You Said What? To Whom?

Be careful with whom you unburden yourself.

It probably seems like this advice is so basic that it hardly needs to be said, but I can't count the number of times I've seen people suffer incredible political damage because they offered their opinions and observations to the wrong person.

The vast majority of people will know better than to shoot their mouth off about "something" to the owner of the "something," but many seem completely clueless when it comes to speaking with the owner's allies. If a contact has a link back to the owner, you better carefully evaluation that importance of that linkage compared to the value of your own mutual alliance.

To be safe, I recommend you adopt the following rule of thumb:

"Always assume whatever you disclose to another employee (or their extended contacts, such as a spouse or outside consulting resource) will immediately find it's way back to the person most likely to be angered or offended by the remark."

Of course, we can't operate this way at all times. The basis for most political alliance building in organizations is a concept I'll call "progressive self-disclosure," with an emphasis on the "progressive" element. Progressive self-disclosure starts with the confession of small, less dangerous opinions, and requires a quid pro quo from your partner to move forward to more serious stuff. Only through multiple conversations and multiple disclosures going each direction can you reach a level of mutual comfort that allows you to openly discuss the most sensitive issues.

In order to participate in the political processes going on around you, you'll certainly need allies, and generally the best allies will share a certain like-mindedness with you when it comes to how things in the organization are going. Without identifying potential allies, and testing their willingness to partner with you through progressive self-disclosure, you're not going to get very far.

Unfortunately, this process is easy to screw up. And sometimes expert politicians will lay in wait just hoping you'll disclose something damaging that they can use immediately or at a future time.

As recently as a few years ago, I made such a mistake. A potential ally fooled me into disclosing way too much without adequate quid pro quo. The mistake occurred after my boss took an action that peeved me, and I wanted to discuss the situation and it's implications with this pseudo-ally. It had previously seemed there was good rapport between the two of us, and I thought we were of the same mind when it came to our opinion of our mutual boss. But I miscalculated.

I overestimated the importance of our relationship. He listened to me offer my opinions about the situation, which included some pretty unflattering comments about my boss's management style, seemed to sympathize with my plight, and then offered his advice (he'd been at the company much longer than I). I left feeling satisfied.

What I didn't know was that he was in the boss's office a few minutes later, repeating the content of the conversation. That put me in a tough position next time I met with the boss, and resulted in a confrontation (which worked out okay in the long run, but was pretty uncomfortable). I instantly knew the information could have only come from one place.

My pseudo-ally proved that he was willing to sacrifice our brief and inadequately deep partnership in favor of scoring points with the boss.

I never trusted him again, but by that stage the damage was done.

In reflecting on how the situation had occurred, I realized the pseudo-ally was putting on an act that I should have seen through. The tell-tale sign -- he wasn't offering enough "at risk" opinions on his side, not enough quid pro quo. When I willingly provided a few too many tempting morsels, he was quick to sell me down the river.

When offering your personal opinions, building alliances, and engaging in progressive self-disclosure, make sure to pay attention to whom you are talking. It is important to know who they might be connected to, and where that connection might be more valuable than their connection to you. And be careful about the kind of ammunition you might be putting in their hands, and what they're giving back to you. Practice "mutually assured destruction" when it comes to disclosure in order to reduce the risk of betrayal. And don't be in a rush. Political alliances are built over time, and tested with relatively benign information before progressing to the point of disclosing dangerous opinions. Handling them any other way is just asking for trouble. 17.2

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intrigued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out some of my other writing. Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

Tips on how to find your way through the Corporate Jungle.

Shown here is the cover of NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS my non-fiction primer on the nature of politics in large corporations, and the management of your career in such an environment.

My novels are based on extensions of my 27 years of personal experience as a senior manager in public corporations. Most were inspired by real events.

Using Structure to Solve Your (Personnel) Problems

Cowardly. That's about pretty well sums up my opinion of manipulating the structure of the organization in order to resolve a people problem.

This particular "face saving" maneuver was once at the root of the explanation for my termination from a job. As I recall my boss said something along the lines of: "I've decided to realign the company's structure geographically, and have decided I will be assigning your responsibilities to [executive 'X']. That means we will be saying goodbye to you."

Except that wasn't the actual reason for the change. Not at all. They were much more personal and certainly much more complex. The cowardly lie offered in place of the truth was intended to disarm me, making a difficult discussion easier and cleaner.

When a version of this same story came out in a company-wide memo, I'm sure few -- if anyone -- bought it. Because it was so obviously untrue. I found the childishness of the move to be irritating in the extreme.

A few years earlier, another executive left the same company in a "reorganization" that eliminated his position. The official story: "I've decided we no longer need a COO," was so far from the truth as to be laughable. And laugh I (and other managers) did. It was a kind of macabre comedy.

In other instances, I've seen company structure altered to accommodate all kinds of strange things ranging from personal conflicts between execs, to appeasement of an exec's demands, to positioning individuals for demotion or termination, to adapting to particularly strengths and weaknesses of an individual manager. Most of this was complete nonsense. These wrenching changes that impacted dozens, if not hundreds, of people would have been unnecessary if the boss had simply stepped up and addressed the issues underlying the changes.

But that would have involved the dirtying of hands, something often to be avoided by those in the highest paying jobs.

What was really needed was:

To the battling executives, a forced peace. To the megalomanic manager, a clear assessment and discussion of where he/she really stands. To the individual on the way out, honesty and clarity about what is going wrong and where it is leading. To the lopsided performer, an offer of help with improvement.

Only in this last case, and only when dealing with a truly exceptional performer, should structure be allowed to vary in response to personal talent rather than the other way around.

The other maneuvering is both cowardly, and politically manipulative in the worst sort of way -- an attempt to disarm opponents before delivering the final, fatal blow.

If you find yourself tempted to take this path, if you find yourself drawing organization charts in an attempt to control a particular person, if you find yourself lining up justification for your decisions -- arrived at for a different reason -- by adjusting the structure of the company...

then just stop. Step back. Decide if there isn't a better, simpler, more direct way to solve the problem. And then do that. Even if it is uncomfortable.

Afterall, that's why you get paid the big bucks.

There are more honorable ways to handle even the most difficult situations, and all involved will respect you much more in the end for following the more difficult, but honest, path. 17.1

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intrigued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out some of my other writing. Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

Shown on this page is a montage of all four of the novel covers.

In order:  Leverage, Incentivize, Deliverables and Heir Apparent — In order: Leverage, Incentivize, Deliverables and Heir Apparent

My novels are based on extensions of 27 years of personal experience as a senior manager in public corporations.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Letting Sleeping Dogs Lie

When is it a good idea to go after your boss?

Never. Not unless you're sure he won't be in a position to exact revenge. Or unless there is some reward (I have trouble imagining what it might be) that outweighs the continuation of your career.

The same logic exists for peers and even some subordinates, certainly those with ample political power to wield.

The fact of the matter is, no one likes to be embarrassed, "disrespected," ridiculed, or made to look small. No one wants their dirty laundry aired. Doing so almost always engenders animosity, and can produce long-term, motivated enemies.

These were the exact thoughts that were running through my mind after I caught my boss in a well-crafted attempt to cover-up...something.

He had signed off on a particularly ugly distribution deal when in a mid-level job several years earlier, one giving powerful rights to a distributor in virtual perpetuity without any checks and balances to protect the company. When I first heard about this, it made me idly wonder what kind of pictures the distributor might have....

Interestingly, the company didn't seem to have a copy of the agreement anywhere -- I suspect for obvious reasons. The distributor, however, kept one. When we tried to squeeze him on a performance related issue, he was only too eager to show it to my VP of Sales. The VP saw the signature on behalf of the company at the bottom of the contract. His name proved my now current boss had been behind the agreement, or had at least approved it. My VP of Sales kept a copy "just in case."

I knew I had some pretty embarrassing stuff in my hands -- the trouble was, what to do with it?

I could use it to embarrass the boss, cutting him down in front of my peers, or perhaps even board members. But to what end? His annoying sense of superiority made the idea somewhat tempting, but then what would I do? He wasn't likely to be fired over the incident -- it was a good dozen years old, and there was no guarantee there was anything behind it beyond stupidity on his part. If he kept his job, that would leave him in a position to exact revenge. I could only shudder at the possibilities.

I could attempt to blackmail him with the information in a high-risk game of Russian Roulette. Of course, I had no idea what had motivated him to sign the agreement in the first place. As a result, I was unsure exactly what I "had." Besides, blackmail was not my style, a tactic I strongly felt was hitting well below the belt.

I could leak the information, although in this case it would have been pretty obvious where it had come from, leading directly back to the retaliation problem.

I even considered giving it to the corporate ethics officer and letting him sort things out. He did work for the same guy I did (yeah, the one behind this terrible contract), making the risk of my name coming up far from negligible. I had confidence in the ethics officer's integrity, and felt there was a good chance he would handle the situation properly, but again, to what end? The incident, as I mentioned before, was old and likely would have led nowhere. And while my identity might remain unknown by my boss, that would certainly not be true with respect to certain board members. That could easily kill my chances for future advancement.

Ultimately, as the incident didn't have any obvious moral or legal violations to it (although there was plenty of smoke), I decided to simply leave things alone. Sometimes the high probability of something going wrong can make even the juiciest piece of political ammunition too risky to touch. Sometimes it is best just to let sleeping dogs lie. 16.4

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intrigued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out some of my other writing. Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

To the right is the cover for HEIR APPARENT. In this tale, some is killing corporate leaders in Kansas City. But who? The police and FBI pursue a "serial killer" theory, leaving Joel Smith and Evangelina Sikes to examine other motives for the killer. As the pair zero in on the perpetrator, they put their own lives at risk. There are multiple suspects and enough clues for the reader to identify the killer in this classic whodunnit set in a corporate crucible.

My novels are based on extensions of 27 years of personal experience as a senior manager in public corporations.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Entitled

In the world of work, we trade hours and effort for money. It's the basic equation that makes work, well...work.

So why do we feel we're entitled to more?

Some of it is basic to human nature -- we look at what others receive for their effort, and think we should have the same. We become obsessed with notions of "equal treatment" or "fairness" -- which, as a far as I can tell, usually is formulated as "I want 'mine' to be equal to the best received by anyone else."

And the attitude seems to grow over the course of long tenure within the organization.

You've probably seen it before, too. The new employee is just happy to have a job and an opportunity to prove their worth. After a few years, however, the focus starts to shift toward what can I "get" for my time, and how much is everyone else "getting?" This is one of the reasons that companies hate it when people start comparing wages -- someone always ends up unhappy.

As length of service increases, so do the expectations. A sense of entitlement tends to take hold. Some employees begin to take advantage of rules and norms trying to bend things for the personal benefit. They feel they're "entitled" to it, and somehow rationalize the behavior.

Often expectations continue to grow, becoming impossibly high. Some of the most senior employees become bitter and disenchanted (known in some circles as "disengaged"). They might be wholly or partially justified in these feelings, but even the best of companies seem to develop an undercurrent of resentment within a significant cross-section of their senior ranks.

This attitude has its roots in comparison to others and personal measures of "fairness." It is also often supplemented with an overestimation by the employee of their value to the company. I once read an academic paper that pointed out over 80% of employees believe they are in the top 10% of performers in their company. No wonder they feel entitled.

This same phenomena also occurs with outsiders that have a long-term relationship with the company. I've personally seen it in suppliers, consultants, and representatives/distributors.

Dealing with the entitlement mentality is a long term battle, and one the manager can't wholly win on his/her own.

Making progress starts with setting reasonable expectations -- that means realistic performance reviews, and both positive and negative feedback on how a person is really doing (as opposed to stoking the overestimation of value already likely to be present).

Keeping personal information (like compensation or any special accommodations) a secret is also quite helpful. This almost doesn't bear mentioning as it seems to be in the DNA of most organizations.

Getting rid of the most disaffected individuals is also a measure that will help, and will usually be understood by the majority of other employees.

Beyond that, the only thing I've found to be even marginally helpful is to occasionally talk about the concept of "fairness" as it is usually interpreted in the workplace, and remind people what it is like to be unemployed and looking for a job. On the whole, however, this will do little to change the attitude of the truly entitled person, but might at least point out to those a little less negative what is going on in everyone's head.

There may be some "experts" that will claim this phenomena is (as they claim most things are) a function of "leadership." In my opinion, a great leader can help reduce feelings of entitlement by keeping focus on the larger mission of the company. But leaders can't change the tiger's stripes. There seems to be something deeply within our beings that insists on all these comparisons and evaluations of the "equality" of treatment in the workplace. 16.3

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intrigued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out some of my other writing. Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

Deliverables Cover alternative 3 (787x1200) (2).jpg

To the right is the cover for DELIVERABLES. This novel features a senior manager approached by government officials to spy on his employer, complete with a story about how a "deal" they are negotiating might put critical technical secrets into the hands of enemies of the United States. Of course, everything is not exactly as it seems....

My novels are based on extensions of 27 years of personal experiences as a senior manager in public corporations.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Picking Your Own Team

Who is the best judge of talent in an organization? The HR department? The most experienced manager? The manager closest to the employee in question? Or do some managers have an inherent talent for judging people, and their opinion should prevail?

In my experience, there is something to be said in favor of all of these viewpoints, and if the employee is yours, you should at least listen to and carefully consider the counsel of all of the above.

But who is responsible to recruit, select, and judge?

If you operate in an environment where managers are held accountable for results, it's hard to imagine ultimate responsibility resting with anyone other than the employee's direct manager. Being accountable means owning outcomes, not rationalizing and defending individual decisions. Ultimately recruiting, assessing, and judging your employees is one of the most fundamental tasks of a manager, and is very closely connected to the outcomes you produce. If you substitute another's opinion for your own, abdicate the responsibility to select a team, or are over-ridden (possibly against your will) by superiors, then you're not really managing.

Does this mean that these staffing decisions are yours, and yours alone?

Of course not. At the very least your opinions will be tempered by the law -- discriminatry behaviors, for example, being forbidden.

Most of us are also impacted by corporate policies and politics which limit what you can do. For example, at one of my employers, it was absolutely impossible to promote an employee more than one grade when moving them to a new job. No matter how talented they might seem to be, it was a strict policy that they had to "move through the chairs" in a step-by-step fashion. At another employer, it was politically expedient to bring in new people for key management roles, rather than promoting from within.

And while I didn't necessarily agree with either of these policies/practices, I wasn't in a position to ignore them.

Broadly speaking, however, beyond these general restrictions, managers should be free to (and have the responsibility to) pick their own team. They should win or lose based on their own decisions, and not be over-ridden by those higher up.

Alas, experience also tells me that this ideal is seldom seen.

At one employer, my boss conducted several campaigns to force me to oust employees in whom I had complete confidence -- sometimes for his own purposes, occasionally due to a difference of opinion. Fortunately it was outside of the company's norms for this senior manager to simply order me to fire the people in question, offering me the opportunity to resist. In a couple of instances that led to a campaign of backstabbing and character assassination that ultimately led to the departure of the employee in question. I found the behavior to be frustrating, irritating, and demeaning.

It also led to feelings of disconnection from my responsibility for results, the rationale being: "How can I be 'responsible' if I can't even keep the good people already on my team?"

In another instance, my selection for various positions were over-ridden by a psychological profiling tool the company had fallen in love with. Ultimately, the tool became yet another reason to say "no" to otherwise qualified people.

And after some experience, it became clear the tool wasn't particularly accurate either, despite the claims by the man that sold it to us.

In fact, in one instance a manager who received an unreserved endorsement for a particular job, turned out to be a disaster. When I quizzed the sellers of the profiling tool about this, I had one of those out-of-body experiences where I thought I was listening to a soothsayer re-interpret his obviously wrong prediction of the future in an attempt to get it to fit what happened.

If you're lucky enough to be in a job where you have freedom to pick your team, however, make sure you do so wisely. When performance slips, there will be no one to hold accountable but you. 16.2

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intrigued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out some of my other writing. Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

Julia McCoy smells a rat, but maybe she should have waited until she was back in the U.S. to say so...

To the right is the cover for INCENTIVIZE. This novel is about a U.S. based mining company, and criminal activity that the protagonist (a woman by the name of Julia McCoy) uncovers at the firm's Ethiopian subsidiary. Her discover sets in motion a series of events that include, kidnapping, murder and terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

My novels are based on extensions of 27 years of personal experiences as a senior manager in public corporations.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Nobody Gives up Top Talent

Anytime you're hiring, a critical question you must answer is: Why is the person you're considering available? When you ask the candidate this, you're likely to hear a variety of answers that make sound good on the surface, but certainly bear closer examination.

"...I was a victim of downsizing."

"...I disagreed with my manager about how to handle the job."

"...I didn't think it was a good fit."

The bottom line is, all of these answers (and many, many others) point to one conclusion -- the person you're talking to was NOT a top performer in their last job. Companies work very hard to find ways to hang onto their top talent, and the pretty much never just put them on the street.

Sure, there are a few circumstances that might result in a top performer being put out on the street, but they're uncommon. Maybe a complete closure of a division where everyone was eliminated, or perhaps the merger of two businesses -- and even then, the employee you're talking to was almost certainly considered to be in the weaker end of the talent pool.

If the employee was sent away, they are almost certainly not a rare catch.

Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't valuable, or even perfectly suitable for the job you're trying to fill. But don't kid yourself into believing you're looking at a superstar that just had a run of bad luck.

Some of the worst hires in my career were people out of a job (or soon to be out). One manager I hired was so headstrong that nobody wanted to work with him and he refused to listen to direction from above. Another was extremely tentative and folded under pressure. A third hire from this "pool" was extremely abrasive, and couldn't seem to get along with peers. And yet a fourth turned out to be downright dishonest.

Digging deeply into the backgrounds of others from this group has helped me dodge a few bullets. The last one was a candidate that interviewed well, but had, I learned just before making an offer, a major attendance problem in her last position. That's hardly a characteristic of top talent.

In fact, I can only recall one employee I hired out of the "available" talent pool that worked out, and in his case, he voluntarily left his last position due to improper actions (read: unethical) undertaken by his boss.

The easiest way to avoid this trap is to make your most critical hires from the ranks of the employed. If you go this route, however, you have to package your opportunity as the "chance of a lifetime" or as "a big move up." Nobody willingly/easily gives up their top talent, and if the candidate is really good, you'll be in a fight to reel them in right up to the time they show up for work the first day. In fact, if you don't sense this is a risk you probably don't have top talent.

When looking for top talent, I can't overly stress how important it is to get a true picture of the candidate's performance in their last/current job. And not from their resume, or their references. Instead, you need someone that can give you an unbiased, objective opinion. To find this kind of source, I've used business contacts, Linkedin contacts, and friends of friends to make the necessary connections. When those options didn't pan out, I'd ask the candidate's references to give me contact information for someone else that worked closely with the candidate, and then would get yet another contact from that person. I'd keep going until I had someone I thought was objective. And I rarely was willing to delegate this research to someone else. What is said in such investigative discussions --nuance, and tone -- sometimes tell the entire story.

So when you're searching for top talent, you should begin with the belief that these folks (for the most part) are not eagerly running around searching for new jobs. Certainly, they are unlikely to be unemployed. Start with the assumption that the candidate is a poser, and dig until you are convinced this assumption is incorrect. Only then will you likely find the kind of performer you're really after. 16.1

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intrigued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out some of my other writing. Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

Julia McCoy challenges the wrong man when she picks a fight with the head of Matrix Corporation's Ethiocupro subsidiary.

To the right is the cover of the audio version of INCENTIVIZE. This novel takes the reader on a trip through some of the most remote areas of the volatile Horn of Africa, as the story follows Ethiocupro's attempt to get rid of a pesky auditor -- permanently.

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

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Confiding in a Political Dunce

To paraphrase Harry Truman: "If you want a friend at work, buy a dog."

While this might be sound advice, there aren't very many of us that can last for years friendless in the corporate environment. I, for one, would find going to work each day in a friendless environment almost too much to bear. But if you are going to make friends in your workplace, make sure you're aware of the limitations and dangers of doing so.

Most (but not all) work relationships are "friendships of convenience." In these, proximity and shared experience tend to throw unlikely people together for the good of some cause. But over time projects shift, people move to new assignments, and the political environment alters. Today's ally might easily become tomorrow's opponent. You would do well to correctly identify and manage this somewhat superficial type of relationship, and not allow yourself to become overly invested.

In one instance early in my career, I was deeply hurt when a "friend of convenience" transferred to a new job, and I found her my opponent during some particularly nasty departmental infighting. At the time I felt betrayed, but later realized the truth -- the relationship never had real depth. When it was convenient, the two of us were easy allies. When the power structure shifted the other direction -- we became opponents. Nothing personal, just "business."

Later in my career, I once found myself upset with my boss (a common enough occurrence). In this particular instance, I confided the reasons for my irritation to a peer with whom I thought I had a friendship. He apparently didn't value the relationship to the same degree I did, as he immediately ran to my boss and repeated everything I said. I scratched that man off my list of "friends," regretting only that I'd realized his limited commitment to me too late to avoid a confrontation with my boss.

Even when relationships have more to them than just today's project or alliance, you must realize that your friend's political acumen could be disturbingly low. In such instances, you must be very careful in what you confide, as your friend might very well betray your trust and not even be aware of it.

In a friendly boss-subordinate relationship I once had, I made the mistake of letting my subordinate know exactly what the CEO thought of him -- a gift that I thought would potentially save him years of frustrating lack of progress in his career. Although even a modest corporate politician would have realized that I was taking a big risk passing this information along, this particular employee was a political dunce. He immediately asked the head of Corporate HR (could there have been a worse choice?) for "confirmation" of the information I had shared. This quickly led to an uncomfortable conversation between myself and the big boss, one where he ironically told me I was "too honest."

I've always had friends in the workplace, but over the years, I've learned to be very careful about what I disclose to them. I manage this by continuously assessing the depth of the relationship, and understanding the political skills (and limitations) of my friends. And while self-disclosure often leads to a tightening of relationships, I do so in a step-by-step process, taking plenty of time to make sure I'm on firm ground before bring up anything that might be seriously damaging.

And even with all that, I still make mistakes. Maybe I should just buy a dog.... 15.6

Other Recent Posts:

If you are intrigued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out some of my other writing.Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

Mark Carson runs to help manage the pain of a failed marriage.  Soon, however, he will be running for his life. — Mark Carson runs to help manage the pain of a failed marriage. Soon, however, he will be running for his life.

To the right is the cover of LEVERAGE This novel explores the theft of sensitive DOD designs from a Minneapolis Tech Company, and the dangers associated with digging too deeply into the surrounding mystery.

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

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Cornering a Rat

Confront a dishonest person with the evidence of their errant actions, and you're likely to get some pretty wild reactions. Frequently it is "deny, deny, deny," but I've also had employees fabricate wild lies or engage in elaborate cover-ups.

Oddly, I've never had anyone beg for mercy or ask for forgiveness -- despite what you might read in fiction. I believe this is because, as reasonably intelligent (although perhaps immoral) people, the "bad actors" have already considered the consequences of their chosen path and have alternatives in mind. Perhaps if they were to become so badly cornered that there was no alternative to begging, they would. In practice I've never seen anything remotely resembling that actually occur.

The one thing you can depend upon when a "rat" is cornered is the unexpected. Throughout my career I've repeatedly been surprised by the lengths some of these folks will go to in an attempt to cover their tracks.

Take the licensee I worked with in the Middle East as an example. When the general manager of this business decided there was no way he could renew his agreement with us (we were refusing to allow further expansion of his territory), he decided to duplicate all our engineering drawings using his own letterhead, and put stickers over electronic panels he still had in stock, covering our logo. When confronted with this subterfuge, he fabricated a letter that supposedly implicated one of our employees in an illegal trading scheme. The fact that this would have also caused legal problems for one of his board members never seemed to slow him down -- he knew what he wanted, and would do whatever was necessary to get (steal) it.

In another incident, an HR manager working directly for me faked a raise for himself. He forged my signature on the appropriate form (probably lifted it off of another page), and then approved the raise himself. When caught he developed an elaborate story which involved a fake group of "militant" employees who were manipulating our payroll system to...well, I could never quite understand what the objective of the manipulation was supposed to be. Not surprisingly he was fired, but not until we completed a detailed (and expensive) investigation.

Another employee who quit to go to a competitor was confronted with proof he had stolen file after file of sensitive data, and had clear intent to use this material in his new job. He returned the original media to us, and claimed that bringing the materials to his home less than seven days before he resigned was "just an oversight." I had to take that one to court.

In another bizarre incident, the second in command of a distributor we were courting decided to quit and open his own competing business. Rather than admitting the truth, however, he spread an elaborate story involving an affair and a sudden move out of town. I guess he wanted to buy some time before we figured out what he was really up to. He managed to gain four days before we knew pretty much everything.

Once cornered, the rat may engage in all kinds of strange and disturbing behaviors. I've experienced denials, lies, attempted blackmail (without basis), theft, and even lawsuits -- both "real" and ones based on fabricated "evidence." The trick to managing your own "rat confrontation" is to be prepared for almost anything. Make sure you know your options are for dealing with any imaginable crazy behavior before any confrontation is ever initiated. While this won't completely prevent fallout, it will at least minimize the damage it might cause. 15.5

Other Recent Posts:

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

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

It doesn't matter if you are a political power player, or an observer just trying to stay out of the way, you need to understand the politics of your organization and how to cope with it.  This book will give you practical advice to do just th… — It doesn't matter if you are a political power player, or an observer just trying to stay out of the way, you need to understand the politics of your organization and how to cope with it. This book will give you practical advice to do just that.

Shown here is the cover of NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS my non-fiction primer on the nature of politics in large corporations, and the management of your career in such an environment.

My novels are based on extensions of my 27 years of personal experience as a senior manager in public corporations. Most were inspired by real events.

Sometimes the Truth Hurts

I've experienced frank and painful evaluations, and I've handed them out, too. They are never fun, and often they become something that is dreaded by manager and subordinate, alike.

But you can't beat an honest and direct appraisal when it comes to giving you the information you need to make a smart decision about your future.

Many (most?) managers tend to pussyfoot around when it comes to appraisals. They bury deadly observations like a needle in a haystack, minimizing their impact and ( or so the manager hopes) any protest the subordinate might make concerning them. But doing so is fundamentally dishonest, and it also is a huge disservice to the employee. If the employee doesn't really know where they stand, they aren't likely to change anything.

I can almost hear a manager somewhere complaining that the fatal flaw exhibited by his subordinate can't be changed. Or, at a minimum, experience has taught the manager that significant change is extremely unlikely. Such rationalization hardly justifies a mealy-mouthed treatment of the problem area, however. If there's a one in one hundred chance the employee can "fix" her issue by understanding it, that's certainly better odds than if she's completely unaware. And if the situation is really as hopeless as the manager thinks, doesn't the employee have a right to know he has no future with the company, and should be looking for a better fitting job elsewhere? Of course he does!

Let's dispense with the other argument I often hear -- that the employee might have a huge deficiency, but is desperately needed right now. Does the manager's need make it okay to lie to the employee when it is convenient to keep him, and blindside him later when the need has been sated? I think not. No employee is indispensable, although losing a particular one might be inconvenient.

The problem with the typical review process is that it seems to be designed to support the kind of cowardly dishonesty described above, and to obscure (if not completely omit) the truth.

The best reviews I received during my career were short, to the point, and identified the two or three things (good or bad) that set my performance apart from the herd. They weren't always easy to hear.

The best review I ever received was delivered by one of my early bosses, when he summarized an otherwise lengthy "23 characteristics" with the comment: "Gets a lot done, but sometimes pisses people off." Those simple, clear and honest words had a big impact on the way I worked with my peers going forward.

In a later review (by a boss that was terrible at delivering reviews, no less) I heard the less clear, but still useful words: "You know, sometimes you're a hard guy to have reporting to you." That thought was delivered in conjunction with a comment about my reluctance to immediately communicate bad news. I won't say I completely reformed after that bit of feedback, but afterward I was a lot more conscious of how my actions might impact my boss.

When delivering reviews, I came to loath the "23 characteristic" rating systems. These always seem to have substantial areas of overlap, and there was a tendency to sum up the review with an arithmetic average of the scores on the individual categories. In my opinion, this is absolutely NOT the way executives really evaluate people.

Instead, I adopted what I called the "elevator speech" review. In it I tried to summarize what I would tell my own boss about a subordinate if I had only a minute. That typically consisted of the two or three things the person did exceptionally well (assuming there were some!), and the one or two flaws that were causing them problems or holding them back.

A fictional example might sound something like: "You showed amazing endurance continuing to work on improving project X until it was a success, but in the process you managed to alienate half of your team. If you don't get your temper under control, no matter how well you execute projects, you won't last here."

And that would be all.

The similarity of the "elevator speech" review to those evaluations that had an impact on me is not accidental. Honest, direct, and to the point became my motto.

Rarely did I ever advise employees to go back to school for an MBA (it usually doesn't change a thing in the minds of management -- what they see in the workplace is what counts). Sometimes I might recommend a seminar to acquire a specific skill or piece of knowledge. I tried to avoid the "adding it all up and dividing by the number of categories" phenomenon -- because that is not the way executives think about employees. I sometimes recommended a course of action for improving flaws, but often left it in the employee's court -- afterall, they were often in a better position than I was to determine how to make significant changes work.

So, did my employees love this review technique?

I don't think so. It lacked the "bad news wrapped in layer after layer of good news" character. They sometimes walked away from the review, distress, angry or even in denial.

But it was reality. It was actionable. And in many instances it gave them critical information to change the trajectory they were on -- information that had been withheld by previous bosses.

Some successfully made behavioral changes. Others tried, but couldn't manage to change things enough. A few left when they realized they actually didn't walk on water.

But I never regretted being as honest with my subordinates as I could, even if it hurt. And over the long haul, I'm betting many of them appreciate it, as well. 15.4

Other Recent Posts:

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

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

Shown on this page is a montage of all four of the novel covers.

My four Corporate Thrillers in order of publication

My novels are based on extensions of my 27 years of personal experience as a senior manager in public corporations. Most were inspired by real events.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Discarding Damaged Goods

Can you save an employee that is seen by your boss (or, worse yet, the CEO) as inadequate? As a mediocre performer? As damaged goods?

I've pondered this question repeatedly during my career -- having employed managers whom I judged as wholly capable in their jobs, but that my boss, for some reason, decided were "C players." The causes of this harsh, and in my opinion erroneous, judgement tended to be all over the map. Perhaps the employee made a silly mistake during a presentation. Or perhaps they took the wrong side in a dispute.

I even saw one executive placed in the "discard" pile because he was unfamiliar with a somewhat obscure accounting concept related to asset impairment. I guess he shouldn't have tried to fake it.

With most of these employees, I tried to somehow rehabilitate their image. And in every case (with one notable exception), I was unsuccessful.

This might have been due to the personalities of the bosses involved in the various situations -- where they fervently believed in their own infallibility when it came to the assessment of talents and shortcomings in the company's employees. In most cases, these CEOs had very limited exposure to, and very limited understanding of, what the employees did on a day-to-day basis.

That never seemed to stop them.

My personal experience is limited to a sample of only four, so I readily admit that there are probably other, more open-minded, CEOs out there that might be willing to give a "damaged" employee a second or third chance. There might even be CEOs that are progressive enough to accept the judgement of others about an employee. I like to think that if I had ever ascended that final step to the all-powerful CEO job I would have been such a boss. (Perhaps that's part of the reason I never got there!)

In my experience, CEOs don't work that way.

In one instance of an employee mis-identified as "damaged goods," I continuously ignored my boss's hints that the executive was "unsuitable" for his position. That one cost me big, as my stubborn refusal to knuckle under was a contributor to my own ultimate termination -- and I failed to save the employee in question, as well.

In another somewhat similar situation, I worked with the targeted executive to try everything we could come up with to rehabilitate his image with the boss. This included coaching, special projects to address perceived shortcomings, additional exposure to the boss, and plenty of argument on my part. All of this proved to be useless. I somehow managed to hold onto the executive until I was transferred to another assignment. Shortly thereafter, the employee was moved to a "special project" that ultimately led to his separation from the company.

In the one exception, an extraordinary personal tragedy in the life of the targeted executive seemed to give the CEO pause in his campaign to force me to remove the man. I was never sure if his opinion of the executive really changed, or if he simply stopped taking shots at him because it would "look bad."

In every case, however, my resistance to the CEO's demand that I "discard damaged goods" caused damage to my own credibility, and ultimately hurt my career. For my own part, I simply couldn't stomach the injustice of removing perfectly good contributors from the organization just because the CEO's perceptions were (in my opinion) off base.

In retrospect, I now believe that when the CEO identifies and executive as "damaged beyond saving," there is no point in resisting. You're fighting a losing battle, and prolonging the agony for both the manager and yourself. Better to give in to the boss's demands than fight it.

Or, perhaps even more importantly, it is a signal that you should consider moving on. And when you do, look for a boss that doesn't feel compelled to force his (uninformed) judgements about your subordinates down your throat. 15.3

Other Recent Posts:

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

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

What if the only way to get the CEO's job is to kill her?  How would you do it? — What if the only way to get the CEO's job is to kill her? How would you do it?

To the right is the cover for HEIR APPARENT. In this tale, some is killing corporate leaders in Kansas City. But who? The police and FBI pursue a "serial killer" theory, leaving Joel Smith and Evangelina Sikes to examine other motives for the killer. As the pair zero in on the perpetrator, they put their own lives at risk. There are multiple suspects and enough clues for the reader to identify the killer in this classic whodunnit set in a corporate crucible.

My novels are based on extensions of 27 years of personal experience as a senior manager in public corporations.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Battling Consultants

Okay, maybe you don't like your employer's use of consultants, in general. Or maybe it's just a particular consultant you object to.

But despite your desires (and possibly your best efforts) one of these outside advice givers has burrowed into the company inner workings like a tick on an unsuspecting dog. And worse yet, your boss is their "executive sponsor."

What do you do?

In my experience, you "go along, and get along." There is likely little to be gained from visibly and publicly opposing the consultant, and plenty of credibility to be lost and goodwill to be wasted.

Once a commitment is made to an outside consultant, you're likely stuck with them until one of three things happen -- they totally mess something up, Board/CEO/Higher Management begins to question their value, or their sponsoring executive leaves, transfers, or dies.

You could start an underground campaign to discredit the consultants, marshalling your subordinates, allies, and political resources to try to point out their errors or other miscues. Since they likely are wearing a huge halo (see my last post: Familiarity Breeds Contempt) you're likely have a difficult and lengthy uphill slog getting anywhere with this approach.

A better plan would be to try to co-opt the consultants, bending or expanding their project in a direction useful to you. This is sometimes possible as it provides the consultant some additional scope for his project (and more billable hours), and also may provide him additional insights that allow him to appear more knowledgeable about the company/industry than he really is. If you're considering going this way, make sure to be straight with the consultant. Embarrassing him is a sure way to produce a potent and powerful enemy.

The one thing you don't want to do, however, is to ignore the consultant's presence or think that she can't or won't impact you.

I observed this occurring while with one of my employers. The company hired an HR consultant who sold the CEO on a leadership evaluation tool. One of my subordinates did a particularly poorly on this assessment largely, I later learned, because he didn't take it seriously. Instead of thinking of his interview with the consultants as a "final exam" or as an opportunity, he decided it was a complete waste of time (I personally agreed with his opinion, by the way), and tried to make sure it took the smallest amount of his time possible.

That was a big mistake, and it cost him. After the poor result, he was looked upon much differently by the CEO. In this case "different" was not a good thing.

Consultants can remain embedded in the organization for a long time. On consultant I'm familiar with has been milking one of my former employers for at least 18 years (and still counting). Trust me when I say there is nothing anyone in management could do to dislodge her from that relationship -- the only way that happens is if she screws up, herself.

My personal experiences with getting consultants to help me advance my own agenda has been mixed. Sometimes they see an opportunity and are sympathetic to my suggestions, while in other instances they seem to be firmly focused on their scope and mission and can't be diverted. This almost certainly has to do with the charge they've been given by their sponsor. I've never experienced any instance where there was a downside to trying, however.

Things do eventually change -- usually, however, at a glacial pace -- and the consultants eventually leave. Your best bet might simply be to wait them out.

And sometimes strange things happen.

In one instance, I was the executive sponsor for an outside group brought in to perform operations consulting, and I had the entire project taken out of my hands by my boss. He then proceeded to refocus the consultants on a completely different project, which really disrupted my plans. But there was really little I could do about it. Once the consultants had an opportunity to move up the organizational ladder, they jumped at it like a school of piranhas leaping at a monkey hanging over the Amazon.

In general, consultants can be a powerful political force, and one that you'd do well to respect and suspect. Treat consultants -- particularly those with demonstrated endurance -- just as you would a strong and dangerous political opponent. If you do this, you'll be less likely to suffer injury at their hands, and you might be able to use their work to your advantage. 15.2

Other Recent Posts:

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

DELIVERABLES features VP of Information Technology Roger Follansbee, and introduces ex-CIA agent Joel Smith

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

To the right is the cover for DELIVERABLES. This novel features a senior manager approached by government officials to spy on his employer, complete with a story about how a "deal" they are negotiating might put critical technical secrets into the hands of enemies of the United States. Of course, everything is not exactly as it seems....

My novels are based on extensions of 27 years of personal experience as a senior manager in public corporations.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Familiarity Breeds Contempt

The current "genius" in most companies is invariably the "new guy." I wrote extensively about this phenomena in my post "You're A Genius!" several weeks ago. I did not, however, mention the most common exception to the rule -- the outside consultant whose brilliance supersedes that of all employees.

When there's an outsider "expert" -- even if that "expert" is nothing more than a recent MBA school graduate, what we not-so-fondly referred to as a "green weenie" -- it seems inevitable that this person has greater credibility than even the most experienced employee. Even greater credibility than the current, in-house "genius."

Why does this seem to always be the case?

For the same reason that the "new guy" trumps experienced employees -- the consultant's strengths are readily apparent, while his/her weaknesses are carefully hidden away. In fact, a key for the consultant to obtain follow-on work is to never let this mask slip. Never to let the guard down. Maintain that facade of infallibility.

This contributes to a demeanor that many people object to in consultants -- a haughty, "oh you poor misguided fool" attitude that seems to creep into their interactions with anyone who isn't the decision-maker at the client firm (her, they normally suck up to).

Is this human nature? To assume that the stranger is always more capable and skilled than those whom we know well? Does familiarity really cause us to hold those closest to us in degree of contempt? It certainly appears to be the case.

I remember a particular strategic consulting assignment undertaken by one of my employers that illustrates this phenomena.

The charge to the consultants was to help us determine the best way to organize a group of autonomous divisions (the company's current management model), to push a new technology that should help them all -- some more than others. It had been repeatedly suggested by the management team that we could successfully accomplish this by setting specific goals and tying compensation to them, but the boss wanted to explore "other options."

Dozens of interviews and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, the consultants recommended that we do exactly what the senior managers if the group already knew was the best solution. Sure, they added a few ancillary ideas that helped with implementation, but fundamentally the consultants did little more than validate our solution.

In another instance, my employer hired strategic consultants to help us "identify attractive industries" for acquisitions. The senior management team wasn't lacking for ideas, and we knew the industries and markets that were arranged around us, and had a pretty good fix on the attractive candidates. The unfortunate fact was there were few that stood out as spectacular deals of the type the CEO was after.

The consultants' final presentation covered a number of highly improbable industries that were far from our current lines of business. And they weren't particularly obvious as "structurally attractive" -- our key criteria in the first place. It looked like the presentation was going to be a massive failure, but the consultants saved the day by profiling a large company that was competing with us in some markets, and was active in others. Indeed, the company was interesting because we would have significant synergies with the part that overlapped our business, and the other pieces had the potential to be platforms for further growth into new markets. It was a home run recommendation, and saved their bacon.

The problem was, we had been salivating over this company for years! Every time the potential for a deal with them was brought up, however, the CEO was reluctant to start a discussion because the company was so large.

When the consultants showed up and offered it as a recommendation, however, it carried the day. Suddenly the company was a viable candidate that we could pursue, after all. Eventually, the target was acquired and it turned out to be a spectacularly good deal.

Again, the consultants had more credibility than anyone on the management team, despite the fact that the balance of their recommendations were laughable.

Which brings me to some practical advice when it comes to consultants working in your organization. When they show up, you should do your best to co-opt them for your own purposes. Tell them with conviction what you think should happen to make the company better, what projects should be taken on, what acquisitions should be done. You can specifically push agendas with them that would be politically impractical for you to push on your own, as they aren't likely to attribute their ideas to anyone specific in the organization -- after all, taking credit for their recommendations is a key part of their playbook.

Then stand back and let them do some of the heavy lifting that you can't accomplish on your own.

And try not to resent the fact that, in the eyes of your firm's top managers, they have more credibility than you do. 15.1

Other Recent Posts:

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

Click here to see the INCENTIVIZE page in a new window.

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

To the right is the cover for INCENTIVIZE. This novel is about a U.S. based mining company, and criminal activity that the protagonist (a woman by the name of Julia McCoy) uncovers at the firm's Ethiopian subsidiary. Her discover sets in motion a series of events that include, kidnapping, murder and terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

My novels are based on extensions of 27 years of personal experience as a senior manager in public corporations.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Pushing Things Too Far

I'm well aware that I have a propensity to continue battling for projects, programs, and policies that I believe in -- a propensity that sometimes goes beyond the bounds of common sense.

And, based on plenty of observations, I know I'm not the only one.

The question I find myself asking about this is: Why? Why do I continuing to push when it's clear I'm burning political capital, and possibly credibility, in the process? What deep-seated psychological need am I meeting when I continue to fight?

Ego? Self-confidence? Over-confidence?

I picture myself as the lone voice of reason in a sea of illogic. I'm the underdog, forging ahead trying to accomplish what is right and what is good against the forces of politics, personal prejudice, and apathy. And we all know that everyone loves an underdog.

But why do we? Because we see the underdog obstinately sticking to their principles, confident in the righteous virtue of their position. We all envision ourselves and our crusades in this way. Sometimes, we need to take the fight all the way to the end. Even when we know we're going to lose.

It's a matter of self-respect. It's a statement that we will fight for what's right. It's a matter of principle.

It can also be more than a bit stupid.

I found myself in just this position with a joint venture proposal. The basic idea was something my boss didn't like and didn't agree with. After he rejected it the first time, I went back and renegotiated the deal to remove those things he said were deficiencies in the agreement. It was again rejected. Oddly enough, however, I felt okay about the situation at that point. I realized that I'd taken it as far as I could. Pulled out every stop. I'd fought the good fight and lost. I retained my self respect.

In another case, however, my extreme perseverance carried the day. This was an acquisition that I had been championing long and hard, and by force of personality , I was able to somehow push aside objections (a few of which were actually sensible) of my detractors, and "win." The project was approved (Yeah -- I briefly celebrated). The only problem was "winning" this battle ultimately resulted in losing the war.

Things went wrong almost from the beginning -- an over-reaction by a key competitor, a plant that was performing far worse than I'd been led to believe, a challenging management structure and a dose of suspicion all around. Then the bottom dropped out of the market. It wasn't as if those issues (other than the plant problems) had been identified up front, but suddenly I found the weight of the entire, struggling project on my shoulders. I was alone, and I'd made sure I'd be alone by pushing so hard.

Given enough time, everything was fixable, except for the overall pathetic market demand, but ultimately the project was judged as a mistake. And as a result I received two black eyes that contributed heavily to my ultimate departure from that job.

So while it may feel satisfying to push things to the limit, just be careful what you're asking for. You should be absolutely, positively certain that you can convert the proposal to a success before you make it a "ditch to die in." 14.6

Other Recent Posts:

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

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

To the right is the cover for the audio version of INCENTIVIZE. This novel is about a U.S. based mining company, and criminal activity that the protagonist (a woman by the name of Julia McCoy) uncovers at the firm's Ethiopian subsidiary. Her discover sets in motion a series of events that include, kidnapping, murder and terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

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

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Things are not Always What they Seem

The reasons management gives for the actions they take are not always completely honest.

I know, "shocking" right? Spend enough time in a large corporation, and you'll find that consistent application of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is something to which few in management appear to be committed.

The thing is, while management seems to opportunistically leave out facts, or allow misperceptions to grow and flourish, I have rarely seen senior managers give outright lies.

I believe the reason for this is not (in most cases) a commitment to being honest, straightforward, or moral, but is instead due to practical considerations -- they know the consequences of being caught in an outright fib, and always want to leave themselves wiggle room in any future, potential mess.

Plausible deniability.

On those rare occasions when I've been privy to the truth and actually seen a bald-faced lie, I thought the liar either was foolish, or believed himself to be invincible.

Being committed to being truthful (which I tried to do as a manager, although not always with 100% success) can be a real hindrance. I once had one of my bosses tell me that "...sometimes you're just too honest." This comment came after I talked to a direct report about how poorly he had scored on a survey proported to measure senior management potential. In another instance, I mentioned several idiotic assumptions in a particularly poorly analyzed project that I'd been saddled with, despite the fact that I knew my boss's fingerprints were all over the original proposal. In good conscience I couldn't go forward pretending the idea was brilliant, but the execution was bad -- there were too many careers hanging in the balance.

What I've found most interesting are the lies and half-truths provided by others -- sometimes those quite high in the organization.

On of my superiors was "laid-off" when his "position was eliminated." That was the official explanation, but the entire inner circle knew he'd been fired for trying to go over his boss's head. The "lay-off" was a laughable fabrication that no one believed.

In another instance, I listened to a senior manager tell employees at a recently acquired company that they were involved in a "merger" of "equals," and that no one needed to fear for the jobs as the companies would be melded together slowly and thoughtfully. I happened to know the acquisition plan was to close the facility in relatively short order.

The one that amazed me the most, however, involved a distribution contract that had been signed several years before by my boss when he held a different position. I mentioned that although we seemed to have no record of the agreement, the distributor had shown us his copy and outlined the terms, which were, to put in mildly, terrible. Almost disasterous, in fact. I wondered out loud who could have possibly agreed to such a horrible deal. He commiserated with me, remarking that it was, indeed, an awful contract, and also wondered who could have signed it. Of course, I'd seen the distributor's copy of the document with my boss's "John Hancock" scrawled across the bottom. I could only assume he either felt my knowing it was no threat, or that there was no way I'd ever figure out the truth.

When the chips are down, the pressure is on, and the situation holds potentially dire consequences, you should always read the "official" story with a jaundiced eye. Look for what might have been left out, or what wrong impression the tale might be intended to leave with you . In business, things are not always what they seem.

Other Recent Posts:

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

Novels: LEVERAGE, INCENTIVIZE, DELIVERABLES and now HEIR APPARENT (published 3/2/2013) -- note, the Kindle version of DELIVERABLES (a prequel to HEIR APPARENT) is on sale for a limited time for $2.99.

To the right is the cover of LEVERAGE This novel explores the theft of sensitive DOD designs from a Minneapolis Tech Company, and the dangers associated with digging too deeply into the surrounding mystery.

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

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Overreaching Your Authority

You may be operating under the incorrect impression that you have the authority to make major decisions. You may be able to authorize sizable purchases, make high dollar value capital expenditures, hire high priced talent, negotiate the price for acquisitions, or manage an enormous budget.

But all of these thing occur only because they have been delegated to you by the CEO -- and that's not a "forever" thing. Even the CEO gets his authority from the Board of Directors -- all of which can be retracted at a moment's notice.

Boards and senior management delegate authority primarily because they have limited time. Not generally because they think you're brilliant. Or exceptionally good. Or even because you have deep expertise in a particular subject. It would be a rare senior manager indeed, that didn't believe that, given enough time to fully understand the subject matter, he or she could personally make a better decision than any of their subordinates.

Nowhere in corporate life have I seen this phenomena more evident than when pursuing a "deal."

For the purposes of this post, a deal could be any kind contract, partnership, joint venture, or acquisition -- something with an agreement that isn't standard day-to-day business.

Signing the deal, or even a letter of intent, is something to leave to the CEO and only the CEO. Unless, that is, you've been pre-authorized to sign on her behalf. Even then, you better have reviewed all the critical parameters of the agreement in advance and have an "understanding." Even then, I recommend you check and double check with someone higher up (either the CEO or someone in the chain of command) before you sign anything. In addition to avoiding the signing of an agreement that the big boss may later look at and reject -- with obvious negative consequences for you -- it helps to "get her fingerprints" on the deal. That way, if something goes off the rails later, it is less likely (although hardly impossible) that the CEO will be an armchair critic.

I can think of two times I violated this rule, both of which had a significant negative bearing on my reputation.

In the first instance, I authorized the signing of a distribution agreement that reallocated territories in a foreign country. That part of the deal was fine. What wasn't, however, was the $200K payment to one party as recompense for territory lost. Within twelve hours (the authorization happened the night before), I was summoned to the CEO's office and summarily dressed down by both the CFO and CEO. Later (as I didn't directly report to the CEO at that time), one of my corporate allies told me he asked the CEO why he didn't have my boss (a Group President) reprimand me. His answer: "Because I didn't want him to quit." It was abundantly clear to me after that comment just how far over the line I'd stepped.

Of course, I didn't completely learn my lesson as a few years later, I signed a letter of intent for a joint venture before reviewing the deal with anyone. In my defense, it was the second go-round with this negotiation, and I had successfully resolved all the first round problems -- at least the ones I knew about. When I mentioned to the CFO over the phone that I'd signed the letter, his immediate response was: "No you didn't." He proceeded to tell me that I needed to immediately call the other party and "rescind" that signature. It was never clear if he was protecting me from the CEO, or simply objected to my overreach on his own. Fortunately, I was able to "undo" the deal, probably saving my skin in the process.

While most companies have informal, unwritten "rules" you need to understand and follow, it is a categorical corporate imperative that those rules that are written must be followed. Overreaching those rules is a surefire way to invite harsh discipline, up to and including termination.

Other Recent Posts:

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

Montage of my novel covers, in order of publication.

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 $2.99.

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

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICS

Giving Up on a Good Idea

We all think our own ideas are brilliant. At least initially. For those willing to test their ideas against some kind of objective standard (in business, this might be a rate of return calculation, or a strategic analysis), you can even gain some assurance that you are on a correct and reasonable track.

But what happens when your objectively tested "good idea" runs headlong into an organizational superior with prejudices against it? Do you try to use logic and argument to win the debate? Or do you give up, consigning your idea to an early grave?

Not surprisingly, the answer depends on a couple of factors fairly easily understood: (1) how "good" is the idea, and (2) how deeply seated are the boss's preconceived notions.

If the idea is only marginal, it is better to discard it immediately. If you somehow manage to get around the superior blocking your path, and then something goes wrong with the ensuing project, you'll likely be facing more than an "I told you so" when the damages are tallied.

If the idea is a world changing innovation, however, the situation is quite different. These kinds of opportunities are rare, and are definitely more worth pushing than something marginal. It is also helpful to evaluate the likelihood of failure in implementation, as "good" ideas fail during implementation all the time. I'd advise you to be much more aggressive on a "sure thing" than a "high risk" proposal.

Pre-assessing prejudice is much more difficult. While it may be difficult to discover anything definitive, you can gather hints through a number of methods -- looking at what has happened in the past, asking other politically savvy players in the organization, or even floating some test balloons with the senior manager in question. Even with hints, however, it is still quite likely that you will be off a bit when the idea proposal eventually hits the manager's desk.

In general, the stronger the preconceived notion, the greater the likelihood that you should simply give up on your proposal. Bucking the boss again raises the risk involved in moving the project forward, and remember: selling (and implementing) new ideas is all about the value of a success versus the risk and consequences of a failure. This goes for both the organization at large, and you as an individual.

I learned this lesson by metaphorically beating my head against a wall on an acquisition that would have positioned my division to capitalize on a new, growth market. The deal was complicated, moderately risky, and I already knew it ran counter to my boss's beliefs about the opportunity for profit.

Never being one to shy away from a good fight, however, I mustered all my analysis and logical arguments to try to carry the day. Had I been carefully weighing the situation, I would have already given up. But I was sure I was right -- the project would be a huge benefit to the company, and I wanted it to move forward.

So I made the proposal, anyway. And it went down in flaming defeat.

Next, I gathered what I thought were the analytical weaknesses in the proposal, and I went back to renegotiate the deal. What I actually should have done at that point was to file the project for good.

After successful renegotiations, I ran the proposal up the flagpole, again. And again, no one saluted.

It was at that stage that I finally got the message. Given my stubbornness it was a wonder that I didn't try to make an appointment with the board of directors in an attempt to end run my boss. Perhaps I'd already learned something about knowing when to stop by then.

By calling an earlier halt to the proposal, I could have saved myself an immense amount of time, and also avoided the damage to my credibility and reputation that came as a result of "not getting the message."

Sometimes it is a better idea to give up a seemingly good idea, than to continue to press it too far. By continuing, you'll likely either end up with a very high risk project with severe consequences for failing, or damage to your reputation for not having "seen the light" sooner. 14.3

Other Recent Posts:

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

Mark Carson and Cathy Chin return as Matt and Sandy Lively in this adventure set in the wilds of British Columbia.

Cover for Pursuing Other Opportunities, my next planned release is to the right.

Non-Fiction: NAVIGATING CORPORATE POLITICSNove

ls: 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 $2.99.

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

The CEO's Preconceived Notions

Preconceived notions, we've all got 'em. As human beings we seem well constructed to filter information that we're exposed to -- largely ignoring anything that contradicts those cherished beliefs, and latching onto anything supportive.

Try examining your own beliefs with this in mind. Say you're strongly opposed to laws and regulations that limit the sale of guns. I'll bet, if you're honest with yourself, you find reasons to discount the testimony of many of the Sandy Hook parents concerning gun violence. On the other hand, if you're in favor of limiting gun sales, you've probably found "reasons" to ignore the statistics on crimes involving assault weapons.

I'm ambivalent on this particular subject, and so can recognize the hard-line positions and how the preconceived notions work on both sides of the debate. Other subjects, however, I'm just as guilty of being ruled by my own preconceived notions as the next person. As an old boss once said: "I love it when the facts confirm my preconceived notions."

Religion, abortion, gun control, politics, government, food safety, immigration -- all are fertile ground for opinion to trump logical thought. In fact, on emotionally charged topics logic generally seems to be scarce, as emotion and belief tend to rule the day with most people.

The same phenomena is true in business. What constitutes a "good" acquisition, what defines a positive leadership style, the "secrets" to motivating people, what constitutes proper employee discipline -- many of the things that aren't easily measured fall into this category of preconceived notions. These beliefs tend to develop over time through the school of hard knocks when a manager goes through a difficult experience and learns a hard lesson (like some of the ones I've presented in these posts). With a little reinforcement, before long that lesson becomes a mantra. Rather than recognizing the lesson was probably highly dependent on the situation under which it was learned, it becomes a rule (or law) to be applied to all situations.

Yet, if these lessons were great enduring truths, they would be distilled down to their essence and taught in every MBA course in the country. Managers tend to ignore situational dependence, and look carefully for any supporting evidence (ignoring anything contrary) in an attempt to extrapolate their preconceived notions into general rules.

Fortunately, hierarchy tends to keep a lid on this for most managers, particularly when one of the manager's preconceived notions conflicts with someone else's higher up. The biggest trouble comes when the big boss has preconceived notions of his own.

Since most CEOs are not challenged by their organizations for any one of a variety of reasons -- such as fear of: retribution, criticism, ostracism, ridicule, demotion, termination, or any number of other potentially bad outcomes -- most get plenty of reinforcement of their preconceived notions and suffer few , if any, real challenges to them. This means that if a manager is predisposed to this fallacy, it will likely run rampant if she becomes a CEO. I had an boss who once called this "Drinking their own bathwater."

I once had a boss that was convinced (a preconceived notion), that an industry immediately adjacent to one I was managing was unprofitable. I put together a proposed joint venture with a company in this industry, and the core assets, according to their financials, were quite profitable. Despite the evidence in their audited financial statements, he persisted in claiming that there was no way the business could be making money. He insisted there was something wrong with the statements (implying book cooking of some sort), and claimed that even if they were correct, the joint venture would be below break even in a very short time. The JV was ultimately rejected despite my best efforts to get it approved.

There was no point in ever returning to this argument, but against my better judgment I presented another deal in the same profit-cursed industry a few years later. The result of his review was much the same. In addition to a number of other objections, I again heard the now familiar preconceived notion that no one in the industry was profitable.

I could have saved myself a lot of trouble if I'd just recognized the nature of these types of beliefs before putting the proposal together.

Your boss (assuming he/she is a human being, not a robot) likely has a number of preconceived notions, and it is in your best interest to learn these and stay on the right side of them. Don't kid yourself into believing that you can change these deeply held notions -- you'll simply be banging your head against the proverbial wall. 14.2

Other Recent Posts:

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

"Heir Apparent" is a sequel to "Deliverables," pairing ex-CIA agent Joel Smith against a serial killer in Kansas City.

Cover for Heir Apparent, my most recently published novel is to the right.

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.

The Gang's All Here

Two party negotiations are tough. Try to put together three or more parties, and the the process can quickly become unmanageable. And, unfortunately, there are a limited number of techniques you can use to try to bring things back under control.

I've had a few tastes of this, particularly where it pertains to acquisitions, and the result has usually ranged somewhere between frustrating and completely impossible. Still, with enough persistence and creativity, most of these deals can be pulled off.

In one particular three-party deal, I ended up forcing the responsibility for one of the negotiations back on the other party. In this situation there were two shareholders of the company I wanted to acquire -- one actively running the place, and the other estranged and competing against the company. The active owner conducted a series of long discussions with me, and ultimately we reached a "meeting of the minds" on the deal. The problem was, the estranged partner had the power to block our agreement, which we felt certain would lead to either an outrageous demand for price, or a complete refusal to allow us to complete the transaction. The only way to solve the problem was to have the active owner negotiate with the estranged partner to purchase his shares prior to our agreement being finalized. Fortunately, the active owner was somehow able to sort this out, and the deal went through.

In a second deal -- this one between my division and multiple distributors -- I conducted three negotiations in parallel. The first transaction was the purchase of an ailing distributor -- a relatively simple matter to sort through. On the day that transaction was completed, I planned to take those assets and contribute them (plus some cash) to a competing distributor, thus taking a minority, but important, stake in that firm. That would allow me to convert the distributor to my products. Complicating this was a territory conflict between the competitive distributor, and another, unrelated distributor in my fold. To solve this, I also needed to negotiate a joint venture between the competitive distributor and the unrelated one to cover the overlapping territory. These three negotiations all had to be conducted simultaneously and in the strictest confidence, so they could all close at the same time. We met most of those criteria, but failed on the confidentiality aspect, which ultimately led to a battle to the death in the territory over the next three years. That battle we won, but not without some pretty deep scars.

In my final example, I found myself trying to negotiate a joint venture arrangement with an Israeli kibbutz. A kibbutz is a social organization somewhat akin to a commune, but with joint ownership of all the community's assets. In essence, I found myself negotiating with "everyone" that participated in the organization, as interests varied across the shareholders from financial performance, to employment, to social mission. This deal eventually fell apart when it became clear that negotiating the joint venture would just be the tip of the iceberg. It appeared that ongoing management would be nearly impossible.

If you have a multi-party negotiation in front of you. First try the "divide and conquer" approach, preferably pushing responsibility for at least one of the deals back on another party. If the only way the transaction works is for you to simultaneously be in the middle of multiple negotiations, resign yourself to a lengthy and potentially frustrating experience. And be prepared for the entire deal to fall apart over seemingly trivial issues that you can't resolve.

And know when to simply say -- this is too much. 14.1

Other Recent Posts:

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

Cover for Heir Apparent, my most recently published novel.

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.

You're Innocent? Prove it!

Sooner or later you're probably going to be accused of doing something wrong, even though you're completely innocent. This was one of the more frustrating aspects of being a part of management because, as it turns out, it's nearly impossible to prove you didn't do what someone else has claimed, and people as a rule seem to be predisposed to swallow wild, preposterous claims, especially when they point the finger at managers.

In fact, often times the louder and more frequently you proclaim your innocence, the more "smoke" you generate, leading observers to conclude that "where there's smoke, there's fire." Or, in other words, they are more inclined to judge you as guilty.

So what can you do?

If you can answer the false claims with facts and logic, you must somehow try to address them. Silence also looks a lot like an admission of guilt. Sometimes this isn't an option (due to lack of a sensible story, too much complexity, or a need for confidentiality). Even where it is possible, you must be clever as to how you rebut.

Let your public statements be quite limited on the subject of the accusation. Perhaps you can address it by saying something like: "I know that my colleague has claimed I took kickbacks from supplier X when we were working on the ABC project. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if you think about it logically, supplier X did a great job on the project, and the last thing they needed to do was to pay me anything. Let me assure you that I would never, ever personally take advantage of any supplier regardless of their performance on a project." This statement, spoken to the masses a single time, would be plenty.

Behind-the-scenes actions are a different matter. You need to put all possible ammunition into the hands of your friends and allies. This would certainly include factual and logical errors in the accusation, as well as possible reasons your accuser might be motivated to do what she's doing. And if you're an adept politician, it could even include counter-accusations, but be very careful with this as it can easily completely muddy the waters, and get you just as dirty as your opponent.

Of course, I've had this kind of thing happen several times during my career.

In one instance, an employee accused me of "cruel and unprofessional treatment" when I played a practical joke on him -- one where he was left a bit uncomfortable for approximately five seconds. The incident did really occur, but was massively blown out of proportion in his recounting. Initially, I tried to aggressively counter the accusation. Ultimately, I decided that since the incident did occur, I was accomplishing nothing by trying to communicate the true sense of what really happened. And as the circumstances were really not all that juicy, the half-life on this story was pretty short.

In another instance, an employee circulated a rumour that I was being paid a bonus by the company every time I laid off employees. That one I did pounce on, and addressed openly in a public forum. I picked this route because the accusation was so absurd that I didn't think many people would fall for it. That being said, I didn't belabor the point. And I did work my allies and friends behind the scenes, painting a more complete picture of how silly the story was. This particular accusation also didn't persist for long.

In my final example, I was not directly accused, but rather one of several possible "candidates." The accuser said "a senior manager" was on the "inside" of illegal activity going on in the company. The accuser didn't take his story public, but a group of five or six of us eyed one another somewhat nervously, each wondering who, if anyone, might be guilty. In that case, I decided to meet the accuser head-on, calling his bluff and inviting him to present his "evidence." That ended up being the end of the accusation, as nothing further was ever revealed.

Each case of accusation of wrongdoing is a little different, and in order to counter it effectively, you need to tailor your response to the circumstances. And, of course, you really do need to be personally innocent. And while there are often multiple options to counter these "tall tales," none is likely to give you the complete vindication you're looking for. Proving innocence is tricky, and often proves to be an impossible proposition. 13.4

Other Recent Posts:

Blackmailed!

When in Doubt, Cut it Out

Comply, Or Else

Running to Mom (or Dad)

Me and my Big Mouth, er, I Mean Email

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.

Blackmailed!

Yes, literally. In my career I have had several former employees try to blackmail the company. Once, in fact, the blackmail attempt was directed at me, personally, in an attempt to secure my "help" to negotiate an outrageous separation agreement.

In none of these instances, was I guilty of anything. Nor did I think that there much of a credible threat of any of these stories being turned into anything, at least not without liberal lying and fabrication of data.

But that didn't stop any of these amoral jerks from making a run at our wallets.

The first rule of protecting yourself from blackmail must be -- don't do anything you're ashamed of. Remember that every action you take as a representative of the company can be put under a microscope. Successfully avoiding questionable actions, however, does not mean you won't be targeted.

In one such instance, a the senior manager of a former licensee tried to blackmail my employer into dropping pursuit of a claim of technology theft. The subject of the blackmail? A fake letter supposedly sent by one of my subordinate, authorizing the licensee to sell in an embargoed country. The fact that we could easily see the signature had been forged on this letter didn't mean there wouldn't be major trouble if it was turned over to the U.S. Government. In preparation to call their bluff, however, we investigated and found other documentation that could cause trouble for the accused employee. We backed down on our complaint.

Blackmailers: 1, Company: 0

The second rule for dealing with blackmail is to assume the worst if (and when) any evidence winds up in unwanted hands (customers, authorities, bosses, etc.). There seems to be a natural tendency for people to believe the accuser and doubt the accused. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." And if the accused is a big company, that tendency is amplified. So review everything the blackmailer has in the worst possible light -- out of context, with his spin, and among a group of people predisposed to doubt your version of events. That's the reality you're dealing with.

In another blackmail incident, I demoted an HR employee, and he didn't like it. Unfortunately, he was engaged in an investigation into pornography that was being viewed and, in some cases, forwarded using the company's computers/email system. After the demotion, I received a letter from his attorney demanding a substantial severance package. Among other accusations, he implied that the "reason for his demotion" was his uncovering of sensitive information during his investigation of the porn scandal. Of course, this was completely preposterous -- had I been worried about that (and, quite frankly, I wasn't even informed as to what was going on with the porn-thing), the last thing I would have done was to provoke him with a demotion. But I realized no one was exactly sure what he had and hadn't seen, or what he might or might not have taken with him. When I refused to accept his blackmail demands, he eventually filed a lawsuit where the implicit threat was thta all the embarrassing porn stuff would come out in court. I eventually had to back out of the situation, and let another exec settle with the guy.

Blackmailers: 2, Company: 0

The third rule of dealing with blackmail is to not let your personal feelings get in the way. Often it is better to compromise, rather than fight. Yeah, I know that stinks. My natural inclination (and I'm sure, that of most people who are wrongly accused) is to meet force with force -- lawyers, demands, counterclaims, or any other weapons at my disposal. While this might feel good, it can be costly. If you wonder how, re-read rule 2. Even if you win, it can be both expensive and exhausting. When it doubt about what to do, seek advice from someone who isn't in the fray.

In my final example, I was personally blackmailed by a former employee who was fired for breaking the law. After his termination, he demanded a huge settlement, and told me in an email that he had audio recordings that proved "a senior executive at the company" was in on his scheme. He never specified who the "senior executive" was, and there were four or five of us that all felt like he could be pointing our direction -- including me. Except, I knew there could be no such recording if he was referring to me, as I had no idea his scheme existed. This time I fought back, daring him to produce the recording and to name names. Nothing came of it. As it turned out, we still had to make a payment to the jerk despite his outrageous behavior -- a clash of U.S. and foreign laws was at the heart of that decision -- but it was a far cry from the huge sum he initially attempted to extort.

Blackmailers: 2, Company: 0, Ties: 1

My final admonition is to never, ever let a blackmail attempt stop at your desk. No matter what. If you're guilty of something, better to confess it now and take your lumps. Living with a blackmailer repeatedly tapping you on the shoulder is no way to exist -- it would be horrible to sit around waiting for the next demand to arrive. And if you're innocent, letting the matter come to rest just makes you look guilty. Take the accusation to your boss, the CEO, your ethics officer, or even to the police if so warranted. 13.3

Other Recent Posts:

When in Doubt, Cut it Out

Comply, Or Else

Running to Mom (or Dad)

Me and my Big Mouth, er, I Mean Email

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

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.

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

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

Blackmailed! When in Doubt, Cut it Out Comply, Or Else Running to Mom (or Dad) Me and my Big Mouth, er, I Mean Email If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

When in Doubt, Cut it Out Comply, Or Else Running to Mom (or Dad) Me and my Big Mouth, er, I Mean Email Does Analysis Lead Intuition, Or Is It The Other Way Around? If you are intriqued by the ideas presented in my blog posts, check out my other writing.

Buy my Books here

Blackmailed!

When in Doubt, Cut it Out

Comply, Or Else

Running to Mom (or Dad)

Me and my Big Mouth, er, I Mean Email

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

When in Doubt, Cut it Out

Comply, Or Else

Running to Mom (or Dad)

Me and my Big Mouth, er, I Mean Email

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

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