People Mirror their Leadership

by Don Harkey

I was involved in an interesting discussion with a client recently. We were talking about important traits of a leader and the trait of character was brought up. While everyone in the room believed that character was an important trait, the question arose as to whether it was important in terms of leadership of an organization. Is high ethics and character really important to a business or is it just a trait that we like people to have? In other words, all other things being equal, does a person of high character make a better leader than a person of lesser character?

Have you ever heard that pets often reflect their owners? If you see a burly looking gruff guy walking down the street with a pit bull, I don't think I would pet the dog. While this isn't always true, the truth is that it is sometimes true. A dog owner who is rough and doesn't treat their dog nicely will often get a dog who is rough and doesn't treat anyone else nicely.

The same is true for management. Workers often reflect their managers. A McDonald's or other fast food place has very tight controls on how the restaurant is to be run. They hire the same people with the same food and the same procedures. However, you might hear someone say, "oh... that's a good McDonald's" or "that McDonald's isn't very good". What is the difference? Simple. It's management.

Have you ever complained about poor service at a business only to discover that the person you are complaining to is even worse? I got incredibly bad serve at a fast food place (there was nearly a riot in the place) and called the manager out who said, "what do you expect me to do?". That's funny... that is exactly the attitude the upset customers were seeing!

One of the largest myths in business is that hiring is search for "good people". The fact is that while people have widely varying strengths and weaknesses, they typically want to do a good job. A "bad person" is probably just someone who lived under bad management. A "good person" is probably just someone who lived under good management. Yes, it takes awhile to get someone to assimilate to a culture, but it is possible and very worth it. The thing is that the "culture" doesn't come from a procedures manual, slogan, or mission statement, it comes from the day to day reality of the organization. It comes from the walk, not from the talk.

This is why character is important in business and why people of high character are so much more valuable. A manager might really like their employees and truly care about what they do. If the manager lies to a client in order to protect the company, this might be considered a "tough decision", but justified. The problem is that employees see this and absorb the culture. They protect each other by not sharing information on mistakes. They hide negative feedback from clients. Pretty soon, leadership is not getting real information from the client that is needed to make good decisions.

Good guys really do win in the end. Hitler was a very strong leader with a clear (and horrifying) vision. In the end, his constant deceptions caught up with him as his people held back information. As the Allies landed on D-Day, Hitler was asleep. None of his people would wake him and none of them would give an order. This was critical in the course of the war.

If your organization has a lot of corruption, look at your leadership. If you have trouble finding the right type of person, first look for the right type of leader.

Shallow Management

by Don Harkey

I'm going to start the week of with one of my rants... I feel OK doing this, since many of you have told me that my rants yield some of your favorite articles.

I am not one of those people who believe that "greed" is what got us into the economic situation we are in today, although it has played a role. I do not believe that corporations are evil or good (they just are) nor do I believe that rich people are bad or good (they just have money). I am a big fan of personal responsibility not only because it encourages people to get less dependent on others, but also because it makes people enjoy their lives more.

However, I am sick and tired of what has prevailed as the corporate, MBA (I am NOT knocking MBA's, but I do criticize the things many MBA schools teach) mentality that seems to infest larger corporations. The management style I am referring to is something I have called "shallow-end of the pool" management or SEP Management.

SEP Management is a style where management from executives all the way down to some front-line supervisors refuse to engage in the work being done by their company. They consider themselves above the work going on around them and say that they need to maintain a high level, professional view of the organization in order to function. They are ready to make the "tough" decisions, although amazingly, the tough decisions tend to be tough only for other people.

Ethics are often thrown out of the window with these types of managers, although not in the way that we are taught in Ethics 101 courses. Let me give you an example...

I recently approached a major author within a major company with a majorly good idea. The idea is really good, and I was ready to execute the idea, but I needed the permission of the author and the company to do so. I managed to find an inside contact with the author (a former teacher of his) and get his direct email. I sent a vague description of the idea after an introduction from my connector. His assistant wrote back that I might be able to get 5 minutes of his time in 3-4 months. She went on... perhaps I should send more information on the idea.

Knowing that I couldn't procede without them, I wrote a quick synopsis of the idea along with how I could execute the idea and promote their company and book with just a simple approval. The assistant wrote back within a few minutes of receiving the email saying that this she would "put it in front" of the author "immediately". A few weeks later, I got an email response from the company. They were "already pursuing" the idea and thanked me for my time and wished me and my company luck.

I have no way of knowing whether or not they were pursuing the idea already or not, although I suspect they were not. I also have no way of knowing what happened inside the walls of the company. Having worked in a corporate environment, I have imagined a fictious meeting in my head between the author and some executives...

Author - "I got this idea from this guy in Springfield forwarded by a former teacher of mine. I really think he might be on to something."

Executive #1 - "That is a good idea."

Executive #2 - "Does this guy have any legal right to the idea? We own the book and its material. The application is open source. Does he have any legal grounds? Do we HAVE to use him if we executed this?"

Executive #1 - "No. He has no legal right to this. We can easily pursue it on our own."

Author - "What should I tell him?"

Executive #1 - "Tell him thanks, but don't give him too much info. He may not have a legal basis, but we don't need to upset him either. We probably would have come up with this concept sooner or later anyway..."

(END SCENE)

I don't know if that is what happened or not, but I have heard about too many similar meetings occuring in meeting rooms (and sat in more than a few of them). The technique is one of dismissal and separation. The question is quickly turned from one of ethics to one of legalities. No one even dares to discuss the "right thing to do" because it has "nothing to do" with business.

This is SEP thinking.

There is good news, however. SEP thinking is not only wrong, it is also ineffective. Managers who treat people the right way do better than those who don't. Companies who reward these types of managers and shun SEP managers do better than those who don't. The free market really does work, but credit for good ideas get squashed from time to time!

Ethics - Not Just Stealing Pencils

by Don Harkey

When I was in college studying engineering, all students had to take a course on Ethics. I remember thinking how stupid the concept was. We are being required to take a course telling us not to steal pencils from work. Unfortunately, I didn't get much else out of the course than "don't steal pencils from work" and a "pass" grade (interesting that an ethics course is "pass"/"no-pass").

As I started my career, I quickly learned that ethics is a much deeper topic than I had realized. Its not just about stealing pencils from work or taking an hour and a half lunch break. Its about protecting your character even when the current around you pushes you the wrong way. Often times ethics requires action over inaction.

I don't think our young professionals entering the workforce are prepared for the decisions they will have to make and for the fact that they will make the wrong decisions from time to time. Part of the reason for this is that most people make enough of the wrong decisions that they become numb to the "right ones". Let me explain.

I have seen a lot of outright corruption in my career (a LOT more than I would have expected). However, this is actually not the most common form of unethical behavior. Crooks almost always get caught. The type of unethical behavior that I see as being extremely common occurs when an individual surrenders their judgment to an organization. Let me give you an example.

An employee is filling out an accident report. The supervisor points out to the employee that if they use too strong a language, the corporation will come down on them and they will get in trouble. The employee "softens" the description of the incident for two reasons: 1) the supervisor basically told them to and 2) if the darn company wouldn't come down so hard on them, they could report the truth. The employee has falsified their testimony and has blamed the company for "making them do it".

I'll give another example. A salesperson is given a bonus if they can sell a certain amount of product within a quarter. The salesperson is barely short of the target and really needs the bonus to help pay for some medical bills. The salesperson has a customer who is wavering on making a purchase. He calls the customer and offers a huge discount if they make the purchase immediately. The employee made a decision for the company based on their individual need.

These practices are so common that many people might argue with me whether its ethical or not. I have had high-level people in organizations tell me that "its just way its done".

Why is this happening? First of all, the commonality I see for this type of behavior is a justification. The person justifies their actions, usually by pointing out a flaw in the organization or people around them. "If they wouldn't base my pay on sales, I wouldn't have to do this" or "If others weren't doing this, I could compete without making these types of decisions". They basically dismiss their decision as something almost out of their control.

Another commonality in the behavior is that it is simply easier. It is easier to go along with the currents of an organization that encourages (intentionally or not) unethical behavior. A supervisor asking you to "soften the language" on a report may not even be consciously aware that they are asking you to lie. Pointing it out to them is tricky because people like to think they have high character and because the right decision will likely make their job more difficult as well.

My advice for organization leaders is simple. Structure your organization in a way that rewards character. Do not give bonuses based on individual performance targets. Beware of practices that limit the flow of truth within your organization. Set up a culture of cooperation (not competition) amongst your employees. Establish a clear common vision. Most of all, make the types of decisions that you want your employees to make. They will likely follow your lead. My experience is that while ethical decisions may be painful in the short term, your reputation will become your most valuable asset in the long term.