Three great interviews sharing what to do and one commentary on the opposite.

Do you long for simplicity, especially in software? Jason Fried built his company 37Signals because he hates complexity. Read more about his attitudes in Inc’s excellent article, you may be surprised.

Next is the story of and an interview with Steve Chang, co-founder and chairman of Trend Micro. Learn why two failed startups didn’t dampen his entrepreneurial fire and what drives him to innovate.

I love this interview with William D. Green, chairman and C.E.O. of Accenture. He tells his first training seminar as a manager where he was told the 68 (no joke) things he needed to do to be successful; Green decided there were just the three Cs.

The first is competence — just being good at what you do, whatever it is, and focusing on the job you have, not on the job you think you want to have. The second one is confidence. People want to know what you think. So you have to have enough desirable self-confidence to articulate a point of view. The third thing is caring. Nothing today is about one individual. This is all about the team, and in the end, this is about giving a damn about your customers, your company, the people around you, and recognizing that the people around you are the ones who make you look good.

I don’t follow sports, but Wally Bock’s offers a comprehensive commentary on the amazing unprofessionalism of Brian Kelly, whose actions are a case study on the fastest way to trash your people. But I wonder how many people will actually find them offensive or just shrug and say no big deal.

Finally, the ongoing sex scandals of the Catholic Church have offered up some of best examples of how leaders dance around the truth, never really admitting their errors even when they claim to be sorry. Cardinal Egan is a Church leader who has danced for decades before his house of cards comes crashing down, but even now he hasn’t stopped dancing—or blowing smoke. When will those in power understand that an apology means nothing when the deed is diluted, denied or rationalized.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit:  nono farahshila on flickr

When the economy slows, it’s easy to ignore retention factors because management kids itself into believing that replacing people is no big deal.

But slow as it’s happening, the times they are a’chnging.

At least here and there, in companies that really understand the importance of attracting and retaining scarce talent.

“To reduce “female brain drain,” global companies such as Ernst & Young, Goldman Sachs, Booz Allen Hamilton, Hewlett-Packard, Best Buy and dozens of others are increasingly offering a variety of flexible work options.”

Don’t get me wrong. These companies aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their corporate heart or caring social consciousness, they’re doing it because it makes financial sense, AKA, vested self-interest.

“Business analysts and executives say talent retention and the forces of demography are the chief reasons large, traditional companies accommodate the needs of female employees. Fifty-eight percent of college graduates are women, and nearly half of all professional and graduate degrees are earned by women…the number of women with graduate and professional degrees will grow by 16 percent over the next decade compared with an increase of only 1.3 percent among men.”

And the need is going to get worse.

“Whether you can hear it or not, a time bomb is ticking in C-suites worldwide. Its shock waves will resonate for decades. The explosive: indisputable demographics. Surveys…indicate that the number of managers in the right age bracket for leadership roles will drop by 30% in just six years. Factor in even modest growth rates, and the average corporation will be left with half the critical talent it needs by 2015.”

It’s not just large firms, SMB companies are active in the effort, although they often skip the language and the programs are more informal—which is why they’re often described as “being like a family.”

Although the work-life trend started with women, the guys want it, too, and Millennials assume it as a right.

The economy will turn around—it always does; more Boomers will retire; demographics will prevail; talent will be scarcer and the companies that already know how to offer balance will have an enormous recruiting edge.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: James Jordan on flickr

Recently Dan McCarthy asked if there was a leadership crisis or is it a branding issue and I’ve been stewing ever since. (Please take a moment to read the post and the discussion.)

I’ve been stewing not so much because I disagree with Dan’s individual points, but because I disagree with the whole leadership-for-the-chosen-few attitude prevalent since the end of WWII.More than that, I am vehemently against the leader-as-a-silver-bullet school of thought.

The extent of this attitude has become glaringly apparent and the Presidential election is the highest profile example.

Yes, I voted for Obama, but not with any expectation that he could take office and resolve the global economic crisis, provide an abundance of high-paying jobs and reverse outsourcing, end our involvement in the wars and provide universal healthcare during his first year—or even his first four years.

There is no human being on the planet who could have accomplished any one, let alone all, of those goals.Hero-leaders, god-like leaders, God-as-leader—none are going to lead us anywhere because none is universally acceptable.

And it is time to stop looking to others to clean up our messes.

Real change starts as a grass roots effort, not as the vision of a larger-than-life figure with a title that is more like a target.

But we love to have a scapegoat; someone to shoulder the responsibility and take the blame for an effort doesn’t work—and that we can laud in the event that it does.

Remember when financial writers talked about share prices and compared 2005 prices to their pre dot bomb highs?

I think that comparing leaders/managers who functioned brilliantly during an up economy to those are performing now is just as ridiculous—there is no similarity between running a company in 1999 or 2006 and now.

Just as importantly, I believe we have a crisis in ‘followers’, both the actions and the brand.

Initiative is expected in the select ‘high potential’ few, but if you aren’t in that group initiative is often shot down. So, by de facto definition, followers are lower; a lesser breed from which to expect little more than compliance.

When high potential is identified early “late bloomers” are often nipped in the bud—or leave to flower somewhere else.

Developing and rewarding initiative, no matter the source, helps build leadership into a core competency throughout the organization.

That, in turn, builds strong, thinking followers and positions the company to thrive no matter what.

Your comments—priceless Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit:  ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Mark Stelzner at Inflexion Point is host for the December Leadership Development Carnival and he’s done it with such flair and good imagery that it’s silly for me to try and improve his snowstorm analogy.

Although the weather outside may be frightful, this Carnival’s writers are so delightful. So stoke the fire, grab a blanket and get ready to curl up with some of the best leadership writing from the past thirty days. Cozy yet? Good… let’s jump right in. Leadership Whiteout The good thing about a whiteout is that you have no choice but to stop and pay attention:

• Wally Bock of Three Star Leadership warns you to Mind The Leadership Gap.
• Art Petty of Management Excellence reflects on the year in Leadership Style 2009 – What We Learned.
• Taleo’s Alice Snell calls out the Leadership Void.
• Find some direction with Bret Simmons’ You Will Lead The Same Way You Follow, So Be Careful About How You Follow.
• Aspire’s Mary Jo Asmus provides terrific guidance with, What Do You Believe About Leadership?
• Janna Rust of Purposeful Leadership offers Coaching: How the Best Leaders Teach.

Surviving The Blizzard 2009 has been anything but easy:

• Coaching Tip’s John Agno leads us off with Six Essential Leadership Traits for Hard Times.
• Barbra Sundquist of Become a Certified Coach offers great tips on How To Help Someone Who Is Stuck.
• Working Girl’s Laura Schroeder taps into employees’ Enlightened Self-Interest.
• Miki Saxon of MAPping Company Success shares The Secret of Motivation.
• HR Bartender Sharlyn Lauby shares her tale of Workplace Ethics and the Three Monkeys.
• Nick McCormick channels John Spence of Awesomely Simple in You Become What You Focus On.
• Mountain State University’s Becky Robinson states the importance of Creating Community.

Plowing Through We often have no choice but to push forward:

• MoneyNing’s David Ning has 12 Surprisingly Simple Ways to Get More Done.
• James of Organize IT supplies an Emergency Response Guide.
• Patti Blevins suggests you Develop Your Prosperity Consciousness.
• Without Warning Coach Rodney Johnson throws down in Wrestling With Alligators.
• The People Equation’s Jennifer Miller breaks through The Ambiguity Factor.
• Scientific Management’s Aaron Windeler provides 4 Leadership Tactics That Help The Bottom Line.
• Chris Young of Maximize Possibility offers 5 Ways To Keep “Accountability” From Becoming A Buzzword.

Finding Snowflakes Let’s face it, some employees/leaders may be more unique than others:

• Great Leadership’s Dan McCarthy reminds us that High Potential Notification Guidelines should not be too heavy or too light.
• GeekMBA360 lets you in on the Dirty Secrets of Performance Reviews.
• Amy Wilson of TalentedApps uses her senses in Be Their Eyes And Ears.
• Andy Klein of the Fortune Group tells us Why Leaders Must Hold People Accountable (or deserve their failure).
• Lisa Rosendahl of Simply Lisa states that Leadership Is Only As Good As The Leader.
• Dallas Bragg of Developing Daily offers helpful tips on Mentoring New Employees.
• The Mentor Club’s Louise Moule quantifies The X Factor Of A Consultant.
• Miki Saxon of Leadership Turn provides a simple truth in Real Leaders Are Fair.

Brain Freeze Sure it’s cold, but that’s really no excuse:

• Madeleine Van Hecke’s post on SharpBrains teaches us to Train Your (Brain’s) Autopilot (and how to turn it off).
• Management Issues’ Wayne Turmel shakes up your inner lizard in Reptilian Brains.
• Anne Perschel of Germane Consulting asks, Are You Smarter Than A Fish?
• Jonathan Senior of Sharp End Training makes you an instant expert with the Buzz Phrase Generator.

Good stuff. Mark asks, “What issues would you like this crowd to tackle in 2010?” Let me know and I’ll pass on your comments or post them at Mark’s site.Your comments—priceless Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAILImage credit: Great Leadership

People hate reviews, but done correctly reviews are a terrific tool to provide individual attention, improve retention and show your love—tention reviews as opposed to tension reviews.

I won’t bother explaining the latter; everybody has suffered through a tension review at least once in their life and probably far more.

The biggest difference between the two is in the level of communication and frequency.

Done correctly tention reviews happen constantly and are called feedback. Think of them as a manager’s response to the “how am I doing” sign implicit on every member of their team.

We all crave feedback, which includes

• sincere strokes (given publicly),
• constructive criticism (given privately),
• career growth (what we have to do to take that next step), and
• friendly general interest.

Truly great managers add

• how can I improve,
• what can I do to help you, and
• how can I help our team excel?

Another part of review love is inherent in the communications necessary to setting solid, intelligent goals for each team member—

• solid because they make sense and are achievable, while still being a stretch, and
• intelligent because each person can see how their own objectives support their team’s goals, which, in turn, support the overall goals of the company.

Tention reviews also recognize that individual annual goals often need to be adjusted as a change in the company’s goals sets off a ripple effect throughout the organization.

And for those managers’ who claim they don’t have the time because of their real job, I’m here to tell you this is your job—cut corners or ignore at your own peril.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit:  ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Last Monday we discussed some of the ridiculous reasons that managers use to excuse their lack of fairness and Tuesday we covered what most employees actually mean by ‘fair’.

The main focus was on compensation and that doesn’t begin to cover it.

Unfair treatment from pay to perks to training to strokes to any form of attention will create problems.

Note: I didn’t say ‘might’ or ‘may’ cause problems, but will cause them.

Not just engagement, motivation and retention problems, but also problems with creativity, innovation, initiative (AKA leadership) and especially trust—there won’t be any.

So let’s be clear.

There is no acceptable reason to treat any of your people unfairly.

How do you know that you are being unfair?

I have never met or heard of any managers who didn’t know deep down that they were being unfair.

They may ignore their actions and practice extreme awareness avoidance regarding their reasons, but they know.

The solution is simply to stop; there is no fancy action list; no books to read, no research to do.

You know when you do it, so you’ll know when you stop.

Simple—yes; easy—no. But it has to be done if you want your team to excel.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: HikingArtist on flickr

(And a special link to stories of Thanksgivings past, so you’ll know it’s not just your family or to light a candle that yours is different:)

And click to see some great turkey PR

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: law_keven on flickr

Yesterday I told you how monkeys lose productivity when treated unfairly.

Unlike the managers I described in that post, good managers know that unequal pay, but they also know that it’s not just a matter of title/grade.

Not everyone with the same title deserves the same compensation—in fact, to do so would be extremely unfair!

Most companies establish a range for each job and some guidelines within each range, but the guides frequently fall short of what’s needed in the real world.

How do you draw the lines to achieve fairness?

You might think that ‘fair’ is some kind of universal one-size-fits-all yardstick, but all the people I’ve talked with over the years define ‘fair’ relative to themselves and those around them.

Developers working in a small local company didn’t compare their salaries to the developers in IBM, nor to their bosses. They compared them to their peers, i.e., similar job, experience, background, company, industry, location and, lastly, title.

Workers are well aware that every position has a salary range; what they want is for their level within that range to make sense.

The problems arise when the person they sit next to gets X more dollars or a promotion for reasons such as those mentioned yesterday, reasons having nothing to do with skill, experience, attitude or actual work.

This is the critical knowledge that helps you develop working guidelines for your company’s ranges.

Let’s say that ABC Corporation uses a three-level structure in engineering: engineer I, engineer II, and senior engineer and that there’s a $20K range within each level. They currently have five people who are Engineer II. The salary range is $60K – $80K. Of the current people:

• Judy was recently promoted and is at $62K;
• Jim, $68K, and Craig, $72K, both have been working for six years. Although Jim has an MBA, he started in sales engineering while Craig had three years’ experience in a specifically needed skill when he was hired.
• Tracy is making mid-seventies with five years of direct experience; and
• Kim, at $80K and due for promotion, has a Masters’ and 17 years of experience, 5 of them in ABC’s field.

Although they’re all Engineer II, because the salary differences are based on factual points, not charm, politics, or managerial whim, the group is satisfied that they’re being treated fairly.

As usual, it’s not rocket science, it’s common sense—but I’m starting to think that common sense is rocket science these days.

But fairness is about more than just pay; please join me next Monday for further discussion.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit:  ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

As you may know, I coach with a focus on MAP—it’s effects, uses and how to enhance/change it—so I tend to collect articles and information that will help illustrate and/or drive home a critical point.

MAP is both timely and timeless with the same topics arising in successive generations of managers, so the past articles are often of just as much use now as when they were written.

Obvious as it may seem, fair treatment of employees is one of those things to which managers constantly make exceptions citing all sorts of ‘reasons’.

Years ago I read an article about a study by Sarah Brosnan.

Briefly, what Sarah did using capuchin monkeys working in pairs was to start by rewarding them equally with a slice of cucumber for performing a specific task, then rewarding one of the working pair with a grape instead (capuchins eat cucumbers, but love grapes). The results? The performance went from 95% success to 60%, but at least they still did the same amount of work. However, when one received the grape for doing less work, i.e., not performing the task at all, the success level dropped like a stone—all the way down to 20% for the cucumber crowd.

OK, back to the managers. Frequently, when I ask managers about a discrepancy in treatment, compensation, promotion, etc., what I often hear is along the lines of, “X and Y are equal with similar experience attitude, and duties, but…” and they finish the sentence with comments such as:

• “X should earn more because he’s supporting a family.”
• “X needs the promotion because her husband walked out on her.”
• “X just moved here and the housing is expensive!”
• “X is too short to be a manager.”
• “X and I went to the same school.”
• “X is cute.”
• “X reminds me of _________ so I will/won’t…”
• “I don’t like X.”

Enough! This list could go on all day, and it just gets sillier.

However, what never ceases to amaze me is that these managers see nothing wrong (let alone illegal) in their actions and expect either no repercussions or maybe some minor grumbling—or they just don’t care.

What they never seem to expect are significant drops in productivity, high levels of turnover (no matter the economy) and the occasional lawsuit.

In fact, most of them are shocked when something does happen, and harbor serious doubts as to whether the inequities actually have anything to do with it.

Of course, the most hilarious justification I hear is that “nobody will find out.”

You would not believe just how many line managers at all levels, not to mention HR people, actually believe that people don’t discuss their compensation/stock packages.

Some companies even have rules stating discussing it is not allowed and can be “cause for dismissal.” These aren’t old-line, dark ages managers I’m talking about, but enlightened, 21^st century, believe-in-empowerment types.

When will managers learn that secret compensation is right up there on the reality scale with Santa and the Tooth Fairy?

Being treated fairly has always been at or very near the top of people’s wish list. The only real change in the last thousand-or-so years is that it’s moving from the wish list to the demand list.

Since I first read the article I’ve shared it with managers who don’t have a clue; I’ve even emailed it to some of them, but it doesn’t always work.

In fact, the result can be hilarious. Once, when I was at my wit’s end, I sat down with the densest manager I ever worked with and we went through it together.

After discussing it in detail looked at me like I was nuts and said, “So what? I hire people, not monkeys.”

I kid you not!

Please join me tomorrow for a look at what ‘fair’ really means.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Ivan Mlinaric on flickr

There is a dangerous assumption out there that ‘leaders’ are chuck full of positive traits and on the side of the angels, but I’m here to tell you that it ain’t necessarily so. Just as leaders come in all shapes, colors and sizes they come with a wide variety of traits, not all of them positive. But it seems as if succession is tough all over.

Italian police have caught the Sicilian Mafia’s number two, the latest in a string of top-level arrests that has given the crime group that once terrified Italy problems with rebuilding its leadership.

The hero CEO who will save the company easily morphs into the imperial CEO. An intelligent, thoughtful opinion piece by Ho Kwon Ping in Singapore considers the dangers of this happening and assumes it will continue in the US—and it probably will.

The leadership of any company is critical to the success of its mission — but no one individual is mission-critical.

Yesterday I wrote Real Leaders are Fair, which means applying rules equally, but that rarely happens, especially when a government is involved and ours is no different. Consider the non-application of a federal law backed by a presidential proclamation that prohibits corrupt foreign officials and their families from receiving American visas. But business interests always seem to trump fairness.

“Of course it’s because of oil,” said John Bennett, the United States ambassador to Equatorial Guinea from 1991 to 1994, adding that Washington has turned a blind eye to the Obiangs’ corruption and repression because of its dependence on the country for natural resources. He noted that officials of Zimbabwe are barred from the United States.

Finally, on a lighter note, I found the answer given by Ask the Coach to this question to be classic.

Q: I am having a difficult time leading my team. The team members will not follow my instructions, which I am sure would make our project much more successful. What am I doing wrong?

A: What you’re doing wrong is very simple: you have simply forgotten that your team is more critical to the success of your project than you are.

Take a moment and read the whole post, I guarantee you’ll like what you learn.

And if you want more of my picks you’ll find them here.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: nono farahshila on flickr