Monday Slacker Manager wrote that people quit managers, not companies; I took that further in my Tuesday post saying that

• Adequate managers manage employees.
• Good managers manage people.
• Great managers manage persons.

Marvin commented that this also applied to families, saying, “It was a great reminder that people don’t leave families, they leave the leaders of that family. … Adequate husbands/fathers have a wife and kids, Good husbands/fathers provide for their wife and kids, Great husbands/fathers learn the individual needs of their wife and kids and serve them accordingly.”

I know from Marvin’s site that he is coming from a Christian perspective and I respect that.

However, I’m not willing to assume that the male is the ‘leader’ in a marriage—nor do I think the woman is (no offense to any same-sex couples reading this) and I certainly hope that the kids aren’t.

I think marriages should be partnerships, with both contributing to the vision and each leading within his/her strengths and supporting the other as appropriate—and I don’t mean this in the traditional sense.

Next, I’m not completely comfortable with the paraphrasing.

Having a wife and kids is possible for any male with $20 bucks for the license (it’s probably gone up) and active sperm and those two things certainly don’t make them adequate in my mind.

The ‘good’ ones provide what? Food, shelter and safety or more intangible things, such as love, respect and acceptance.

There’s nothing wrong with the definition of ‘great’ as long as it includes unconditional love, unconditional respect and unconditional acceptance for life choices—barring those that are illegal—that may not agree with others in the family.

I also think that ‘great’ is more than serving individual needs in kids; sometimes their needs shouldn’t be served or they will come to expect that. Serving is also about standing back and letting the kid make mistakes starting at a very young age. No parent serves their child by smoothing every kink, filling every pothole and easing every difficulty on the road to adulthood.

Serving is about being sure that kids are exposed to and learn to deal with the real world, one that doesn’t always live up to expectations or work the way one wants.

My own opinion is that this can’t happen if the child is raised in a homogenous environment spending their time with like-minded people. I also think it’s unfair to the kid, because eventually they’ll have to function in the real world, which is messy, diverse and often uncooperative.

This is as true whether it’s the Latino kids living in the Mission District of San Francisco being able to do everything in Spanish except school or the home-schooled kid whose entire world and contact revolves around their family and church.

Homogeny is crippling when it comes to producing adults who can move in a diverse, multicultural, multi-thought, multi-everything global economy.

OK, rant over.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: pasotraspaso on flickr

Dan Erwin has a great guest post about delegation over at Slacker Manager. I strongly urge you to take a moment and click over, read it, print out his Three Keys to Effective Delegating and use them.

Dan accurately touched on one kind of control issue in his post, but my reference is in terms of politics,  MAP and abuse.

Political power stems from control.

The only two things worth controlling are money (obvious) or information (not so obvious).

Managers frequently control both, whereas non-managers are limited to information.

It’s pretty obvious how controlling of money gives someone power, but what about information? These stories are true—

The new engineering VP didn’t like a top performing manager. He cut the manager’s budget, but didn’t reduce his objectives. The manager was forced to lay-off, couldn’t meet his objectives and was fired for poor performance at his next review.

The damage from controlling information is more insidious and in some ways worse. It’s the ultimate micromanagement and destroys people a little at a time by undermining and tearing them down.

A VP of Marketing forced his marcom manager to come to him each time she needed competitive or marketing information, but worse, he berated her constantly for being over budget—but wouldn’t tell her what the budget was. He also complained to the rest of the senior staff about her “neediness” and how she couldn’t manage her budget to the point that they all lost confidence in her. She finally resigned, but not before a lot of damage had been done.

Although it’s more common for managers to use to on their people, I’ve seen non-managerial people wield it against their colleagues, often with devastating effect.

X has information that Y, or even the whole team, needs to do their share of a project. Y asks for the info, but rather than giving it all X gives as little as possible forcing Y to return over and over. Often when responding X uses the opportunity to make subtle comments about Y’s ability, undermining his confidence; X might even start rumors about Y’s competency to do the work.

Over the years I’ve used these and other examples with managers guilty of their own version of information control; some were horrified and worked hard to change their own action—and usually succeeded, but others saw nothing wrong.

It didn’t happen often, but it happened enough that it made me realize information control isn’t always an overt political move or even subconscious insecurities coming to the fore.

Sometimes information control is based in a malicious attitude that permeates the person’s MAP.

MAP can change, but the individual has to desire it and they don’t.

The fact that they spread pain and destruction every place they work doesn’t preclude them from promotions and if they find a position in a dysfunctional culture they thrive.

I call them destroyers.

Image credit: flickr

Although I read a lot of article and blogs, I’m very particular about what I pass on to you. I often link to a particular post, but have a much more limited list to share when people write and ask what to read daily when they have very limited time.

I find the topics relevant, but there are a multitude of similar topics every day, so what sets the ones I choose apart? Synergistic MAP and the writing.

I admit that I’m a writing snob. Quantity doesn’t equal quality; reading through dense prose bores me, so the ones I like are clearly and concisely written. This doesn’t mean other don’t have merit, it just means that they don’t do it for me.

The point being that you need to find sources that resonate and work for you, not for whoever recommends it.

That said, here are my four favorites.

Jim Stroup is responsible for Managing Leadership. Jim is who you read when you want to stimulate your brain and dig into the philosophical, strategic and tactical ramifications of business and politics. He’s also one of the most charismatic, brilliant writers I’ve found.

Steve Roesler writes All Things Workplace. Steve draws his topics from the situations he deals with every day in his work. His advice is practical, down-to-earth, common sense-based and, most importantly, immediately useable.

Phil Gerbyshak over at Slacker Manager is the guy for whom everyone wants to work. He provides great input, especially for less experienced managers—although I know a lot of executives who could benefit by following it.

Mark Jabo at Biz Levity fills my laugh bucket and helps me keep my perspective. His posts are my way of remembering that in the great scheme of things none of this really matters—except to the archeologists when they dig though our digital trash.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: flickr

Phil Gerbyshak over at Slacker Manager quoted an interesting statistic. He said that “7% of employees leave their managers because they didn’t say good morning.”

In the conversation that follows, Roger says, “I have always been of the ilk that I don’t always say “Good morning” to people in the office. I have felt that once a week is good enough… However, this is probably just a reflection of what feedback I personally need. As a manager I have to think that others are different and have different needs.”

I worked for a guy like this. Oh, he said good morning and was a really nice guy, but he didn’t understand that our needs differed from his.

Most of us are like that to some extent. We see the world through our own MAP and unconsciously make the assumption that others see it the same way.

This is especially true with regards to people we’re close to, such as family, or with whom we’re friendly, such as team members, peers, colleagues, even bosses.

Think about it. How many times have you recommended a book or movie only to have the person ask you why in the world you suggested it; or introduced two people you really liked only to find that they can’t stand each other.

My old boss didn’t care about pats on the back, positive feedback or congratulations when he accomplished a critical piece of the sales process. It’s not that he wouldn’t do it, but he just didn’t think of it on his own.

I still remember one time that I closed a really big deal. He was out of the office, so I put the paperwork dead center on his desk where he couldn’t miss seeing it. He came back mid-morning, but it wasn’t until I went to his office, asked and he congratulated me—but when you have to ask, it has no value.

And even when he did say the right thing it was obvious that he didn’t know why he was saying it. It wasn’t that he didn’t mean it, he did, but he never really understood why it needed to be said.

So more important than saying the right thing; saying it at the right time; or honestly meaning it; is taking the time to learn and understand why you’re saying it.

Image credit: flickr

Phil Gerbyshak over at Slacker Manager has a great post yesterday; talking about how your presence is the best present you can give your team and three ways to do it.

I agree with everything Phil said, but I think presence should be taken a step farther and woven into the fabric of your corporate culture.

Your undivided presence when interacting with your people is an absolute necessity when managing today’s workforce if you have any interest in improving productivity and increasing retention.

But what about your team’s interactions with each other and with other parts of the company?

If presence is about paying attention, paying attention is about respect.

Respect is what people should have for each other.

Respect doesn’t just travel down, it travels in all directions.

Respect has nothing to do with position, title, degrees, seniority, salary or other business trappings.

Multitasking when you are interacting is about disrespect.

Which does your culture endorse?

Image credit: sxc.hu

Wednesday Phil Gerbyshak over at Slacker Manager shared his application of Edward Brown’s description of the two dominant leadership models, Charismatic Leadership (often described as arousing the emotions of the populous through imagery and poetic prose) and Traditional Leadership (Often described as operations-centric and unilateral while courting consensus building) and analyzed Obama and McCain in that light.

I thought I’d add to that with a guest post from Korn/Ferry International’s Kevin Cashman and Ken Brousseau (detailed bios at end of post), in which they apply their CEO assessment, expertise and constructs to the Presidential candidates.

Note: The candidates are discussed in random order and reflects no preference by the authors.

An Expert Analysis Of Our Presidential Candidates’ Executive Leadership

Voters commonly cast their ballots based on the critical issues and policies, but what about the equally crucial assessment of a candidate’s leadership strengths and approaches?

• Who is the leader beneath the speeches, policies and ads?
• How would experts describe the unique leadership styles of Barrack Obama and John McCain if they were being assessed for a global CEO position?

Two leadership authorities from one of the world’s largest talent management firms, Korn/Ferry International, point to four critical and differentiating facets of Obama and McCain’s leadership:

• decision-making styles;
• emotional temperaments;
• learning agility; and
• power-of-voice versus power-of-connection.

Overall, Cashman and Brousseau say that

• McCain’s strengths appear to be action-orientation, adherence to principle and a fiery tenacity to achieving results, whereas

• Obama tends to demonstrate exceptional learning agility, collaboration and is calmer under pressure.

1. Decision-Making Styles – Cashman and Brousseau assert that both candidates are principled decision-makers, but differ in their propensities to quickly or analytically make decisions and hone in on single versus multiple courses of action. Korn/Ferry’s research (see this Harvard Business Review article) at  shows that those unable to lead in a “complex style” have low likelihoods of succeeding in their positions, yet once they’ve risen to a top level, it’s possible to succeed with multiple approaches.  They observe:

• McCain is a more uni-focused thinker who focuses on one key principle or goal and tenaciously holds to a particular action rather than changing positions. When not in action-mode, he shifts to a more complex style that’s both analytic and uni-focused, efficiently studying the facts, and making and sticking to what he senses is the best decision.

• Obama also operates in the complex mode, but more often uses a creative and integrative style that is analytic and more open to alternate possibilities.  Before making a judgment, he studies an extensive array of information and options, then gradually forms a strategy combining multiple objectives, actions and viewpoints.

2. Emotional Temperaments – The ability to manage the emotions of one’s self and those around them is a defining aspect of leadership at any level.

• When principles are challenged or threatened, McCain seems to be more emotive and combative to win the day. Achieving high performance works best for him in a high-octane pace where things are very active.

• Obama tends to maintain equanimity and gets introspective to sort out the best solutions to win, asking his staff to provide him with some reflective time each day.  His high performance is achieved by reflecting, synthesizing and collaborating.

3. Leadership Agility and Ability to Deal with Ambiguity -The key leadership competency in shortest supply is the ability to deal with ambiguity, according to the research of Korn/Ferry and others and supported by past Presidents who’ve described the job as “everything happening all at once.” Though we often dub political leaders who change their positions as wishy-washy, Cashman and Brousseau say that can be a sign of agility, as good leaders summon past lessons and observations to reframe thinking in first-time contexts or changing global environments. Agility – found to be much more predictive of potential and success than raw intelligence – has components related to mental, people, results and change.

• Obama demonstrates exceptional mental agility and has proclivity for dealing with change and people, but critics may question if his results agility on a large-scale have been sufficiently demonstrated.

• McCain, in contrast, shows a strong results orientation and a measure of mental agility, but his history of working amid volatility and commitment to tradition may call his agility with people and change into question.

4. Exerting Power-of-Voice or Power-of-Connection – Cashman and Brousseau say that many leaders can be understood as either heroic leaders who assert their power-of-voice or more interpersonally inclined leaders who employ power-of-connection. The key is being able to exercise the weaker, non-default area.  According to research by Zenger and Folkman, leaders who excel in people or results only, reach the 90th percentile of leadership effectiveness nine or 13 percent of the time, but those who possess both reach that level of success in two-thirds of instances.

• McCain, as someone who forcefully asserts for results, best typifies the heroic “I” type of leader, who leverages personal influence to impact results.  The downside can be too much drive and not enough relational connection.

• Obama and his collaborative approach characterize “We” leaders, who leverage collaboration, relationship and synergy to get results. In crisis situations, however, sometimes more “I” is required.

The leadership experts say Obama fits the overall archetype of a “magician” leader, someone who blends ideas and people to produce new solutions to unsolved problems.

McCain, on the other hand, is more of the traditional “warrior” leader, bringing about results through force of will or assertion with little fear of adversarial relationships or situations.

I’m no expert, but it seems to me that we’re more in need of a magician who “blends ideas to produce new solutions” than a warrior who applies “force of will.”

It seems to me that most of the “leaders” who crashed their companies on the rocks, as well as the current Administration, either are, or have a strong leaning towards, the warrior model.

I’m tired of “I” leaders proclaiming their visions, unwilling to brook any kind of disagreement.

I (we?) can only hope that the calamities we’re facing foster a stronger application of “we”—in both politics and business

About the authors:
Kevin Cashman, author of the newly expanded book Leadership from the Inside Out, founded LeaderSource, a Minneapolis-based international leadership development, executive coaching and team effectiveness consultancy that joined with Korn/Ferry International in 2006. Leadership from the Inside Out, available in second edition in September, was named the #1 best-selling business book of 2000 by CEO-READ and one of the top 20 best-selling business books of the decade.  Over the past 25+ years, Cashman and his team have coached thousands of senior executives and teams to enhance performance.

Kenneth Brousseau, Ph.D., is CEO and co-founder of Decision Dynamics LLC, a firm specializing in behavior profiling and human resource systems design. Prior to forming Decision Dynamics, he served as a management and organization professor at the University of Southern California Graduate School of Business Administration.  Dr. Brousseau specializes in behavioral assessment systems for purposes of employee selection, organizational development and career management.  He is coauthor of The Dynamic Decision Maker, and he has authored articles on career development, work system design, team development and organizational design in publications such as Harvard Business Review, the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Academy of Management Executive.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: Obama, McCain

Recently, the conversation at Slacker Manager turned to how a manager bounces back from a bad hiring. Although the five steps Barry Moltz listed are good, I commented that they didn’t include making hiring a priority and core competency, which would do much to alleviate bad hires. (Barry agreed:)

In most instances, the key to a bad hire is poor synergy between the candidate and the corporate culture. Culture is also the culprit in most screwed up M&A.

There’s actually not a lot of difference between hiring one person and acquiring/merging two companies. No matter how complementary the skills, technology and experience, cultural incompatibility usually leads to disaster.

There are dozens of examples to choose from—Alcatel-Lucent is one that’s happening right now.

Good technical synergies, but light-years apart culturally.

“But the cultures could hardly have been more different. One was hierarchical and centrally controlled, the other entrepreneurial and flexible.”

Don’t assume that the first description is Alcatel, it’s not.

[Lucent] retained a command-and-control style, and after years of restructuring, executives were so obsessed with cost-cutting that even the smallest purchase had to be logged into a central accounting system… “It was a slow-moving ship with an entitlement mentality,” says John Wright, a former Lucent vice-president…”

While it may be that the candidate is the ship, it’s just as possible that she’s a speedboat. Either way synergy is unlikely and conflict almost inevitable.

While culture may not be obvious when acquiring or hiring, due diligence/interviewing is able to identify and explore it. The problem is that managers often ignore culture, because they believe they that theirs is ‘right’ and the other will change. It’s not a case of you/your company being right and ‘her/them’ being wrong, it’s a case of the pieces don’t fit—and 98% of the time you should see it coming.

Image credit: owaisk_4u