Note From Rand

Tomorrow, the movie Horrible Bosses opens in most major cities. I’ve only seen the previews and I’m no Roger Ebert, but it looks like a scream!

My article this month, Help! My Boss Is A Jerk, exploits that theme. Every person, at one time or another, believes her boss is a jerk and wants him to be different. My take: Too many people let that perspective undermine their success.

That issue segues to a bigger one – one that has become a theme in my work and in my own life: If you want success, you have to “own your life.” Read on to find out how to do that.

Have a great July. As always, get real, get tough and get going.

Help! My Boss is a Jerk

I work with managers from every level – high-potential middle managers to CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. At some point, many of them (including CEOs referring to Board members) complain that life would be so much better if their bosses weren’t such jerks.

Their complaints about boss “jerkdom” take many forms. “My boss is such a micro-manager; I have no decision-making space of my own” is a common theme. “My boss doesn’t understand how hard my team and I are working. I never get a thank you” is another. I also hear some variation of this one a lot: “Mr. X makes a lot of thinly veiled threats. He’ll make some comment about our needing to pare expenses. Then in the next breath, he’ll mention some aspect of my performance that he believes is sub-par. When I “connect the dots,” I’m scared to death I’m going to lose my job.”

Recently, during a very early-stage discussion, a new client said the following: “My boss is a jerk. I hate him. I cannot be effective working for this guy!” I reacted with the following question: “So why am I here?”

He looked stunned and then said, “You’re here to help me to be effective and successful in this role.”

I returned with this: “But you said that you cannot BE effective working for the guy you report to. If we assume that he isn’t going to be hit by a truck or get moved any time soon, you’re going to be reporting to him for the foreseeable future. If you cannot be effective as long as you report to him, then you’re paying me a lot of money for nothing. Don’t get me wrong; I like being paid. I just don’t like being paid if we’re both operating under the delusion that you can be successful if that’s not the case!”

He was stunned! “Look,” I continued, “it is OK to want your boss to be different than he is. At some point, we all want our bosses to behave differently than they do. I am self-employed. I know my boss can be a jerk! The point … and it’s one that applies to all aspects of your life, not just your boss … is that it is OK to want things to be different than they are. It is not OK to require things to be different than they are!”

A light bulb went off! It changed both the tone and substance of our discussion and anchored our business relationship for the next year. The implications for you: We all go though life creating rationalizations, justifications and excuses for “the way things are” in our lives. We blame our bosses, our spouses, the weather, competition, regulation, recessions, expansions, sinus headaches and male-pattern baldness for our failures, yet we accept praise for our successes as if we achieve them alone, in isolation. “I did it alone because I am the causer of all successful action, the grand poobah of magnificence, the great and powerful Oz,” our thinking goes.

If you aspire to be a successful, well-adjusted, high-performing, purposeful, productive and happy person, there is one absolute, irrevocable rule: You must OWN YOUR LIFE – ALL OF IT! Owning your life embodies two basic elements: The first is accepting responsibility for creating your results; the second is accepting accountability for your results – the bad as well as the good. A brief explanation:

I’ve heard personal development gurus say that the word responsibility can be broken down into respond and ability. They say you can think of responsibility as the ability to respond. I don’t believe that assertion implies the appropriate level of action.

For me, owning my life implies the need to respond. If I’m going to really own my life, I have to take action. Life does not reward ability; it rewards the use of ability! I know a lot of capable people who choose not to act. Many of them have become psychologically immobilized by their past experiences. How that happened or whether they were complicit isn’t as relevant as this absolute truth: If you don’t take the reins, the reins will take you!

If you want success, you have to take the reins.

The notion of accountability is tough for most people. Without accepting consequences, there is no accountability. Accepting consequences is difficult in a society in which we’ve been conditioned to believe that success is a right rather than a privilege that must be earned, and if we’re not successful, it’s because of somebody or something else. To wit:

• If the IRS is closing in on you, it must be the big, bad IRS. It can’t be because you evaded your obligations or cheated.

• If your house is being foreclosed, it can’t be because you’re over-leveraged. It must be the “fine print” in your mortgage contract.

• If you got drunk and wiped out a school bus, it must be because the bar served you ten drinks and not because you are an irresponsible slob.

• If you can’t pay your credit card debt, it’s the fault of the credit card companies and not your belief that you have a right to own lots of stuff, whether or not you can afford to buy it.

We’re all occasionally victimized. The prior examples, however, illustrate how many people invoke blame, excuses, rationalizations and justifications for their plight. If you want success, you can’t be one of them. Own your actions and your outcomes, and you own your life.

Note From Rand

The pre-orders for my book, Consensus is not Kumbaya, are going great guns on Amazon. As a matter of fact, I’m told their original stock is out, and they’re waiting for a shipment from my publisher.

Remember, you can purchase the book directly from me through my web site (www.randgolletz.com) and either receive a discount or get a copy of my last book, Stepping Stones to Success, which also features Jack Canfield, Deepak Chopra, Denis Waitley and others, FOR FREE. Click on one of the cover displays below, and it’ll direct you to an online form to complete your order. For those of you who have read Consensus, I’d appreciate your writing a review on Amazon.

Two pieces this month. The first, “The Power of ‘No’,” makes a powerful point about the priority of giving customers specific answers to their questions. As usual, it comes from my own experience. The second, “Interview for Personal Qualities,” emphasizes the need to hire for character, which is something most companies don’t think enough about!

I’ll see you in July. Until then, get real, get tough and get going!

The Power of “No”

I arrived to check in at my hotel in the middle of long business trip. I approached the counter and was greeted by a pleasant young woman with her name emblazoned on a badge affixed to her shirt. It said “Melanie.” Underneath her name was printed one additional word, the dreaded “Trainee.”

I’m very careful to treat novices with the appropriate kid gloves. I have no expectation that a person with limited experience will have the authority or expertise to solve major problems. In this case, I didn’t expect to present any major issues to Melanie; I expected an uneventful check-in.

She greeted me cheerfully by name and took an imprint of my credit card. As she was about to reach for my key, I made the mistake of asking the following question: “Melanie, as I’m a super-duper member of your frequent guest program, do you think I could have an upgrade to the concierge level?”

She stared at me in terror. There was no one else around to ask. I expected Melanie to break out into a flop sweat like Albert Brooks in the movie Broadcast News. After about 30 very quiet seconds, she said, “Well, Mr. Golletz, I don’t know!”

I calibrated my response and tone to suit her inexperience. I didn’t want her to get turned off to a career in customer service, but I did want to teach Melanie a valuable lesson. I proceeded, “Well, who would know, and when will they know?”

I wasn’t improving Melanie’s self-confidence; she stared at me without a sound. I continued.

“Melanie, I can’t do anything with your response. Your ‘I don’t know’ assumes one of the following: that I’ll forget about it and just go to the room you had intended me to get, or that I’ll wait here for someone who can give me a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on my request.

“I could decide the latter, but I’m tired and I’m sure you’re tired of me, so I’ll go to my room. I want you to remember a couple of things, however. ‘Yes’ is a good answer. ‘No’ is also a good answer. Both allow me to do something; they’re complete. ‘Maybe’ is not a good answer because it leaves me hanging. In this case, you could have said, “Mr. Golletz, I’m a trainee, and I don’t have the authority to make that decision. I apologize.” I would’ve been OK with that too.”

I hope Melanie learned something, and that she is in a position to teach others valuable lessons about service.

When dealing with customers or clients, specific requests require specific answers.

Interview for Personal Qualities

Most executives’ hiring skills are sorely lacking. A couple of years ago, I consulted with a medium-sized company’s Board of Directors to sharpen their ability to recruit and select senior executives from the outside after a couple of bad hiring decisions had nearly buried the company. As a first step, I completed a post-mortem of a couple of catastrophic hiring decisions with the chairman and executive committee. Both revealing and disturbing, these experiences can also be instructive for you.

First, in neither case did they develop a list of the specific strategic hurdles facing the company, and the special challenges they posed for executive hires. This point is critical: “Generic” management or leadership challenges do not exist. Nor do generic leaders. Organizations, like products, have life-cycles. A company facing a growth challenge in a hyper-competitive market has leadership priorities and, by extension, recruiting challenges that are different than those facing a company, department or division confronting bloated expenses.

Second, when looking for executives, this Board of Directors never searched for the attributes of personality and character that would comport with the company’s unique challenges and profile. A candidate is more than the linear progression of job experiences detailed on her résumé. She is also more than a bundle of knowledge, capabilities and skills. Two questions you need to answer when hiring senior executives:

* To what degree are courage, focus, discipline, resourcefulness, resilience, perseverence, persistence, endurance, physical fitness, self-knowledge and self-regulation important?
* How do you uncover the presence or absence of those attributes in the recruiting and selection process?

If you haven’t answered these questions, you need to.

Third, this Board of Directors was ill-equipped to conduct senior executive interviews. Each interview was an awkward dance resulting in only the following two outcomes:

* They knew if they liked each candidate, at least superficially, and
* They got clarity on the elements detailed on each candidate’s résumé.

Behavioral interviewing is now the accepted gold standard in interviewing. Here’s how to do it: Start every probe with the following phrase: “Tell me about a time that you…”

I tell my clients that the best place to start, after getting through the niceties, small talk and courtesies, is with the following request: “Tell me about a time that you failed.” You will learn more about an executive from her response to that request and the follow-ups that ensue than any other question you ask; I guarantee it.

Executive selection is too important to consider it a “nice-to-do” process. By dedicating the resources necessary to do a great job, you’ll avoid pain and additional cost down the road.

Note From Rand

June will be a big deal for me (yes … I know it’s May). My book, Consensus Is Not Kumbaya – Lessons In Tough-Minded Leadership, will be published on June 14th. Forgive me, but I’m officially smitten with myself!

While the book outlets (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc.) won’t have it available until June, you can purchase advance copies (or copy, although I can’t imagine why you’d want only one) through my web site now for $13.95 (including shipping). That’s $5 off the retail price.

Here’s my super-duper special: From now until May 15th, for the full retail price of $18.95 (again, including shipping), you’ll receive my book PLUS a copy of Stepping Stones To Success, which I co-authored last year with Jack Canfield, Deepak Chopra, and others. Again, click this link for the special offer.

I’d appreciate your comments about my book once you’ve read it. Also, share your reviews on Amazon, B&N, etc. I’ll be in your debt.

My article this month is “Where’s Your “Dude-Line,” Dude?” It’s about the deterioration in comportment and dress I’ve seen in organizations during the last several years. Although “tongue-in-cheek” and amusing, there’s a serious point about the appropriate and inappropriate limits to familiarity and informality. Enjoy it!

I’ll see you in June. Until then, get real, get tough and get going!

Where’s Your “Dude-Line,” Dude?

I was sitting in a meeting to watch one of my clients deliver a presentation to a group of twenty senior leaders, including the CEO, of a Fortune 200 company. About five minutes into his “pitch,” an attendee raised his hand, was recognized by my client, and then asked a well-articulated, pointed question. My client’s response: “Dude … what are you talking about?!” Actually, it sounded more like this: “Duuuuuuuuuuuuude … what are you talking about?”

The questioner then re-asked his question, and my client answered it. No harm/no foul, right? Hardly! After the meeting, I saw two separate, small groups of attendees congregated outside, in the hallway, laughing and commenting about the “dude” comment and my client.

Have we reached a level of dismissive informality in organizational life that this kind of comment should be acceptable? If the “dude” remark is OK in a room of senior executives, where is it NOT acceptable? Just where is the line – the “dude line” – that is unacceptable to cross?

Another example: Wastin’ away again in Margueritaville

I was on an elevator in the corporate office of one of my large clients riding from the top floor to the ground level. On the way down, we stopped on the ninth floor to pick up another passenger. The elevator door opened and there he was – a guy dressed like he was on his way to play beach volleyball – but I knew better. It wasn’t casual Friday; it was summertime, which meant casual everyday.

He was dressed in flip-flops, a T-shirt adorned with a picture of a surfboard, baggy shorts and wrap-around shades. He was lookin’ cool – for a picnic or a trip to the beach. I turned to him with a straight face and asked, “So, where’s your parrot?” He smirked, mumbled something, got off part of the way down and headed for the Starbucks located in the building, obviously to meet other cool lookin’ dudes for caramel macchiatos and to share tales of life in Margueritaville.

Ten years from now, that guy is going to be wondering why his career never took off. If I run into him then, my response will be the same as now: “Hello, it’s an OFFICE!”

Shortly after this encounter, I mentioned it in passing to a senior leader at the company, who said, “I know. It’s really gotten out-of-control. We need to tighten the standards in our dress code.” My response was, “No you don’t. You don’t want to punish the many to control the few. You just need to enforce the code you have.”

A while later, I was meeting with a prospective client, a middle manager and aspiring executive at a Fortune 500. He came to our initial “meet and greet” dressed in blue jeans (not fairly new blue jeans but rather “just having mowed the lawn” blue jeans), running shoes and a $10 collarless T-shirt. When I introduced myself, I shook his hand firmly. His grip was uncertain and droopy. During our discussion, his eyes never once met mine.

At the conclusion of our discussion, he inquired, “So Rand, based on initial impressions, can you recommend anything I might be able to do right now?” I said: “Yes, as a matter of fact, I can. Allow me to demonstrate my respect for your time and intelligence by being blunt. First, no more blue jeans. Dress like where you’re going, not like where you’ve been. Second, when you’re talking to someone, make consistent eye contact and third, your handshake grip ought to give the other party the impression that you’re happy to see him, not that you’re worried about catching his cold.”

We seem to have lost, or misplaced, the concept of appropriate business dress, acceptable cleanliness and etiquette in many of our organizations. If you are a leader, you have the obligation to set an example for those who are less well-groomed and whose behavior is better suited to Carlos and Charlie’s Cantina than a business office. You also have the right to expect those who report to you to get their sartorial and behavioral acts together.

Note From Rand

I’m writing this as I’m preparing to watch the NCAA Final Four on Saturday, April 2nd. By the time you receive this, you’ll know who won the whole enchilada. When I wrote it, however, I had no idea. I hope your team won, if you care.

My article this month, “Business Lessons From the Final Four,” cites lessons for your business from the involved teams and coaches. I think you’ll enjoy it.

I must say something about the incipient major league baseball season: I’m an Orioles fan. I’m not a fan of the Orioles ownership, but I like the team and its tradition. Once again this year, I’m hoping for improvement. For the first time in over a decade, I’m optimistic that my hope will be rewarded because of manager Buck Showalter’s leadership. Every place he’s been, his discipline and focus have resulted in dramatic improvement. The Torre years in New York were built on the foundation poured by Showalter. The Diamondbacks’ World Series win was accomplished after a dramatic, three-year overhaul by Buck. He is a tough-minded, no BS guy, and I hope he’s given the time to accomplish what I know he can. Go Orioles!!!!!!

As for you, until next month, get real, get tough and get going!

Business Lessons From the Final Four

I frequently draw from the military and sports worlds for leadership lessons. Wooden and Lombardi gave us examples as relevant and compelling as Winston Churchill from politics or GE’s Jack Welch from business.

The teams that have made the NCAA’s Final Four provide lessons that are easily exportable to business. A few of those follow:

• Sometimes the “bad guys” win. Kentucky’s head coach John Calipari has run what journalists call “renegade programs” since he was the head basketball coach at the University of Massachusetts a couple of decades ago. Investigations seem to follow him around from one college program to another. Even when he appears to be operating within the letter of the law, he rarely seems to operate within its spirit. His players rarely graduate. His recruiting methods are routinely questioned, and yet he is always employed and always wins.

In business, it’s easy to find low-life executives who provide negative examples from which we can derive rationalizations, justifications and excuses for unethical or “borderline” behavior. I’ve personally known some executives who operate “on the fringe.” Some of those bad actors, however, achieve great wealth for themselves and their companies.

You always have a choice; you can follow the dysfunctional, unethical example of others, or you can be the example – the role model – for others. You can be a “what I’m doing isn’t that bad” person, or one who believes that character is truly revealed when no one is looking, and the odds are slim that transgressions will be publicly revealed.

More in the next bulleted point:

• Wisdom and character most often trump talent. Every year, a few Universities and Colleges get their “pick of the litter” when it comes to basketball talent. For some schools, a kid’s potential to graduate is a lot less of a factor in his admission than his ability to “stick the three.” At many of these institutions, coaches and administrators create scenarios to explain to themselves how a “borderline” kid might graduate, given the appropriate mentorship and tutoring, while either their intention to provide those things or the kid’s intention to accept them are in serious doubt.

Some other coaches and administrators, however, have an unflinching dedication to “doing the right thing,” as opposed to “doing the expedient thing.” For them, integrity is a ground-rule rather than just one among many considerations that inform how they run their programs.

In your business and life, is integrity a ground-rule, or just another consideration among many as you make decisions and take action?

• Age is not a prerequisite for wisdom and character. Two of the Final Four coaches are really young guys. Virginia Commonwealth coach Shaka Smart is 33. Butler coach Brad Stevens is 34. When I listen to interviews with these two guys, the phrase that comes to mind is “old souls.” While one seems more reserved, calculating, deliberate and methodical (Stevens), and the other more effervescent, emotional and enthusiastic (Smart), they both strike me as guys who have learned and then employed life’s lessons.

I wrote the following in my soon-to-be released book, Consensus is not Kumbaya – Lessons in Tough-Minded Leadership: “Wisdom is imparted by experience, but not always. A huge difference lies between having ten years of experience and one year of experience ten times. For experience to result in wisdom, reflection, judgment and behavioral adjustments have to ensue.”

Each of these guys seems to have taken the experience that he’s acquired in his young life and extrapolated that into something bigger, better, and wiser. Each would be as successful as a business leader as he is as a basketball coach.

In your life, is “the whole” of your lessons greater than the sum of the parts?

• Smaller, less significant competitors often become big Kahunas. College basketball experts and talking heads refer to VCU and Butler as “mid-majors.” While no one seems to have a great definition of that term, I think what it means is “schools that do not have long, countrywide reputations as basketball powerhouses, who have not historically made it very far in the NCAA tournament, who play in smallish facilities, who do not enjoy having massive recruiting and scholarship budgets, and who compete in conferences with schools that have similar limitations.”

After making the NCAA tournament several times in recent years and the Final Four this year and last year, Butler is moving out of mid-major status. VCU is still firmly entrenched there.

As I recall, UCONN was classified as a mid-major until 20 years ago when Jim Calhoun took the reins of their program. Who would call UCONN a mid-major today?

In business, wasn’t Southwest Airlines a mid-major until fifteen to twenty years ago? When I flew into Baltimore Washington International Airport in the early 90s, USAirways (then USAir) dominated. Southwest has effectively driven them out coupled with USAir’s own incompetence. Who heard of Capital One Financial in 1995? The first time I heard “What’s in your wallet?” I didn’t get it. Today, their brand is as recognizable as McDonald’s or Coke. Howard Schultz not only built a company and a brand, he also created a category. In 1990, coffee was still a breakfast beverage; now, it’s a lifestyle drink. My point is big companies were once small; powerhouse brands were not always so; potent competitors were once struggling start-ups.

The lesson for you: Never, ever create excuses for tough competition or tough times. I hear it all the time. Executives and business owners blame regulation, competition, Bangalore, third-world slave shops, recessions, expansions, sinus headaches, male pattern baldness or the full moon for their companies’ lousy performance when the right answer is always in the mirror! Don’t be one of those. When times are tough, double-down. If your company is small, invest in growth. Own your results; own your life!!

Note From Rand

I’m writing to you from Palm Beach, Aruba, where at 8 am it’s 75 degrees with zero humidity and a gentle sea breeze. Tough job, but somebody’s gotta do it!

My only article this month was sparked by my reading former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s new book, Known and Unknown. As a fellow part-time resident of St. Michael’s, Maryland, I’ve seen him and his wife browsing in the local shops. A genial man with a ready “good morning,” he suffered his share of self-inflicted wounds as a member of the Bush Cabinet. From my vantage point, they all arose out of his inability/disinclination to understand the power of his own voice as a leader.

My new book, Consensus is not Kumbaya, will be “officially” released on June 14th. Click here to view my pre-publication listing on Amazon. I must admit, I’m rather impressed with myself. (Don’t worry; I’ll get over it). I will have some “pre-publication” bargains soon – combining this book with my previous books at a discounted price. Be on the lookout!

I’ll see you next month. Until then, as they say in Aruba, Bon bini! As I always say: Get real, get tough and get going.

Where Did Rumsfeld Go Wrong?

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s recently released memoir, Known and Unknown, reveals a man of prodigious intellect (no surprise), an endearing sense of humor and little self-doubt. Whether or not you’re a fan of the Secretary, it’s a great read.

Secretary Rumsfeld’s book tour has included stops at several of the Sunday morning news shows. Virtually every one of those show’s hosts has questioned him about his management style. A typical question: “Mr. Secretary, many people state that your style intimidated the generals who worked for you. How do you respond to that?”

Rumsfeld has answered that question virtually the same way each time it’s asked: “That’s absurd. These Generals are combat veterans. They’re not intimidated by anyone or anything.”

He’s wrong. His answer reveals his big blind spot. He has (and as Secretary, HAD) no clue as to the power of his own voice. That became his primary undoing.

From my own treasure trove of experience:

During a strategy session with the executive team of a Fortune 200 company, the CEO reiterated his commitment to reduce the firm’s expenses by 20 percent over the ensuing 24 months. During that session, he froze the senior VP of Sales and Marketing with an icy stare and speared him with the following inquiry: “John, you’ll be able to hit your sales targets despite these expense reductions, won’t you?” Apparently undaunted, John replied with his typical enthusiasm. “Sure – no problem!” After the meeting, I saw John in the hallway. He was, shall we say, less certain.

I later commented privately to the CEO that after reviewing the assumptions in the company’s sales plan, I believed the planned expense reduction would kill its chances of meeting its plan. His response? “I pay these people lots of money to overcome obstacles. John’s a big boy. If he said they could do it, they’ll do it.”

They didn’t do it. Here’s why:

* Expense reduction always hits the bottom line quickly. The corresponding impact on the top line takes longer. As a result, executives usually rationalize that impact away. Many CEOs don’t contemplate this. The great ones do.
* People have a burning desire to please the boss. Accordingly, when asked to make a commitment – even about something really important and on the spur of the moment – many executives will cave in to the pressure.
* Many CEOs don’t recognize the power of their own voices. The great ones do.

How could this situation have been handled more effectively? The CEO could have said, “John, have you and your people contemplated the impact of these reductions on our sales plan?” When John responded in the affirmative, the follow-up could have gone like this: “The company’s results are at stake here. We should all have a comfort level with the exact nature of that impact, and the precise actions you have planned to overcome it. Let’s set aside an hour or two this afternoon (assuming John is ready) to discuss this.”

Both Secretary Rumsfeld and my CEO client underestimated the impact of the pressure they exerted with a stare, an inquiry, or an implied expectation. If you’re “the boss,” you have to accept the notion that the influence you have, merely because of the job title on your business card, squeezes people’s psyches regardless of whether they’re three-star Generals or one-star trainees.

How would you have handled this problem? Would you have recognized that to engender commitment and enthusiasm among the team members, you would need to deal with the reality and complexity of these situations? Would you have been willing to subordinate your ego to get to the right answers and increase everyone’s confidence? Would you accept the notion that, as a leader, your job is not merely to get people to DO what needs to be done, but to WANT TO DO what needs to be done?

Are you one of the great ones – or are you willing to be?

Note From Rand

You’re receiving this issue three days before the Super Bowl. Both the Packers and the Steelers have long and rich traditions. I’m rooting for a Packers victory for only one reason – Aaron Rodgers. The Packers drafted Rodgers in 2005 to be Brett Favre’s eventual successor. For three years Rodgers sat on the bench, a very patient understudy to “the master.” During the last two of those years, Favre engaged in what became his annual “now I’m retiring, now I’m not” ritual. Between the 2007 and 2008 seasons, when Green Bay General Manager Thompson finally decided that enough was enough, Rodgers remained quiet and deferential. Inheriting the mantle for the 2008 season, his understated dignity and “above the fray” demeanor had already earned him his teammate’s respect. Since then, his extraordinary work ethic (he’s a film room and physical conditioning fanatic), mental toughness and talent have moved his status from wannabe to the upper echelon of NFL quarterbacks. Now it’s time for him to take his place with Manning, Brady, Brees and Rothlesberger as one of the greats. This game will not be a defensive struggle. Packers 31, Steelers 27.

This month’s article is about competition, and my examples are Borders and Nordstrom (from the ridiculous to the sublime). I’ve had personal experiences at both stores that highlight the difference between a customer service legend and a teetering also-ran. It’s an admonition to which you should pay close attention.

Until March, when I’ll be writing from my yearly two-week sojourn to the Marriott Surf Club in Palm Beach, Aruba, remember to Get Real, Get Tough and Get Going.

What Really Killed Borders and Why We Love Nordstrom

A couple of years ago, I was standing in an unacceptably long line, waiting to pay for my purchase at a Borders. I counted ten people in front of me, six people behind me, one person working a register, and a manager who was fulfilling the role of disengaged observer. After paying for my purchase, I asked if I could have a word with him. He agreed.

Anticipating a tirade, he began apologizing for his staffing shortage and then added the following: “You know, sir, I’m not actually even supposed to be working today.” I wanted to shriek, scream, or throw something, but I was too flabbergasted to express ANY emotion. I just looked at him in disbelief for about five seconds and then inquired as follows:

“Sir, I’m in the business of helping executives, entrepreneurs and companies create and sustain success. I’m always interested in the changing competitive environment and the pressure it exerts on established businesses. Can I ask you a couple of questions?” I could see the blood flow return to his face as he answered, “Yes, of course.”

I continued: “If I can buy this book (pointing to my purchase) for 20 to 30 percent less money at Amazon, why should I buy it here?” His response was, and this is no lie or exaggeration, “Personal service.” I asked him to explain what he meant by that. He gazed at me as if I had a third eye in the middle of my forehead and followed with, “Why don’t you just return your book and buy it from Amazon!”

Now there’s personal service.

Moving on: One of the things that I DO (or rather, DID) like about this chain are the kiosks that they have for customers to do “self-searches” for books. Sometimes I’m not quite sure of a title or author, and my search requires multiple inputs. Doing it myself is more expedient than feeding information over and over to a store clerk. A couple of months ago, I was shopping for a specific book at the same Borders and used a kiosk to find my book. Once I completed my search, I realized that I didn’t have a pencil to write down the information. Seated next to me, a store employee was busy copying something from a printed report onto another piece of paper. I leaned over and asked, “Pardon me. I seem to have forgotten to bring a pencil. Do you have one I could borrow?” He raised his head, looked at me dismissively and said only, “no.” I waited for a minute, expecting, “No, but I’ll go get you one.” Or “No, I’m in the middle of something. If you can wait a minute, I’ll find you one.” All I got was a very terse “no.”

I didn’t keep my cool quite as well this time. I stood up, looked at him, flailed my arms and loudly asked, “Is that IT?!” He looked at me as I continued: “A paying customer needs a pencil and rather than fetch him one, the best you can do is NO?”

He said nothing. I ran up to the check out counter and grabbed two pencils. The cashiers were giggling – probably at my histrionics. I returned to my kiosk, handed the guy one of them and said, “Here’s a pencil. When the next person asks you for one, you can respond as if you value his business, rather than the way that you did!” He took the pencil without so much as raising his head or verbally responding.

In case you’ve missed the recent print stories about Borders, here’s the short version: They are dead! They’ve stopped paying publishers for books. Most retail experts estimate that within 90 days, their doors will close for good. Most of these same experts, however, cite “strategy” as the reason for their demise. They were always a “day late and a dollar short” in anticipating and responding to competitive changes. While that explanation is true, it’s insufficient.

For any business to succeed, sound strategy must be complemented with violent execution. I choose the word “violent” intentionally. Successful execution must be impatient, intense, enthusiastic and obsessive. It must SCREAM the following to customers: “We covet (the word ‘want’ simply isn’t strong enough) your business and intend to prove it!” Too many people at Borders were “mailing in” their effort.

One of my favorite quotes is, “A fish rots from the head.” I never met their CEO, but I wonder …

Conversely … we have Nordstrom.

Several years back I had just bought a suit at Nordstom – a dark brown, spectacular looking Hart, Schaffner and Marx Gold Trumpeter.

It was the first time I had worn this suit and had just finished admiring myself in my bathroom mirror. Yes, I was lookin’ good! Absorbed and distracted by my own studliness, I walked into my garage to get into my SUV and tore a sleeve on the rear windshield wiper. No one was around to blame. I know; I looked!

I called my sales guy, Rudolph Ruiz, and asked him if there might be a way for their tailor to somehow reweave the material to make the tear less obvious. He asked me to bring the suit in for a look-see.

A few days later, I dropped off the suit. Nordstrom’s tailor later determined that its condition was irrevocable. Rudolph called to tell me the bad news, adding that he had an alternative solution and asking me to stop in to discuss it. I wondered what he had in mind until I arrived at Nordstrom and he unveiled a selection of suits from which he said I could pick a replacement – FOR FREE!

I was speechless. Nordstrom had no complicity in my stupidity and yet my sales guy volunteered a replacement, gratis! I considered the alternatives he had selected for me, which included a Joseph Abboud and a $1,200 Hickey-Freeman, made my selection and got out before Rudolph changed his mind.

Nordstrom gets it!

Here’s the real deal:

If you are a CEO or if you work for a CEO – which represents everyone reading this e-zine – you get paid to create value for your constituents/stakeholders (for more on this subject, read our March 2005 and November 2005 issues). That’s job #1. Your primary constituents are your company’s paying customers; they pay your salary. Your company is merely a pass-through mechanism. We developed the following simple seven-step process to help clients do that:

* Identify your company’s targeted customers
* Discern the dimensions of value that they require
* Qualify/quantify those dimensions with performance categories and metrics
* Perform
* Measure
* Develop and implement corrective actions to fill performance gaps
* Begin again

Customer satisfaction is a never-ending process. Today’s competitive advantage is tomorrow’s competitive requirement. Tomorrow’s competitive requirement is the next day’s competitive insufficiency. Competitive strategy and relentless execution are flip sides of the same competitive coin.

Get movin’!

Note From Rand

Here we are – a new year full of hope and promise – but only if you live with intention. Personal change and success require conviction, commitment, discipline and action. Many purveyors of Kumbaya would have you believe that a positive vision is sufficient for positive change. Don’t believe them. Life rewards action. Make this the year during which you align your aspirations, affirmations and actions.

My two brief articles this month concern the subject of character, its importance to effective leadership and its priority in creating effective teams. My role models include Cheryl and Michael Heller, Bobby and Heather Greenburg (clients and their spouses) and Scott Pioli, General Manager of the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs.

Read these pieces and consider their application for your life. Until next month, get real, get tough, and get going.

Character Matters in Leadership

One of my clients and her husband, Cheryl and Michael Heller, have created a unique way of teaching their daughter Annebeth two important lessons: money management and the importance of “giving back.” They require her to divide her weekly allowance into three parts. Annebeth gets to keep and spend 60%; she must save/invest 20%; she gives the remaining 20% to charity. What kind of adult will this kid grow up to be with parents teaching her lessons like that?! You know the answer.

Bobby Greenburg and I go way back. His former boss was one of my first clients at Capital One several years ago. Last year, as a marketing executive at Lincoln Financial in Philadelphia, Bobby himself became a client of mine. In addition to our business relationship, we share a fanaticism for the Washington Redskins. (Does that make us masochists?) In December at the ‘Skins game with the Vikings, Bobby introduced me to his eight-year-old son. He firmly shook my hand, looked me squarely in the eye, and expressed his pleasure at meeting me without the embarrassment, distraction and foot shuffling that most kids exhibit when meeting an adult stranger. The next week at our regularly scheduled discussion, I asked Bobby: “So, your son shaking my hand firmly and locking onto my eyes, you taught him that?” “Yep,” he answered. I know what kind of parents Bobby and Heather Greenburg are from that one gesture. I also know what kind of young man they’re raising.

These are adults of character raising children of character. It’s my great fortune to work with many people like Cheryl and Bobby.

When I raise the subject of “character” as a necessary ingredient in effective leadership, HR executives frequently bob their heads in agreement. When I ask these executives how they “screen” for character attributes when hiring or promoting leaders, many of them wilt. They feel self-conscious, or pretentious, or sanctimonious talking about it. When they do discuss it, they do so as if “character” is a single attribute rather than a cluster of behaviors and actions.

Here’s my take:

Many people regard character and integrity as synonymous. Integrity does not represent the totality of character; it is one of its essential elements. I define character as the cluster of personal attributes that are unshakeable. They determine the actions we take and the behavior we demonstrate when confronted with seemingly irresistible temptation, overwhelming odds or insurmountable challenges. They represent who we are and what we do when no one is looking. Some of the most predominant attributes of character are courage, endurance, persistence, perseverance, hopefulness, faith, trust, gratitude, honesty, integrity, tolerance, enthusiasm, loyalty, and the one I see as a precondition to all human development: discipline.

I frequently get calls from senior executives who want me to work with their “subordinates” (I hate this term, but I’m using it here for clarity) on issues that have their roots in “character defects.” Oh sure, they reveal themselves in behaviors like “a rough engagement style” (corporate speak for “they don’t play well with others”) or “an inability or disinclination to collaborate productively,” and they frequently have very deep roots. In some cases, especially those in which executive dysfunction is because “they don’t know any better,” I can help. In others, especially those evolving out of a person’s hard wiring or childhood conditioning, change is more difficult.

My recommendations to company leaders on the best ways to attract, reward and retain people of character follow:
• Aggressively triage for character when hiring and promoting, especially candidates being considered for leadership positions.
• Identify and clarify aspects of character that are important, and train and communicate what they look like (very specifically and repeatedly) in practice.
• Greet repeated violations with disdain and eventual (and I’m not talking about years) termination.
• Make attributes of character (again, in a very granular way) a fundamental part of performance assessments – from the Chairman on down.
• Acknowledge their own shortcomings in a humble and public way so as not to convey the sense that they regard themselves as “the perfect embodiment of all things virtuous.”

Character Matters in Team Effectiveness

Scott Pioli is the General Manager of the Kansas City Chiefs, an NFL team that has been miserable for the last several years but in 2011, is going to the playoffs.

From an article about him in Sports Illustrated: “Pioli has longed to capture something from his childhood, something difficult to explain. It is something he tries to explain now. He begins to talk about how, in building a team, you want – no, more than want, you need – to find people who will do the right thing most of the time.”

Pioli is uncomfortable discussing this because it sounds sanctimonious and implies that the purveyor (in this case, him) regards himself as the perfect embodiment of “doing the right thing.” The article goes on:

“He repeats some of the core words about building a team, hoping their power might fill the empty spaces. Reliability, Dependability, Accountability, Discipline. But these words have been used so often and so much in vain that they shrivel and fray and lose their color in the light of day. Say discipline, for instance, and people think of banning long hair and earrings and tattoos, of avoiding dumb penalties.”

Pioli isn’t talking about that (BTW – my definition of discipline is: “Doing what needs to be done, the way it needs to be done, when it needs to be done – every time!”).

One example of Pioli’s (and Chiefs’ head coach Todd Haley’s) dedication to discipline is their quarterback: Matt Cassel. Considered a good but unexceptional quarterback prior to 2010, Cassel decided this year to “go to school” on the NFL quarterback he considered the epitome of discipline: Drew Brees. While many teams regard a quarterback’s physical ability (how far and fast can he pitch a football) as paramount, Cassel (with the encouragement of Pioli and Haley) decided that his natural gifts resembled Brees’ more than anyone else and he went to school on Drew. They decided that Brees’ most outstanding trait was his footwork and drop-back speed (hardly a strength most teams look for in a quarterback). Since Cassel began his quest to improve his foot speed, all of his other statistics have improved dramatically.

By understanding the importance of aligning his natural ability and skills with the precise attributes required for success, Cassel has become a STUD.

The Chiefs are going to the NFL playoffs this weekend. It’s their first trip since Dick Vermeil was their head coach several years ago. At that time, they had many great individual players with recognizable names: Priest Holmes, Tony Gonzolez, Trent Green. Those guys are now gone – replaced by guys like Cassel. Jamaal Charles and Dwayne Bowe. Not exactly household names.

Pioli decided a couple of years ago that having all the best players is not the same as having the right players, and that building a “one year wonder” of a team is not the same as crafting sustainable success built on a foundation of exemplary character.

Some questions for you:

When selecting and assessing your organization’s leaders, do you:
• Consider their character (and its specific elements) as critical?
• Regard questionable behavior evolving out of character flaws with as much distain (or more) as failing to achieve financial results?
• Construct teams of people with complementary strengths from among the following – courage, endurance, persistence, perseverance, hopefulness, trust, faith, gratitude, honesty, integrity, tolerance, enthusiasm, loyalty, discipline – and not merely for their virtues of intelligence or analytical/technical ability?

Maybe most importantly – do you examine yourself with brutal honesty, affirm your virtues and vow to be a productive example for others rather than following the dysfunctional example of others?

Note From Rand

Here’s hoping your Thanksgiving was terrific and you were surrounded by the people you love! We spent ours in St. Michaels, Md., where we purchased a second home on the Chesapeake Bay a couple of months ago. A GREAT holiday in a peaceful, maritime setting.

We’re coming to the end of 2010, and I have a question for you: Did you achieve your goals for the year? I’m not only talking about professional or business goals; I mean all of your goals for your life! If not, now’s a good time for reflection, self-examination and some brutal honesty.

On that note, here is one of the things that I’ve come to terms with as a consequence of the wisdom (?) I’ve gained in my life: In the distant past when I didn’t achieve the results I wanted, it had a lot to do with self-sabotage. Excuses, blame, rationalizations, justifications and lousy self-talk torpedoed me in both blatant and subtle ways. For a long time now, I’ve lived by the notion that I own my life and that I am responsible for the results I achieve – period!

My wish for you is that you do the same. An additional, important precondition is to also purge your life of people I call naysayers, doomsdayers, dream-slayers and game-players. These people can suck the life out of any room they enter and drain all of the positive energy out of the people in it.

For my Jewish friends – Happy Hanukkah (it arrived at sundown, yesterday). For those of you who are Islamic – Happy New Year (December 6th). For those who are, like me, a member of a Christian denomination – have a very Merry Christmas. To all, make 2011 a year in which you either begin or continue (with renewed vigor) to live your life intentionally rather than on automatic pilot!! Make it a masterpiece.

Until 2011, get real, get tough and get going!

Do You Know Your “Water-Cooler Story?”

Here’s a list of some people I feel really sorry for:

• Mike Tyson’s accountant (only kidding Mike – really!)

• The choir director in my church (Would somebody please tell those people the truth about their voices?!)

• Derek Jeter’s social secretary (busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest).

• Here’s one just for my friends in Maryland and Virginia: The guys in charge of planning street construction in Montgomery County, Md., and Fairfax County, Va. (Um … sorry fellas. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it’s too late!)

• Finally and most importantly: All business leaders who care THAT they are known by others but don’t cultivate HOW they are known by others.

On that final point: I get frequent inquiries/requests from managers of client companies like this: “Rand, I’d like you to find out what my boss and my co-workers really think of me. All of my performance reviews indicate that I walk on water, but I haven’t been promoted in five years. I get a feeling that there’s something that I need to know, that I don’t know.” I’ll then request and receive the names of the people I ought to talk to and begin my mission, doggedly pursuing my query and relentlessly asking questions until I get to the bottom of things. I almost always end up with a version of my client’s “story” that looks nothing like the official, personnel file, performance review, development planning version.

I call it their “water-cooler story.” Your water-cooler story is the version of you that people talk about when you’re not around; it’s the version of you that gets whispered or implied with a wince or a shrug. Here’s an example:

Your company is assembling a product development team. In a meeting, your name gets mentioned as a possible team leader. Someone – a trusted, credible person – grimaces, implying that putting you in charge would be ill-advised. The idea gets dropped.

Another example: Your name is brought up as a promotion candidate for an executive-level job reporting to the CEO. In the discussions of your candidacy that ensue, two of the CEO’s “direct reports” bring up examples of past interactions with you that were, according to them, unsatisfactory. As a result, the CEO decides to retain Spencer-Stuart to conduct a search for the position that will include both internal and external candidates. He assures you that you remain the primary candidate and that the search is really a formality; it is a matter of completing a process that will assuredly result in your being offered the position. Spencer Stuart then interviews you, but one of the external candidates gets the job.

In both cases, you got zapped by your “water-cooler story.”

Your initial reaction might be to dismiss these examples as implausible, but don’t kid yourself. In large corporations, the official version of your story might inform the size of your raise or the level of your bonus, but the thing that will more often than not determine your career trajectory and velocity is your water-cooler story. You say you’re not a Fortune 500 honcho. Doesn’t matter! Whether you’re a business owner, a smaller company manager or a non-managerial professional, the same deal applies. Your WCS will either help secure your success or make your life really difficult.

I recommend that you aggressively manage your water-cooler story. Here’s how:

• Build mechanisms to frequently and systematically procure feedback from constituents.

• Ask precise, relevant questions that can catalyze action. “How am I doin’?” isn’t good enough.

• Persist until you get to the “brutal truth.”

• Develop and implement specific plans, using what you learn to improve your performance.

Most people aren’t comfortable giving or getting feedback, so they provide it or pursue it (when they actually do it at all) without energy or conviction. In response, they receive generalities that can’t be acted upon (of course they can “check the box” when the drill is completed).

Poor leaders view searching for feedback as a sign of weakness. You know, trying to please the masses rather than demonstrating a steely core. By indulging their egos rather than demonstrating wisdom, these people undermine their potential.

Great leaders, on the other hand, pursue feedback with vigor, tenacity and insistence. Then they act on what they learn. That’s a big part of how they got where they are and, more importantly, how they became WHO they are.

Don’t Be a Fist-Pounder

You’ve heard it before: Praise in public; criticize in private. Great leaders know this; gutless leaders don’t.

I once worked for a guy who used his regularly scheduled staff meetings to tell his direct reports “how it’s gonna be!” He’d use these forums to say things like the following: “I’ve been noticing lately that people are missing their planned commitments. That has to stop!” People in the room who were actually MAKING their planned commitments would then feel insulted. People who were NOT making their commitments assumed that either EVERYONE was guilty (so they, themselves, felt less culpable than if they had been singled out), or that he was actually directing his admonitions at someone else.

This guy never criticized people in private. He could not bring himself to deal with the one-on-one conflict that might have ensued.

High-achieving adults do not want to work for a guy like this! For low-achievers, this kind of environment is perfect; they can hide!

Issuing edicts in public that are intended for specific people – hoping that the “right” people hear them – is weasel behavior. Instead, develop skills at giving critical feedback in a firm but caring way (tough-minded but not hard-headed) and then make this practice a critical part of your “leadership leverage.”

Note From Rand

Welcome to the holiday season; I’m still trying to cling to summer. Three weeks ago when walking through Macy’s, I noticed that they already had their Christmas decorations displayed; do you think they’re desperate?!

I’m highly recommending two books this month. The first, The Long Run by Matthew Long, was written by the New York firefighter I highlighted in this publication several months ago. By way of reminder, Matt was literally run over by a New York City bus while riding his bike to work. His body was ripped apart from stem to stern. A year and a half later, he completed the New York City marathon. His story will challenge you to own your life and play the hand you’re dealt (click here to order from Amazon) .

The second, Character is Destiny by Senator John McCain and his (then) Chief of Staff Mark Salter, is subtitled “Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember.” Published in 2007, the book is divided into 7 sections (Honor, Purpose, Strength, Understanding, Judgment, Creativity, Love) and “tells the stories of both celebrated historical figures and lesser-known heroes whose values exemplify the best of the human spirit.” (click here to order from Amazon).

These two books are by and about people of unusual character. Speaking of character …

My article this month is a challenge. Entitled “What Do You Stand For,” it’s an admonition to explicitly identify the attributes of character that you aspire to achieve and then commit your life to achieving them. We all say that we want to become better people but change, especially significant change, is really difficult.

As always, I welcome your comments. Until next month, get real, get tough, and get going!

What Do You Stand For?

Someone once said that “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll DO just about anything.” My hero, Jim Rohn, once said that the foundation for having a successful life is having a personal philosophy. I agree with both of those assertions. Having “rules of the road” for our lives can help us to determine our boundaries and draw “lines-in-the-sand” when and where they are appropriate. We’ve all known people who live with no “center” or boundaries. They may seem carefree on the surface, but as the late John Gardner said: “We are worriers and puzzlers and we want meaning in our lives. I’m not speaking idealistically; I’m stating a plainly observable fact about men and women. It’s a rare person who can go through life like a homeless alley cat, living from day to day, taking its pleasures where it can and dying unnoticed.” Which kind of person do you want to be?

I frequently help my clients identify their governing beliefs (aka their personal codes of conduct or philosophies). Doing so helps them pinpoint the reasons for dissonance when they feel it. I also encourage them to perform “self-audits” periodically, to see whether they are living in harmony with their espoused beliefs. Those reality checks are frequently both powerful and disconcerting.

Several years ago when I was going through a rough period in my life, I documented my own governing beliefs. I did this by examining my actions and then:

• In areas I was achieving satisfaction, I documented those successes and identified, in writing, the beliefs that informed them.

• In areas in which I was either performing badly or behaving poorly, I identified the categories and reasons. I then documented aspirations in those areas. Now …

Each week I conduct a post-mortem on my actions. I compare them to my beliefs, identify where I am going astray, and resolve to do better.

Doing this has improved my life.

Today, when I examine my beliefs weekly, I occasionally change one. I NEVER do that, however, to accommodate my failures or shortcomings. I only do it if I believe that I am constraining my own growth.

What follows is a MUCH abridged version of my governing beliefs as they stand today:

• I believe that I own my life, and that I am totally and completely responsible for my actions and accountable for my results.

• I believe that personal growth is our primary, lifelong mission.

• I believe strongly in self-management and course correction. Wisdom is NOT an automatic by-product of experience. Here’s the formula: Wisdom = experience x reflection x relentless honesty x accountability (accepting consequences with no blame, no finger-pointing, no excuses, no whining, no escape-hatch) x behavioral change. Each of these elements is necessary, but alone, each is insufficient; it takes them all.

• Our natural tendency – one that we must reject – is to associate with people who affirm who we already are, rather than those who inspire us to reach higher and do better. I believe that in order to grow, we must surround ourselves with the kind of people we WANT to be, rather than those who mirror our own character defects! We must also discard naysayers, doomsdayers and dream-slayers. If we want to grow, they have to go!

• I believe in acceptance (giving in to reality). I DO NOT believe in resignation (giving up on possibility).

• I believe in under-commitment and over-delivery, not the other way around, and that character is both forged and revealed by commitments we make and keep.

• I believe in relentlessly searching for THE truth, and that an absolute requirement for success is our ability and inclination to differentiate from among “OUR truth,” “OTHERS’ truth,” and “THE truth.”

• I believe in the priority of creating a meaningful life, and that each person must define “meaning” for him or her self.

• I believe in the virtues of integrity, honesty, courage and valor, accountability for my actions, perseverance and (especially) loyalty.

• I believe that without discipline, aspiration is hallucination.

• I believe that it’s never too late to find happiness, and that it’s worth a high price. One of life’s biggest challenges – maybe THE biggest – is figuring out which bridges to cross and which ones to burn in an effort to accomplish that, without doing too much damage to ourselves or others along the way.

• I believe this is the formula that many people employ to justify their dysfunctional behavior:

Doing the wrong thing and a good excuse or rationalization = doing the right thing.

Instead of the aforementioned, I believe that when we feel discomfort from dissonance, we must use it to change rather than rationalize our behavior! Discomfort should instigate action and growth, not provoke inertia or excuses. Personal responsibility must always trump comfort or convenience.

I have failed myself, many times, when measured against my own beliefs. Instead of making excuses, the question I regularly ask myself is this: “When I fail, do I commit to DO better and to BE better?”

I absolutely guarantee you that if you take the time to do this exercise you will be a better person tomorrow (not perfect, but better) than you are today.

It’s worth it!

Note From Rand

What does it take to write a book? Wisdom? Intelligence? Insight? The right answer: Patience!

I finished my book, Consensus Is Not Kumbaya … Lessons In Tough-Minded Leadership, over a year ago – or so I thought. Here’s where we are: We have completely edited the book three times. Each time, we have found things we wanted (or in some cases, NEEDED) to change. I’m now done with it … I think!

Morgan James, my publisher, completed their initial book design. My editor, Barbara McNichol, and I liked many aspects of that design. There were a few other aspects we did not like, and as a result, MJ is refining their design.

I’ve been told that none of this is unusual, but I was not blessed with a great amount of patience. The book will be out in about 90 days. Here’s the cover, which I LOVE. My picture is consistent with the title, and both are consistent with my approach to my work:

This month’s article is a chapter from my book from which the book title is derived. “Consensus Is Not Kumbaya” discusses Frank, a Fortune 500 CEO and client of mine who got off to a bit of a rocky start after taking the reins of his company. The lesson (and I’ll quote from the chapter): “Never, ever assume that you and your team are on the same page unless you’ve tested for understanding, debated issues, worked hard to surface objections, and considered alternatives.”

I’ll see you in November. Until then, get real, get tough and get going!

Consensus is not Kumbaya

My client Frank (not his real name) had just been elected Chairman and CEO. His promotion was wildly popular and widely celebrated. His company, a Fortune 500 firm with more than 100,000 associates and 80 operating divisions worldwide, had elected only eight chairmen in its 100-year history. All had been life-long associates. The company had a history of ascending growth and earnings and a stable corporate culture, including corporate values that management both talked and walked. From an investor’s point of view, this was a “buy-and-hold” stock.

At the time of his election, Frank was 55 years old. Until his early 40s, his career was successful but unspectacular. No one really pegged him as “the guy” until the chairman at the time put him in charge of the firm’s largest division. There, he hit a home run; actually, he became Babe Ruth. To continue the baseball analogy, he led the league in home runs for the next decade, was made vice chairman at the age of 53, and placed in a head-to-head “competition” for the top job with the impressive president and COO.

Tough-minded without being hard-headed, Frank has five distinct strengths. He’s gifted at selecting and developing associates. He communicates extremely well with people from all walks of life. He’s an incredible listener, enveloping people with his attention. He also “connects the dots.” In corporate parlance, it’s called integrative thinking. His biggest strength, however, is his self-knowledge. Acutely aware of his strengths and weaknesses – personal as well as professional – he has never dismissed his shortcomings as irrelevant or unimportant. He creates “workarounds” to compensate.

Before Frank became chairman, he had a reputation as a great collaborator. He recognized the importance of winning emotional commitment from people and worked hard to obtain it. In his first several months as chairman and mine as his executive coach, Frank asked me to attend his regularly scheduled staff meetings. I had been working with him for some time, and the company’s senior leaders knew and trusted me. I had become his “eyes and ears” in the company and had a reputation as a guy who acted responsibly and confidentially with what I saw and heard. One Monday morning during a meeting break, Jake, the president of the company’s largest operating group, approached me with a concerned look. Our brief discussion went something like this:

Jake: “Rand, do you sense something different about Frank since he became chairman?”

Me: “What do you mean ‘different?’ He’s now the chairman; I’d say that’s pretty different. You guys are trying hard to relate to him in a new way because of his role. That’s also different. The power dynamic in the group has changed. That’s also something different. So yes, I sense that EVERYTHING has changed, and yes, it’s different.”

Jake: “I realize that stuff, Rand. I’m not talking about that. What I mean is, Frank seems to have become an autocrat. I feel like asking him, ‘Hey, who are you, and what did you do with Frank?’ It seems like he’s imposing his will because he CAN – even when situations don’t require it. We talked in our last meeting together about the priority of ‘consensus.’ He always seemed diligent in the past about ‘walking the talk.’ Not so much now!”

Me: “I’ll think about your comments. Let’s revisit this issue.” Subsequently, other members of the senior leadership team called me and expressed a similar concern. I asked Frank if we could discuss this at his next staff meeting. His response: “Fine, as long as it doesn’t become a whining session.”

Here’s what happened.

After they covered their normal business, I mentioned that several people on the team had brought up an apparent change in Frank’s management style. I then asked that each of them pull out a piece of paper and write the word “consensus.” A few of them rolled their eyes and I thought, “If this goes poorly, I’m outta here!”

I asked them to write a definition of that word and hand it to me. They did. I then collected and read the definitions, without attribution. They differed greatly. For some of them, consensus had something to do with voting before deciding. For a few, it had to do with reaching unanimity before executing major decisions. Still others had different ideas.

They gazed at me with looks that I interpreted as meaning, “OK, big shot. Why should I give a damn about any of this? You’re wasting my valuable time.”

I gulped and continued, “When I spoke to each of you individually about Frank and his style, you all used shorthand to express your thoughts. I heard the word ‘empowerment’ eight times. I heard the word ‘delegation’ just as often. Several of you used the word ‘autocrat.’ The word I heard most often was ‘consensus.’ Each of you used those words as if we should – or DID – automatically agree on what they meant.

“Here’s my point: Words create images and stories in our minds about people and situations. Effective ‘leadership’ is about the quality of our conversations, the images that they create, and the actions that they compel. Yet here we sit using a word like ‘consensus’ without agreement on what it means.”

I saw light bulbs go on, so I summarized, “It might seem frivolous on the surface, but I think we need to agree that on key issues, you need to have a way of getting to your assumptions about what things mean, so that you’re not taking inconsistent action and operating with divergent assumptions.”

To start, we spent two hours – two hours – on what the word “consensus” would mean to the team going forward. Here’s what we concluded: Consensus would mean that before action would be taken on issues above a certain threshold, all team members could and would support the decision, even if they didn’t believe it was the best possible decision. Consensus would not imply how a decision would be reached. Some decisions would still be made by Frank – alone with no input. Some would be voted on. Some would be debated in advance. Some would not. The point is, consensus would not imply the decision-making process employed; it merely would imply whether active support for a decision existed. In this case, whether their definition comported with Webster’s definition was less important than their recognition that common understanding was critical.

What are the implications for you? Never, ever, ever assume that you and your team are on the same page unless you’ve tested for understanding, debated issues, worked hard to surface objections, and considered alternatives. Agreement isn’t always necessary, and consensus isn’t about creating a “kumbaya” management approach.