Archive for the “Leadership” Category

In the midst of a major transformation initiative, senior managers are frequently surprised by what employees say in response to open-ended survey questions. As a result, we are big fans of making sure senior management hears these comments. We are also big fans of ensuring senior management acts visibly and appropriately in response to what they hear.

A while back, our company was retained by a client in the midst of a reorganization. The 7,000 employee business was moving from a single corporate entity to a divisional structure along product lines. It had been widely stated that the moves would not cut headcount except for a few senior-level positions. The economy was healthy and this company was meeting its objectives when this was underway.

We ran a survey to assess the situation, and here are a few of the comments we received:

• Give the big picture. As people become aware of this, then you can start drilling down into levels of detail.
• It appears we are doing a lot of explaining without a lot of information being revealed. Rumors, speculation and anxiety grows while we wait. I would have done more “behind the scenes” work and made the changes less visible to the organization until we were ready to make the change.
• I would like to see more “personal” meetings with senior levels. Although the communications are effective, they speak to a broad audience. I would like to see members of the executive team go to each site and personally speak to smaller groups of people to explain the rationale and changes.
• The communications have improved from senior management. There should be a weekly bulletins.
• Be open and honest. The rumor mill is rampant about 20% head count reductions. The change was not communicated this way in the beginning. There is even less communication now than ever. Associates want to know the dates when they will find out about their destiny. The vision about accelerated growth has disappeared. There is next-to-no communication about process changes unless you are directly involved.
• Keep up the good work.
• Set an exact timetable. We keep hearing conflicting dates.
• My manager has done an abysmal job of explaining this to our group, has shown no compassion and seems disinterested in our concerns. The process is too slow and is killing our culture. We hear very little from the executives and they don’t do any “walking around.”
• Will these moves really change the company and break down silos? Or is really a financial restructuring that will enable us to sell off parts of the company?

What are the takeaways:

1. Rumors fill vacuums.
2. Leaders can’t over-communicate. Be visible. Some people want more detail and some want less. There is no way to make everybody happy.
3. Have a plan and communicate your plan. Set expectations and then meet them.

I’ll post more soon.

Ok. Back to writing.

I recently took my daughter off to her first year of college, and picked up a pearl of wisdom from her Residence Hall Advisor.  I’m not sure I’ve fully processed it yet, but he may be on to something.

I was standing in the common room of my daughter’s suite. She was unpacking her clothes in the bedroom. Another father was in the common room with me. His daughter was in the other bedroom. We were cleaning out our Blackberries while waiting for our next command.

In comes the R.A.. “I bet everything in this room is just perfect,” he announced.

We concurred.

He continued, “I love the dads of girls. They are the best.”

“Why is that, and who is the worst?”

The gist of his response: “Moms of boys are the worst. They are incredibly involved. They don’t let their sons do anything. I had to referee a disagreement on closet space between two moms! They don’t realize the stuff will be on the floor in no time. Moms think their boys are completely helpless. And they are – but the boys don’t care.” He continued on, “Fathers of girls are the best. They know their place. Help if asked. Stay quiet otherwise.”

We can leave the nuances about fathers of boys and mothers of daughters to another day. We can also set aside the fact that I agree with anybody who thinks I am the best at anything. A few questions come to mind however:

• In this dorm, the girls’ fathers felt their work was done. The boys’ moms were getting one more parenting lick in. In a work setting, when is it right to just let the action happen? When do you stop “helping” and let people do things for themselves?
• Are America’s youngest working generation impacted by how their parents have been parenting? Are America’s young women more prepared for college and the workforce than America’s young men? Are fathers not helping on move-in day because they know their daughters are already capable? Are the boys truly incapable?
• My generation experienced gender roles in a particular way. If I remember correctly, no male contemporary of mine would have allowed his mother to arrange his dorm room. Does today’s middle-aged manager understand that the 20-something worker has a completely different mindset than a 40-something? Does the 20-something worker expect mom-like help? Is the middle-aged manager prepared to mother the boys? What about the girls?

I’m sure one R.A.’s off-handed observation isn’t as good as a well-researched dissertation. It certainly isn’t adequate to create a new field of thinking about managing across generations. But kids do say the darndest things….

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to speak to a business process management organization and a human resources organization about leading transformational change. The groups share three attributes:

1. They both help design the organization’s future,
2. They both see somebody else as responsible and accountable for implementing those changes.
3. The press that covers these groups is frequently discussing the question, “Why don’t we have a seat at the CXO table.”

A Facilitator Ran This Road Crew

Many I spoke to saw their role as facilitators. I absolutely believe in the value of a good facilitator. Unfortunately, facilitators, by definition, are more focused on the process than the outcome. People at the CXO table care about outcomes. I didn’t share my story about a particularly frank CFO adapting an adage about lawyers. When confronted with a huge problem and an army of consultants, he turned to his team and said, “First, let’s shoot all the facilitators.”

Stewardship has many definitions. In biblical times, the steward was a servant that managed the master’s household affairs. It was a position of honor and earned through trust. Today, stewardship refers to a mindset where a person takes responsibility for something that the person does not own. Environmentalists use the term to refer to the appropriate usage of the earth’s resources. Stewardship is a proactive mindset that says, “Count on me to do the right thing.” Anybody can be a steward.

I turn off the lights when I leave a room in my home, and in hotel rooms. I’m a mini-steward of the environment. I try to teach my children to take responsibility for things they don’t directly control. With basketball season upon us, my comment became, “Instead of criticizing her for missing free throws and the fact that you have to run more, invite her to work out with you and show her how to shoot better shots.”

Think about the working world. There are people you work with that regularly stand up and say, “I can make sure that happens.” The task at hand has nothing to do with the person’s job description. They make things happen by influence, not force. (The best thing about those people is that they frequently don’t say a thing; they just do it.)

The next time you want to see change happen, don’t say, “I can’t do anything because I don’t control the situation.” Ask yourself, “What is the number one thing can I influence?” One light in one hotel room won’t stop global warming, or lower my price on the next visit, but it did make a difference. My daughter has yet to realize that the coach is going to make the team run and she will never get to avoid it. She might as well have a teammate who can shoot.

I’m sure you will find you can influence at least one thing in a positive direction. The best part of stewardship is that practice it makes you better at it. The more you act as the steward, the more you will want to, and the more others will want you to. You can influence a tremendous amount just by ignoring your job description and saying, “count on me to do the right thing.”

Monday’s post on the need for leaders to communicate during the economic crisis has been buttressed by some recent research. An October survey of over 500 working Americans by Weber Shandwick showed that:

• 62% were expecting difficulties in meeting corporate goals.
• 71% believe their company’s leadership should be communicating more about the economic situation.
• 54% had not heard from their company leaders on the impact of the crisis on their company.

Now is the time for leaders to be most visible. Visible leadership enables stability, stability turns into productivity, and productivity turns into dollars. Abdication to the company rumor mill is a wasted opportunity.

Disclosure statement: Monday’s post quoted from the CEO of Weber Shandwick. Today, I quote from one of their research documents. I have no affiliation with the company, but find it interesting that they got the same message to me through two different channels. Kudos to the public relations company – you seem to know something about executing PR.

The current economic crisis offers plenty of change, but little in the way of change leadership. Harris Diamond writes in an Op-Ed in the October 14, 2008 edition of The Washington Times…

“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” The immortal line from the movie “Cool Hand Luke” is especially apt these days.

The systemic failures plaguing our banking and financial system are real and have caused genuine pain to millions of Americans. But the problems have likely been made worse by the public’s reaction, or overreaction, to the systematic failure of our nation’s political and financial leaders to communicate effectively with us since the crisis began.

At every step along the way, we have been told that the most recent government initiative taken to resolve the problem was sufficient and would be successful. And, within a matter of days or weeks, the claim was proven wrong. As a result, the banking crisis has morphed into a crisis of confidence in our leaders, our institutions and, in no small measure, in the free market system itself.

There are many rules to follow in the practice of crisis communications, but two are inviolate: when in crisis, communicate; and don’t do anything to undermine your credibility. The people who run our government and financial institutions have violated both.

(The whole piece is available at this link: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/14/a-crisis-of-confidence/)

I saw the effects of this leadership crisis on Saturday night during a dinner with several friends. One of these friends is a nationally-known investment manager. (Our children go to school together and you may have seen him on the television.) He told a story about eating dinner with somebody even more well-known – a general of the financial industry and a political appointee of the highest level. It wasn’t a good story.

Much like we were waiting for some form of comforting wisdom from our friend, he had had wanted to hear similar wisdom from this uberexpert. The general’s answer to the question, “how do we get out of this,” was relayed to us with just one degree of separation, two days of aging and three measures of nervousness: “pause…. pause…. clear throat…. pause…. I’m not sure if anybody knows.”

We were crushed. If anybody could have provided us wisdom and comfort, it would have been our friend. Instead, he gave us cause to worry well beyond his own pedigree.

Whether it is a dinner among friends, or a meeting where a VP says, “I don’t have time to worry about preserving productivity, I need to cut heads quickly,” our leaders are showing fear these days.

I’d suggest a “cool hand” is far more necessary in times of crisis. People who look up to you are basing their actions on yours.

Transformational change results in lower productivity. People are worrying about jobs, who is getting which job, how they will work in the new job, and a gazillion other things. Every level in the organization is wondering, “What’s in it for me?”  The wondering and worrying translates into lost productivity – and large opportunity costs. What value would employees create if they weren’t worrying about the big change?

It would probably take a doctoral study to analyze the numbers comprehensively, but some directional assumptions point toward a scary story. The spreadsheet below takes some average numbers for revenue and costs per employee, and estimates the value created by each employee.

The logic continues that if the average employee’s productivity falls 10% during the change, the company has foregone $2,070 in value. Because the employee contributed 10% less, less value was created. People aren’t creating new products, selling to new customers, analyzing trends for opportunities, negotiating better prices, etc… They are too busy wondering and worrying.

Carrying the logic all the way out, if the change program lasts 12 months and the company has 1,000 employees, the company has an opportunity cost of nearly $25M. 

$25M is a big number, and one would naturally ask, what can be done to reduce it?

The two options are “faster” and “better.” Faster says: get the 12 month project done in 11 months. Better says: get the project done in a manner whereby productivity is preserved. (This productivity preservation requires change management approaches.) Based on the assumptions I used, “better” is clearly – well… better.

A couple comments in closing:

• To repeat – these numbers aren’t an analysis. These numbers are directional estimate based on some reasonable assumptions. Using the mildest of assumptions, however, shows that productivity losses extrapolate into some large foregone value.
• If you would like to try your own numbers, you may download an Excel version of the Change Initiative Cost Estimation Worksheet.
• The figures regarding revenue and costs per employee in the spreadsheet come from PriceWaterhouseCoopers – Saratoga’s 2007 / 2008 US Human Capital Effectiveness Report.

I was recently asked by a Human Resources professional how he could help their company become better at managing change.

I felt a little bit like the doctor answering the question, “I have a bad headache, what’s wrong with me?”

Without a lot more information, the answer will be simple, “Take two aspirin, and call me in the morning.”

Resisting the urge to encourage him to call my office, I gave my diagnosis-free prescription: “Improve senior management leadership capabilities.”

Without a doubt, the approach will help. As detailed in a prior post, CEOs believe senior manager skills and experience stand in the way of implementing change. Not only are senior manager skills an opportunity, but improving their capabilities will give you leverage in future initiatives.

The better diagnosis would come after some frank conversations in the C-Suite. Six topics should be covered:

1. Please tell me about the largest change initiatives you have gone through in the last five to seven years.

2. What went well with those initiatives, and what did not go as well?

3. How likely are we to go through large-scale change in the next three years?

4. How likely are we to repeat the positives and negatives of your previous experiences?

5. How well prepared are our senior and middle managers to lead future changes?

6. What should we do now to best prepare for the future?

After having this conversation with each member of the C-Suite, I would identify the common themes and report back to them as a group. The report would have three elements:

• What did they say?
• How does their collective view compare to best practices and experiences in other organizations?
• My recommendations to address the opportunities.

Those recommendations could cover a wide range of options, but people-related opportunities are likely to dominate. The best part of approach is that the go-forward plan will be largely of their creation. They will give you a charter to prepare for change and become your guiding coalition in that journey.

Perhaps I should give my acquaintance a call and give him some new advice. He needs to go have a frank conversation with the C-Suite.

Monday’s post was about the types of change occurring in large companies. Today’s is about what stands in the way of organizations implementing large-scale change.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ 11^th Annual CEO Survey asked: “Which of the following people challenges were critical barriers for your organization in terms of achieving the desired benefits?” Frankly, the answers are fairly depressing.

The depressing part is that all five of these barriers are within the CEO’s control. The CEOs are talking about their own people.

Some observations:

• As Bill Gates said, “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.” He was likely not referring to the pace of change within a company, but the quote is still appropriate. The C-Suite is typically looking for transformational change to occur much more quickly than it actually takes. What might be seen as a two-year project is usually a three-year project. Sometimes the factors above play a role, but sometimes it is just plain old, overly optimistic, bad estimating.
• The Human Resources function has a responsibility to address. If speed, flexibility and agility equal competitive advantage, and senior management skill sets are a significant barrier, HR should be forcing change management skill development.
• The CEOs never mention that they themselves may be part of the issue. They aren’t saying, “Failure to hire appropriately skilled senior managers,” or, “Inadequate time spent on leading change initiative.” The cure for some of these issues could very well be the personal demonstration of change management skills.

Based on casual conversations with just about anybody in the business world today, large-scale change is commonplace. The Society for Human Resources (SHRM) published the Change Management Survey in 2007 and quantified those types of change. Over the two years leading up to the survey, companies with more than 500 employees had the following types of change: 

The key takeaway: change is occurring for any and all reasons. In the words of Benjamin Disraeli, “Change is inevitable. Change is constant.”

The question invariably comes.  “How long will this ‘transformation’ take?”

The client is thinking that, like the children of Lake Wobegon, the employees of this company are above average, so it won’t take long. But whether it is a merger integration, a change in direction or a large-scale reorganization, it almost always takes longer to achieve the vision than the client would like. The reason is simple: it takes time to move a group of people to do anything, and moving a group of people takes work.

Take this example from my vacation: seven people deciding on lunch. The conversation started at 11:30 and covered the following topics: choice of food, best place to obtain, who would drive, relevant allergies, how the choice would mesh with the dinner choice, what would be for dinner, confirmation of location, take out or pick up, getting a menu, what the kids would eat, the need to make a quick phone call, the need to change shoes, cleaning the back seat of the car, forgetting the cell phone, and who would sit in the front seat. The cars left the driveway at 12:10. It took 40 minutes to accomplish the simplest of tasks.

Granted, part of this debacle was the effects of Parkinson’s Law: work expands to fill available time. Given that it was vacation, time was aplenty, the adults weren’t truly hungry, and the kids weren’t screaming. The debate stretched on because it could. Unfortunately, decisions at work can drag on as well – and so does the transformation.

So what is a change leader to do? The answer is simple: cut the available time. When establishing goals for a transformation, a leader cannot just set the long-term, visionary goal. A leader also must set milestones along the path, and hold people accountable for achieving the interim goals along the way. The change leader must create a sense of urgency by helping people move from milestone to milestone as quickly as possible. The leader must break the long visionary journey into a series of discrete, focused trips.