the impact on other employees would be negative.  The list of reasons (rationalizations, really) was long, and they only worked at delaying the inevitable.

I estimated that the first half of the timetable (the interval from "hints" to "certainty") might be as much as a year.  But the instructor was only asking about the second half (the interval from "certainty" to "action") only.  For this part of the timetable, I guessed a typical delay might be as long as six months.

I was astounded to find out that this part alone alone took 18 months on average!  That's a year and a half of wasted time.  Add that to the one year it took from the first hints of issues, and 30 months would be an average delay.  And to add further injury, suffering through the delay usually meant tolerating substandard performance.  All because the manager was trying to convince himself, and muster the courage to take action.

All those rationalizations really come down to one thing -- not wanting to face up to the fact that unpleasant action needs to be taken.  Holding onto hope that something would change in the employee (unlikely) or that the manager would change their assessment (equally unlikely).

I then asked myself if I'd ever concluded someone was unable to handle the job, and subsequently changed my mind.  The answer was no.  In fact, I soon realized that once the first hints started coming -- somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 years before action would normally be taken, Ihad never seen a reversal.

Never.  Not once.

I also saw that the rationalizations I was using to justify my delays, when examined in 20/20 hindsight, were never valid.  Never was it better to live with poor performance just because I didn't want to take the time to search for a replacement.  The mismatched employee never pulled off the project they were assigned, so worrying about changing horses in midstream was unnecessary.  And the other employees always wondered what had taken me so long once I finally did act.

Delays were just my way (and, apparently the way of most managers) of dealing with unpleasantness and doubts.

After that, I adopted a new credo -- as soon as I recognize the first hints of problems, take action.  Don't wait for certainty.  Don't rationalize and delay.

I've never regretted it.

I've still slipped up a time or two, but in hindsight, the credo would have been valid if I hadn't.  And I might have stubbornly disagreed with the assessment of some of my bosses, holding onto employees they thought should go -- undoubtedly to my own detriment.  But I've tried to stay true to my credo.

The time to pull the plug on an employee is simple to identify.  It is the first time you find yourself asking:  "Am I going to have to take action on this person?"  Any time afterward is just delaying the inevitable.  9.2.

 

Other Recent Posts:

Getting What You've Always Gotten

The Boss's Widget

Backchannel Communication

Doling Out Raises

Embargo Laws Can Ruin Your Whole Day

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

Getting What You've Always Gotten

Most people have a quirk or two.

I recall a product manager who once worked for me with a handlebar mustache, and a corked pot on his desk that said something like "Smelly Farts."  His quirks were quite visible, as he proudly displayed them.

Most employees learn to hide their quirks, rightly realizing they won't be appreciated, and might even be career limiting.  If you look closely, those behavior tend to peek out around the edges.  They pop out in stressful situations, or sneak out when the employee's guard is down.  No matter how well applied the the facade, employees can't seem to keep them completely under wraps.

All quirks are not created equal.  Some are horribly offensive, where others are mildly remarkable.  One manager I knew had a habit of pulling out a nail clipper and trimming his fingernails at times when the person speaking to him wasn't moving quickly enough.  Rude -- yes, but short of horribly offensive.  Another manager was a perfect gentleman 99% of the time, but inside he was holding back irritation and anger to the point of boil over.  The result were infrequent but unpredictable explosions of rage.  That quirk proved to be destructive in many ways.

One thing I can pretty much guarantee -- whatever quirks the an employee shows as an individual contributor, are likely to increase substantially when that person enters management.  And the higher up the person rises, the more likely the quirk is to surface with greater regularity and intensity.

It is one of the limiting factors for many managers.  As they reach higher in the organization, the normal limits to such behaviors (peer disapproval, fear of their boss's reaction, internal concern over making noticable mistakes) tend to recede into the background.  With fewer limiters, the errant behaviors come out more often.

One case in point -- an individual contributor in one of my organizations was a solid performer, but exhibited a few quirks.  He tended to reverse his opinions on a dime, often based on the latest bit of customer feedback he'd received.  He also sometimes seemed unnecessarily argumentative.  I forgave him these quirks, telling myself that he was showing me his openness to hearing new input and would revise his opinions accordingly, but that once he formed a well-reasoned opinion, he defended it.

Eventually, he was promoted.

As a manager, he was stubborn -- often arguing for his position regardless of the quality of evidence to the contrary.  He started to believe in his own infallibility -- relying heavily on his own gut feel, and disregarding opinions of others.  As a manager, he also continued to change directions rapidly -- often surprising his peers to the point of frustration.  Yet overall, he still managed to perform well.

As a result, I promoted him to Vice President.

At that level he became unmanagable.  He fought constantly with his peers, laying traps for them, and angering them at every turn.  He became a soothsayer, always inclined to believe his own prognostications and completely ignoring the evidence and data put forward by others.  He was combative, willing to fight over anything, no matter how trivial.  He changed directions daily, never consulting with anyone, and expecting everyone to go along with his lead no matter how much finished work it disrupted.

What had started as quirks became big behavioral problems.

I've seen the same pattern repeat itself time after time.

So if you contemplate promoting that individual contributor into a management role, or that manager higher up the ladder, expect to get exactly what you've gotten before when it comes to quirks -- except for quantity and intensity, where you'll most likely get more.  Much more.

Other Recent Posts:

The Boss's Widget

Backchannel Communication

Doling Out Raises

Embargo Laws Can Ruin Your Whole Day

Anchor Your Expansion to a Stable Platform

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

The Boss's Widget

The Boss’s Widget

Not every boss will have a widget – a bit of management practice they feel they invented or perfected – but most will.  These widgets can range from the way information is presented on a particular report, to the way meetings are conducted, to how employee reviews are scored.  Widgets are often a tool that helped the boss out of a tough situation in the past, and are often (ususally) applied to anything and everything that remotely resembles that past situation, regardless of whether it is a good fit.

To a hammer, the whole world appears to be filled with nails.

It is absolutely critical for employees to identify the boss’s widget.

This isn’t because your particular boss’s widget represents the best of the best when it comes to management practices, and it isn’t necessarily because you want to suck up to the boss.  Rather, recognizing those widgets will help you separate what you can change from what you can’t.  When it comes to a prized widget, don't mess with it.  You must accept it for what it is, and not attempt to improve it.  Bosses have a pride in authorship that will inevitably be damaged by monkeying with their favorite invention.

Next, learn the widget.  Become a student of it.  You will be called upon repeatedly to use this widget, so you should become as proficient at it as is humanly possible.  For extra credit, try to identify additional places where it can be applied.

And remember, criticism of the boss’s widget is equivalent to criticism of the boss.  Though you may be tempted to do it – don’t.  It will only cause you grief and trouble.

One of my boss’s had a monthly management review process that he’d crafted.  While it didn’t necessarily help him out of a jam, he felt this widget had led to his eventual promotion, and needless to say, he was quite attached to it.

In my viewpoint, it was management 101 – nothing particularly special about it, not applicable to all situations, and improvable with tweaking to fit the situation.  Unfortunately, was pretty vocal in this viewpoint -- open mouth, insert foot.

A peer, one who was a bit more politically savvy than I, applied this particular widget with an almost religious zeal.  I once heard him explaining to the boss how much easier and more effective it made his management team, and what a wonderful invention it was.

Guess who was managing their boss more effectively?  Guess who was (at that time) held in higher esteem?  Guess who was number one on the succession chart?

That’s right, the guy who was, by adopting and complimenting the widget, indirectly flattering the boss.

In this example, things later evened out along other dimensions, but I learned a valuable lesson that day:  you help yourself by faithfully implementing your boss’s widget, and harm yourself by criticizing or tinkering with it.

Other Recent Posts:

Backchannel Communication

Doling Out Raises

Embargo Laws Can Ruin Your Whole Day

Anchor Your Expansion to a Stable Platform

Keep Your Distance

If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

 

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.

Backchannel Communication

Having once worked for a boss who would NEVER  tell his subordinates what he really thought, taught me the value of paying attention to backchannels.  Once I became aware of them, however, I began to see they were a critical part of information gathering in every organization.  These conduits exist in all large organizations, but the decision still remains with the individual whether or not they use them.

I'll argue that in many cases, ignoring back channels is done only at great risk to your long term success in the organization.

But there's also a caveat -- you must be cognizant of the risk that backchannel information may be inaccurate, both unintentionally and as a tool of manipulation.  Careful evaluation of the information supplier's motives, and selective verification, can prevent you from making a big mistake.

Informal Communications are a part of the messages you hear each day about what is "really" going on in the company.  When the information comes from unreliable sources, or include a healthy dose of speculation, we typically call it gossip.  When it comes from a credible person, and is obtained close to the source, it is backchannel information.

Over the years, I've found backchannels to be quite useful.

I once learned that my boss hated the selection I made for my vice president of operations through a backchannel.  Having that knowledge allowed me to feature the employees accomplishments during regular reviews, which ultimately redeemed the individual (at least to a degree) in my supervisor's eyes.

I once used backchannels to squelch a rumour (an absurd one dealing with layoffs, and me being given cars when certain hurdles were reached), by making the "proof" it was false available to key people who I knew would send it through the organization.

Listening to or using backchannels, however, can be risky.  I once confided some frustrations with my supervisor to a peer, hoping for sympathy and advice, and instead later discovered the peer had passed along the comments to my boss.  In that case, my boss was the beneficiary of the backchannel communication, and I suffered as a result.  I never confided to that peer again -- lesson learned.

Probably the most important instance where backchannel communication helped me, however, was with the boss that NEVER revealed his true thoughts.  I discovered that while he wouldn't tell ME what he thought about my actions and decisions, he would tell me what he thought about the actions and decisions of OTHERS.  The only way to really figure out what was going on, was to talk to some of these other people, gathering and sharing the little nuggets of information.

The result was an interesting "market" for information, which included favor trading, manipulation, and even deception on occassion -- the most common behavior being the first of these.

In one instance, my job was at risk, and I didn't even realize it.  A group of distributors were in a "semi-revolt" concerning delivery performance, and word had reached my boss.  Rather than actually discussing it with me, however, he apparently roamed up and down the halls of corporate headquarters speculating with others on what was wrong and what needed to be done to correct it.  I'm sure that replacing me was one of the options on the table.

Fortunately, one of my favor-trading partners gave me a call, and warned me of the seriousness of the situation.  I was able to put together a quick action plan, and proactively drop in and let my boss know that I considered the situation critical, and already had a plan of attack to correct it.  To this day, I think that phone call saved my job.

In another instance, I watched as a peer's career was torpedoed by backchannel communication concerning his (unreliable) work hours.  In that case, the complaint came from one of the peer's staff who had direct access to the CFO.  While it was true that the peer was taking some liberties, there was enough exaggeration involved that I'm sure the situation appeared much more damning than it should have.

Of course, some of this behavior can be distasteful, but the political survivor needs to develop backchannel sources, and regularly monitor and evaluate the information that is passed through it.  This informal communications channel can save your career, and inform you about priorities and standards that you might not otherwise have access to.

Other Recent Posts:

Doling Out Raises

Embargo Laws Can Ruin Your Whole Day

Anchor Your Expansion to a Stable Platform

Keep Your Distance

Fire the First Shot

If you enjoy the ideas presented in my blog posts, then check out my other writing.

Non-Fiction:  NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Corporate Thriller novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, and DELIVERABLES.  These are all based on extensions of my basic experiences in the world of corporate management.