GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

What better time to discuss opportunity than the start of a new year? Opportunity and timing are inexorably linked. So much so, that if you don’t think timing is everything – think again. Anyone paying attention to current events has recently witnessed that it doesn’t really matter whether you’re a politician, investment banker, CEO, or just an average citizen, when it comes to making a simple decision, managing a crisis, or attempting to exploit an opportunity, timing is everything.

I’ve often heard people quip that they would rather be lucky than smart. While intelligence and good fortune are certainly both valuable traits to possess, neither of these traits holds a candle to having a great sense of timing…Luck is a hit or miss proposition, and we’ve all known many a brilliant underachiever. However it has been my observation you’ll rarely come across someone who possesses a great sense of timing that is anything other than successful. In today’s post I’ll take a look at opportunity as key success metric…

As the verse from the old Kenny Rogers song goes “you have to know when to hold em and know when to fold em.” There are a few times in the life of every professional where staggering opportunities will present themselves. The question is not whether these opportunities exist, but rather what will you do with them when they cross your path. I believe one of the key differences between excellence and mediocrity is the ability to not only recognize opportunities, but to also possess an understanding and willingness to exploit said opportunities. Exploiting opportunities requires that you not only possess vision, but also a corresponding bias to action (and a bit of courage as well).

Rarely will you come across a static opportunity in the sense that it will stand idle and wait for you to act. Significant opportunities are not only scarce, but they typically operate on the principal of diminishing returns. Put simply, opportunities are time sensitive. The longer you wait to seize the opportunity the smaller the return typically is. In fact, more likely is the case that the opportunity will completely evaporate if you wait too long to seize it. Keep this thought in mind; when opportunity knocks – answer the door.

I can’t even begin to count the number of times I watched people miss great opportunities due to a poor sense of timing. Not too surprisingly, people who possess a poor sense of timing usually don’t even understand timing is an issue. How many times have you witnessed someone holding-out for a higher price, better valuation, evolving markets, technology advances, or any number of other circumstances that either never transpire, or by the time they do, the opportunistic advantage had disappeared? I’ve observed the risk adverse take due diligence one step too far, the greedy negotiate too long, the impulsive jump the gun, and the plodders move to slow. As the saying goes “timing is everything.” The following list contains 5 suggestions for how to spot and evaluate opportunity:

1. Alignment: The opportunity should be in alignment with the overall vision and mission of the enterprise. Any new opportunity being evaluated should preferably add value to the core, but if not, it should show a significant enough return on investment to justify the dilutive effect of not keeping the main thing the main thing. The core should be used to align, but not necessarily to exclude.

2. Advantage: No advantage equals no opportunity. If the opportunity doesn’t provide a unique competitive advantage it should at least fill a void bringing you closer to an even playing field. Be careful however not to fall into the trap of “me too” innovation – copying isn’t innovating. Instead of leveling the field, think about tilting the field to your advantage, and where possible, the creation of a new field altogether.

3. Assessment: Is the opportunity affordable, feasible, adoptable, and most importantly, is it actionable? An opportunity which cannot be implemented isn’t really an opportunity – it will likely be just another very costly distraction. Conduct your diligence before you pull the trigger, not afterwards. A ready – fire – aim approach to opportunity management usually fails to hit the target.

4. Accountability:  Keep in mind great ideas are not always the same thing as great opportunities. Ideas don’t always have a corresponding vision, nor do they always contain a framework of accountability, which helps to ensure a certainty of execution. For opportunities to become reality they must be viewed through the lenses of organizational awareness and personal responsibility. Any new opportunity being considered should contain accountability provisions. Every task should be assigned and managed according to a plan and in the light of day. Any opportunity being adopted must be measurable. Deliverables, benchmarks, deadlines, and success metrics must be incorporated into the plan. The opportunity must be detailed and deliverable on a schedule – it needs to have a beginning, middle and end. Any opportunity not subjected to sound principles of leadership will likely fail.

5. Achievement: Opportunities are great, but achievements are better. If any of the four items above are missing the outcome will be unrealized opportunity, or opportunity squandered and lost. The smart game is not played for what could have been, or should have been, but for what was achieved.

The proverbial window closes on every opportunity at some point in time. As you approach each day I would challenge you to consistently evaluate the landscape and seize the opportunities that come your way. Better to be the one who catches the fish than the one who tells the story of the big one who got away…

Thoughts?

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

Leadership today seems to be all too often confused with playing a game of dodgeball. It’s as if many leaders show-up for work each day with a freshly applied coat of Teflon, ready to duck and dodge anything that comes their way. Let me be clear – I appreciate savvy and finesse as much as the next person, but not as a substitute for courage. We have too many people in leadership positions who can’t or won’t accept responsibility for anything. Put simply, leadership is about accountability, and not only being willing to take the hit, but also being capable of surviving the hit. Leadership IS ownership…

If your immediate response to a problem is to spin, deflect, or blame-shift, then you’ve got a lot to learn about leadership. Those whom you lead are not looking for you to step back or step aside from issues, they’re looking for you to step-up and hit issues head on. The fastest way to lose respect as a leader is to focus on optics over ethics. If you’re more concerned about political fallout than solving the problem you have failed as a leader. Even though responsibility for decisions defaults to the leader, responsibility should be a thing of design, not default. It should be readily accepted and not easily denied – this is real leadership.

The entire world seems to be crying out for real leadership right now. Not leaders in title, but leaders in action. Whether in the boardroom, political arena, or on the front lines, leadership is far more than holding press conferences, giving speeches, and presiding over meetings and committees. Leadership is owning the responsibility for getting things done or failing to do so. Remember, specificity of thought and deed shatters the comfort and safety sought by those who prefer to remain in the shadows of vague rhetoric.

Let’s look at this another way – when was the last time you held a leader in high regard who dodged the issue, didn’t do the right thing, failed to accept responsibility, took credit for another person’s achievements, or blamed someone else for their mistakes? My guess is that your answer, as it should be, is never. While people will take issue with arrogance or ignorance, they will usually accept an honest mistake – especially where sincere contrition and remorse exist.

Here’s the thing – sane people don’t expect perfection from leaders, but they do expect leaders to be transparent and accountable. Accepting responsibility for your actions, or the actions of your team makes you honorable, and trustworthy – it also humanizes you. People don’t want the talking head of a politician for a leader, they want someone they can connect to, and relate with. They not only want someone they trust, but someone who trusts them as well.

If you take one thing away from today’s post, it should be this: leadership isn’t about you, your ego, your pride, or your personal ambition – it’s about caring for and serving those you lead, while accomplishing the mission at hand. Leadership has very little to do with the leader, and everything to do with those being led.

I knew a great football coach who used to say “Step-up and take the hit or get off the field.” My sentiments exactly. Thoughts?

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

Creating a talent advantage begins with smart hiring. That said, it never ceases to amaze me at the number of people who are charged with hiring who possess absolutely no skill at doing so. While I rarely meet a CEO who is completely comfortable with turning the hiring process over to HR, most of them still seem to acquiesce and do exactly that…”Who should do the hiring?” is a question that more CEOs should spend time pondering. Here’s the thing; Anyone can make a hire, but not all hires are good hires. Smart leaders do more than just hire smart people – they have a smart hiring process and/or methodology. In today’s post I’ll share my philosophy on the best way to insure that you hire tier-one talent.

Put simply; talent matters. The problem is that very few people actually possess the talent to identify talent. Identifying and recruiting talent requires much more than screening a resume and having a set of standard interviewing questions to guide you. There are issues of values, vision, culture, context etc., that need to be creatively and intuitively addressed in the hiring process that often go overlooked because the wrong person is evaluating talent.

Further complicating matters, is just because someone has succeeded in the past doesn’t mean that they’ll be a success for your company. Likewise, just because someone has failed in a previous position doesn’t mean that they might not end-up being a top performer for your company. Assessing talent is in fact a talent… Adding even more complexity to the hiring process is that not all those capable of identifying talent are capable of recruiting the talent by sealing the deal…Think about it, does the person in charge of your hiring process have the experience and charisma to convince a top performer at another company to take a pay cut to work for your company?

While CEO’s can’t be in charge of recruiting, it’s important to realize that CEOs still own responsibility for the outcome – the buck always stops at the desk of the chief executive. I also believe that if HR is solely charged with the recruiting efforts for senior management and executive level positions you’ll end-up with a very weak management and leadership team. Unless your company is a large enough organization to have a Chief Talent Officer, I don’t believe recruiting is an HR function (other than for administrative positions). Rather in most instances, I believe HR should be a compliance, training and risk management function. It is HR’s function to make sure that processes are implemented and followed, but having a mid-level manager attempt to identify or recruit tier-one senior talent is a recipe for disaster. The following commentary came from Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft when he was asked about his philosophy on hiring:

“I did all the hiring myself for a long time. No one joined Microsoft without my interviewing them and liking them. I made every offer, decided how much to pay them and closed the deals. I can’t do that anymore, but I still invest a significant amount of time in insuring that we’re recruiting the best people. You may have technology or a product that gives you an edge, but your people determine whether you develop the next winning technology or product.”

I tend to be similar in positioning to Steve in that I believe one of the highest and best uses of time is to make sure that we attract the best talent for our company and our client companies. I believe that C-level executives can’t afford not to keep their hands in the talent function at some level. In order to insure that you make the best hiring decisions possible, I would strongly recommend that you follow the practices listed below:

1. Definition: Make sure that you know exactly what you are looking for, both in terms of the job description, and the profile of the individual most likely to be successful in that role. If you can’t define what you’re looking for, you shouldn’t be looking.
2. Timing: There is wisdom in the old axiom “hire slow and fire fast.” Don’t panic and end-up making a regrettable hire out of perceived desperation. Give yourself plenty of runway. You’ll be much better-off taking your time and making a good hire rather than using the ready, fire, aim methodology and end-up terming the new hire before they eclipse their probationary period.
3. ABH: Always Be Hiring…Never let your organization be put behind the talent 8-ball, as great talent is rarely available on a moment’s notice. In the world of professional sports the search for talent often starts during the middle-school years, which is long before the potential talent being tracked by the scouts has matured. Your organization should always be on the look-out for great talent whether that talent is still in graduate school, in the military, working for competitors, or working outside the industry. Some of the best hires I’ve made over the years were executives that I spent months, and in some cases, years developing relationships with.
4. Identify Your Talent Scout: Look for and identify the person within your organization that has the best nose for talent. Regardless of what position this person holds, get them involved in the process. If you don’t have a natural talent scout internally, seek outside assistance in the form of a consultant. Don’t turn your talent scout into just another corporate bottleneck, rather give them leverage by having them collaborate with outside recruiters. Outsourced recruiting is very effective and affordable if managed properly.
5. Team Based Hiring: While I’m not generally in favor of management by committee, hiring based upon a team approach works very well. In a perfect world, a hiring team would consist of your HR manager (compliance), your internal and external talent scout (the gut-check), the direct supervisor over the position being hired for (competency, capability, and compatibility) and the senior executive who is the best at selling your organization (the closer). Hiring in a team based fashion eliminates many of the typical mistakes that can be made in the hiring process.
6. Values Based Hiring: You can either spend time finding employees who share your organization’s values, or deal with the brain damage of managing conflicts that arise due to opposing values. Smart companies focus on the former and not the latter. It simply isn’t necessary to compromise on core values to get talent. A new hire should desire to be part of your company for more than the ability to maximize immediate earning potential…they should be interested in your company because there is a sincere alignment of values and vision. Trust me when I tell you that compromises in this area which seem insignificant during the interview process will become visibly and materially significant down the road.
7. Hire Leaders: I have a basic premise when it comes to hiring – most companies get exactly what they deserve. When companies complain about a lack of leadership, or how difficult it is to identify leaders, my question is simply this: Why didn’t you hire a leader to begin with? Sure, leadership can be learned, but not everyone is willing to learn, and even if they are, education takes time and has a very real cost. Let me be clear, I’m not knocking leadership development initiatives – there is no perfect leader, and all leaders need to focus on development. What I am saying is that development of an existing leader is faster, easier, and more effective than creating a leader.
8. Cultural Fit: Culture matters – forget this and all other efforts with regard to talent initiatives will be dysfunctional, if not lost altogether. Don’t allow your culture to evolve be default, create it by design. The first step in cultural design is to be very, very careful who you let through the front door. People, their traits, attitudes, and work ethic (or lack thereof) are contagions. This can be positive or negative – the choice is yours. The old saying, “talent begets talent” is true.
9. Pay for Talent: I cannot even begin to count the number of times I’ve witnessed companies pass over the right hire, or worse yet, not even look for the right hire because they let self-imposed financial constraints serve as a barrier precluding sound decisioning. I’ve actually personally observed HR managers filter better qualified candidates because they were a few thousand dollars outside the “top-end” of the salary range. It is precisely this type of thinking that will keep a company from being competitive in the market. To put it bluntly, you get what you pay for…Real talent produces real results, and is worth the investment. Always hire up where possible…find the right talent and then do what it takes to secure the services of said talent. You cannot afford not to invest in talent.
10. Constantly Upgrade: You can hire the best talent in the world, but remember that “best” is a subjective evaluation largely measured within the context of a snapshot in time. Obsolescence can take root in anyone if growth and development are not focus points. Development needs to occur at every echelon of the workforce – the top, middle, and bottom performance tiers. Top performers need to be stretched, mid-tier performers need to be challenged to up their game, and you should always look to upgrade the bottom 20% of your workforce. This can be done through training and development or via new hires. You need to ask yourself the following question: Who are the least productive members of your team? Why? Coach them to productivity or replace them – there is no third option.

Hiring is a blend of art and science. The reality is that those organizations that identify, recruit, deploy, develop and retain the best talent will be the companies who thrive in the market place. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback below…

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

Review any list of positive leadership traits and “passion” will undoubtedly rank near the top – rightly so. In most cases passion is an asset capable of carrying you through tough times, sharpening your perspective, revealing purpose, and helping you succeed in the face of overwhelming odds. You’ll find no shortage of content describing the positive attributes of passion, but few that examine the downside of passion, and trust me, there is a downside. On more than a few occasions I’ve witnessed passion run amok resulting in untold harm. Virtually any positive trait when taken to extremes, misunderstood and/or misapplied can quickly become a liability. So, in today’s post I’ll examine the downside of unbridled passion…

The word “passion” comes from the Latin root which quite literally means “to suffer.” Therefore it should come as no surprise that those who are passionate in their pursuits are often willing to make personal and professional sacrifices in order to reach their objectives that the unimpassioned simply won’t make. Channeled properly, this is a huge advantage. As a person who provides advice and counsel to leaders I can tell you I’ve rarely come across a successful person who hasn’t been truly passionate.

You’ll find no argument from me that passion can almost single-handedly propel leaders to new heights of success. History is littered with accounts of marginally talented individuals who have risen to greatness based upon little more than being passionate about the pursuit of their objective. Passion creates a “refuse to lose” mentality which can enable the average person to move outside comfort zones, take-on greater risk, go the extra mile, and achieve phenomenal results. However it’s important to note the same trait which can propel you to the top can also send you over the edge of a cliff. Passion is not aptitude, nor is it omnipotence, neither is it totally unique. These are nuances lost on many…

This is where things begin to get a little tricky – passion without perspective and/or reason can actually serve to distort one’s perception of reality. These distorted perceptions can quickly become a very slippery slope that will blur the lines between fact and fiction…very dangerous territory for any leader. Have you ever known someone who wanted something to be true so badly that they started to adopt positions and manufacture circumstances to support their own false reality? Just because you can convince yourself (or others) that your position is correct, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is…

Just as there exists a very fine line between brilliance and insanity, there also exists a fine line between passion and many negative traits such as narrow-mindedness, narcissism, fanaticism, delusion, and even paranoia. For instance, there is a big difference in a leader who is passionate about their business, and one that is emotionally over-invested in their business. Passion which is balanced by perspective and reason can reveal purpose, but passion absent those filters can just as easily impede purpose.

Healthy passion for one’s business actually brings focus and clarity of thought, which serve to accelerate growth and create sustainable success. However being emotionally over-invested in one’s business can lead to irrational decisioning, prideful or ego-driven actions, the use of flawed business logic, and poor execution. These are the regrettable and completely avoidable precursors to unnecessary loss and/or failure.

It is not at all uncommon for entrepreneurs and executives to be too close to the forest to see the trees. Passionate professionals thinking clearly will seek independent outside counsel and advice to continually gut-check and refine their thinking. Emotionally over-invested professionals will either avoid counsel or surround themselves with legions of yes-men. Another trait of healthy passionate thinking is to recruit tier-one talent at the executive leadership and senior management levels in order to stimulate innovation and thought growth. Effective leadership teams have a balance of left-brain and right-brain thinkers from a variety of backgrounds so that they can draw from the broadest possible array of experiences when formulating positions and options. Emotionally over-invested professionals tend to surround themselves with very small teams of like minded individuals from similar backgrounds who tend to reinforce each others thinking instead of challenging it.

I applaud those of you reading this post who constitute the passionate minority…I would however also counsel you to take pause and evaluate your current positioning and thinking. Are you operating in a vacuum? Do you seek advice and counsel from those who will tell you the truth, or from those who will just tell you what you want to hear? Is your passion creating clarity, focus and purpose, or is it blinding you from seeing the reality of your current situation?

As always, I welcome your thoughts, experiences and opinions and encourage you to comment below…

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

I had a long conversation yesterday with a friend discussing creativity, ideas, innovation, branding and the like. As a result of our conversation, I decided to dust-off an old post, give it a few updates, and pass along my thoughts, which can be best summarized as “Ideas Don’t Equal Innovation.“ It is my hope to help dispel the myth that ideas are inherently good things. Let me state right from the outset that I place little value on ideas. Not only do raw ideas have little intrinsic value, but they are often very costly. While I stipulate to the fact that ideas can sometimes lead to great things, I also submit that it is more frequently the case that ideas lead to disappointment, and even outright disaster. Those of you familiar with my work are probably wondering if it is really me authoring this text…if you’re baffled at how a champion of innovation can simultaneously be an idea-basher, I urge you to read on, and I promise the congruity will become apparent.

I want to start by actually defining what an idea is, and is not. Ideas do not constitute a philosophy, principle, or strategy. An idea is not synonymous with a competitive advantage, an idea is not necessarily a sign of creativity, an idea does not constitute innovation, and as much as some people wish it was so, an idea is certainly not a business. To the chagrin of many reading this post, ideas in and of themselves are nothing more than unrefined, random thoughts. Ideas on their own accord are really quite useless. The truth can often times be harsh and difficult to hear, but it is nonetheless the truth.

Ideas are a dime a dozen…take a moment and reflect on all the ideas you’ve spawned over the years, or the many ideas that have been birthed by your friends, family, and professional associates and you’ll quickly see that most of them never got lift-off. The problem is that most ideas never get implemented, and moreover even the best ideas when improperly implemented can cause great harm. You see, while creativity is a clearly a valuable asset, unbridled creativity where random, disparate ideas abound outside of a sound decisioning and execution framework will create distraction and chaos much more often than they will lead to innovation. The difference between an idea and innovation is execution – don’t be the “idea” person, be the innovator.

In fact, it is most often the organizations that demonstrate a “heard mentality” when rushing to adopt the latest ideas that are the farthest thing away from being innovative. The net result of being a late stage trend follower is that you will likely experience little more than yet another in a long line of great adventures that ended in frustration due to the time wasted and the investment squandered. The reality is that many businesses are quick to recognize great ideas, but they often have no plan for how to successfully integrate them into their business model.

My advice to you is not to let your business get caught up in embracing random ideas – at least not without some initial analysis being conducted to determine the likelihood of success. Failed initiatives are costly at several levels. Aside from being costly, a flawed execution can cast doubt on management credibility, have a negative impact on morale, taint the brand, adversely affect external relationships, and cause a variety of other problems for your business.

Every sound business initiative begins with a solid strategic plan. However while most anyone can cobble together a high level strategic plan, very few can author a strategy that can be successfully implemented. In order for your enterprise to turn an idea into a monetizing and/or value creating event you should develop a strategic plan that attempts to measure the idea against the following 15 elements:

1. Framework: The idea should be generated within a solid framework for decisioning. It should be developed as a solution to a problem or to exploit an opportunity. The idea should be in alignment with the overall vision and mission of the enterprise.
2. Advantage: If the idea doesn’t provide a unique competitive advantage it should at least bring you closer to an even playing field. That said, the best initiatives don’t level the field, they tilt the field in your favor.
3. Alignment: Any new idea should preferably add value to existing initiatives, and if not, it should show a significant enough return on investment to justify the dilutive effect of not keeping the main thing the main thing.
4. Assess: Put the idea through a risk/reward and cost/benefit analysis.
5. Simple: Whether the new idea is intended for your organization, vendors, suppliers, partners or customers it must easy to use. Usability drives adoptability, and therefore it pays to keep things simple.
6. Validate: Just because an idea sounds good doesn’t mean it is, and just because you can doesn’t mean you should. You should endeavor to validate proof of concept based upon detailed, credible research.
7. Contingency: Nothing is without risk, and when you think something is without risk, that is when you’re most likely to end-up in trouble. All initiatives surrounding new ideas should include detailed risk management provisions.
8. Realistic: Adopting a new idea should be based upon solid business logic that drives corresponding financial engineering and modeling. New projects alway take longer and cost more than originally planned. Be careful of high level, pie-in-the-sky projections.
9. Accountability: Any new ideas should contain accountability provisions. Every task should be assigned and managed according to a plan, and all of this should occur in the light of day.
10. Measurable: Any new ideas being adopted must lead to measurable objectives. Deliverables, benchmarks, deadlines, and success metrics must be incorporated into the plan.
11. Timing: It must be detailed and deliverable on a schedule. The initiative should have a beginning, middle and end.
12. Integrated: Ideas need to be incorporated into strategic initiatives and not constitute disparate systems. They should be incorporated into integrated solutions that eliminate redundancies, and build in tactical leverage points.
13. Evolving: Ideas should contain a road-map for versioning and evolution that is in alignment with other strategic initiatives and the overall corporate mission. No road map signals an incomplete idea and will also likely equal quick obsolescence.
14. Actionable: A successful idea cannot remain in a strategic planning state. It must be actionable through tactical implementation.
15. Champion: Senior leadership must champion any new idea being adopted. If someone at the C-suite level is against the new idea, it will likely die on the cutting-room floor.

The bottom line is that new ideas are beautiful things when they become solutions or lead to opportunities. Properly implemented, capitalizing on process driven creativity can keep business from stagnating and cause growth and evolution. Just follow the 15 rules above and avoid being the misguided change agent for solely for the sake of change. Thoughts?

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

For those of you not familiar with the two characters from Band of Brothers depicted above, they are polar opposites in terms of their approach to leadership. Captain Soble (left) represents a leader in rank only, whose efforts to intimidate his men are a classic example of fear based leadership. Shown at right is Lt. Winters, who leads by example and inspires the loyalty of his men by demonstrating he is worthy of their trust in even the most difficult of situations. In today’s post I’ll examine the value of loyalty as it relates to leadership.

Is it just me, or has loyalty become rather scarce these days? Anyone who’s been in leadership for any length of time has likely pulled more than a few knives out of their back. Bottom line – there seems to be way too much focus on “me” and not enough focus on “we” these days. There have always been those who have fostered trust and earned loyalty, as well as those who have abused both for personal gain. But in this “what have you done lately for me” society where relationships have degenerated into little more than stepping stones, loyalty seems to be elusive as best. One of a leader’s most important functions is to create an environment where trust and loyalty are the rule and not the exception.

If relationships are the currency of leadership, it is important for leaders to note that loyalty serves as the cornerstone of any healthy relationship. Leadership and loyalty go hand-in-hand. In fact, so much so that leaders who fail to understand this simply won’t endure the test of time. While successful leaders share many common traits, all great leaders have one thing in common – they are not only adept at earning the loyalty of those they lead, but they also recognize that loyalty is a two-way street. When it comes to loyalty, the simple rule is that you will not receive what you will not give.

I think it’s important for leaders to do a gut check and take note of the difference between fear based loyalty and trust based loyalty. As a leader, do you command the loyalty of those around you because of your title, or have you earned it by gaining their trust and respect? Loyalty commanded is fleeting, loyalty earned is enduring. Hint: being feared as a leader is not a badge of honor to be sought after. It’s one thing for employees to have a healthy respect for you, but quite another to be in fear of you. Remember that respect is earned, and fear is imposed. Fear based motivations don’t instill loyalty, create trust, build morale, inspire creativity, attract talent, or drive innovation. The truth is fear stifles, and if left unchecked, eventually kills all of the aforementioned attributes.

If you’re a leader who has created a fear based culture I can guarantee you two things:

1. Your employees won’t give you their best
2. When things get tough, or other opportunities present themselves, your employees will cut-and-run at the first option that comes their way because you have failed to earn their loyalty

As a leader, if you believe that instilling fear in your employees is a good thing, you may be a tyrannical bully, but you are certainly not an effective leader.

Remember that great CEOs see themselves not as masters of the universe, but as inspirational servants, catalysts, teachers, and team builders…Again, I would strongly encourage you to think “leader” and not “dictator.” Reflect back to your time as a student…which educators brought out the best in you? My guess is that it was not the know it all professors who lived to put you in your place and show you how much they knew and you didn’t. My suspicion is your best memories are of those teachers who inspired you, encouraged you, brought out your passion, and challenged you in a positive fashion. I would also suspect you produced you best work for the latter and not the former.

So, how do you tell if your employees respect you or fear you? After reading the above comments it should already be obvious, but just in case, review the 5 items below:

1. A Team of Yes-men: Feared leaders either surround themselves with like-minded people, or train people to share their views in a vacuum. Either way they lose…Great leaders value the opinions of their team whether or not said views happen to be in concurrence with their own beliefs. The best leaders not only subject their ideas to scrutiny – they openly encourage it.
2. Lack of Interaction: Along the lines of number one above, if executives, management, and staff don’t proactively seek your advice and input then you have a respect problem. They either don’t value your contributions, or they know from experience that you’ll treat their inquiry in a belittling fashion. Over time, many fear-based leaders unknowingly train their team to think: “Why even try if there is no upside? The boss will never go for that.”
3. Lack of Feedback: If as a leader you don’t subject yourself to a 360 review process, then you are not earnestly looking for personal growth and development opportunities. Here’s an ego check – if you do utilize a 360 review, and all the responses are positive, evaluate whether this has occurred because you are feared and are thus the recipient of insincere flattery, or because you have the loyaly and respect of those you lead.
4. Revolving Door: If you either can’t attract or retain tier-one talent, you are not an effective leader who has earned the respect and loyalty of your team…In fact, upon closer examination, you’ll find that you probably don’t have a team. Sad but true…real talent won’t be attracted to, or remain engaged with leaders who operate on fear-based tactics.
5. Poor Performance: Leaders who have the respect of their team will outperform those that don’t. Leaders who attempt to use command and control tactics without the necessary underpinnings of real leadership principles will simply not do well. If your organization is not thriving and growing, then the first thing that should occur is a long look in the mirror…Begin your triage by first evaluating your leadership qualities or the lack thereof.

Ask yourself the following question:

If your employees held an election today, would you be re-elected as CEO by a landslide, or would you be voted out?

Bottom line:

What is rightfully earned and freely given (loyalty, trust, and respect) will always outlast what is imprudently acquired for the wrong reasons (the bully tactics of fear-based control). For me it’s an easy call – you stand by those whom you trust and respect, and you don’t abandon them because it’s popular or convenient. Loyalty matters…

What say you – Captain Soble or Lt. Winters?

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

Leadership and mentoring go hand-in-hand. In fact, this is so much the case that I don’t believe a person qualifies as a leader unless they are a mentor. If you accept this premise as correct, then why is it that so many in positions of leadership fall woefully short in successfully transferring the benefits of their wisdom and experience to others? To the chagrin of many reading this post, I believe there is regrettably all too often a difference between someone who holds a leadership position, and that of a mature, effective leader. In the text that follows, I’ll share a few thoughts on not only the benefits of mentoring, but how to do it effectively.

If you have been a reader of this blog for any length of time, you know that I believe many of those in positions of leadership need to get over themselves. Leadership is not about the leader, but rather about those being led. As a leader your success can only be found in one measure: whether or not those you lead are better off as a result of being led by you. I have long held that the great privilege of leadership carries with it an even greater responsibility; the obligation of service. Once a person assumes a leadership role, they automatically inherit the responsibility for the care, well-being, and overall stewardship of those they lead. While some refer to the aforementioned demands as the burdens of leadership, I like to think of them as the primary benefits of leadership.

Let me cut right to the chase and be clear; mentoring is part of a leader’s job description. I’ll take this one step further by also being very blunt; Your obligation as a leader is to develop people to the best of your ability which hopefully leads to people reaching their full potential. Put simply, if you can’t or won’t become a good mentor, then you have no business being a leader.

All successful organizations create a culture where the acquisition, development, implementation, and transfer of skills and knowledge are highly valued. This type of culture simply cannot exist where the practice of mentoring is not a top down initiative. Leaders must not only embrace mentoring, they must become its champion. Following is a list of five simple rules that all leaders can turn to help improve their mentoring efforts:

1. Trust

Any relationship between mentor and mentee that is not built upon a foundation of mutual trust and respect won’t be productive, and won’t last. Being a mentor has nothing to do with being arrogant, condescending, or patronizing in an attempt to demonstrate your knowledge, and the mentee’s lack thereof. In fact, I can think of no circumstance where the old axiom “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care” applies than as it relates to the role of a mentor.

2. Mentoring Requires a Mutual Commitment

Your mentee will only be as committed to the process as you are. If you’re not totally committed to the success of your mentee, they will only pay you the same lip service in return for that which you’re giving them. Likewise, a healthy and productive mentoring relationship cannot be built upon on a one-way street from the mentor to the mentee. While a mentor can be committed and provide excellent advice, the harsh reality is that you cannot mentor someone who doesn’t want to be a mentee. Those who seek shelter in the wisdom of sound counsel must also be willing to take refuge there. Those unwilling to do the latter really don’t value the former. Bottom line…Don’t waste the time of your mentee if you’re not committed to the process, and do not waste your time on someone who doesn’t value your advice.

3. Walk the Talk

Who is your mentor? Don’t have one? Hmmm… Learning is a life-long endeavor, and you don’t simply reach a magical place in life where you become the all knowing mentor who no longer has anything to learn. Your mentoring efforts will be better received, and will be more productive if you are not just a mentor, but a mentee as well. Make it a point to communicate how much you believe in the process of being mentored by telling your mentee how you’ve benefited from mentors past and present.

4. Choosing Your Mentees

There is simply not enough time in the day for you to become everyone’s mentor. You cannot do it, so don’t even bother trying. This begs the question of who you should personally mentor, and why? Aside from other essential aspects of mentoring that have already been mentioned, mentors must keep in mind their overarching obligation to the organization…the business purpose if you will. Leaders need to evaluate coaching and mentoring decisions based upon the potential ROI vs. the potential risk. Only invest your time where the biggest returns or the largest risks can be impacted. As a leader your first responsibility is to the greater good of the organization, and if your mentoring time is invested in non productive efforts then you’re not catalyzing progress, you are gating it. One of the toughest things for a leader to come to grips with is that not everyone can be saved. If time squandered with an individual is adversely impacting the greater organization, then you cannot continue to invest time there. If someone will not gladly submit themselves to being mentored, then I submit that you gladly replace them with someone who will. A person that won’t invest themselves into their own development not only limits their own future, but they in turn become the proverbial weak link in the chain.

5. Ownership

Don’t view mentoring as just another development initiative and pass the buck to HR. Effective mentoring programs while led from the top down, are decentralized and driven down to lowest possible levels of the organization. Everyone should be included in some form or fashion. As noted above, you cannot do it all yourself, but you can create an enterprise wide framework that makes sure that nobody falls through the cracks. As noted above, not everyone may be a good choice for you to personally mentor, but if a person in worthy of being a part of your organization to begin with, then they are worthy of someone’s attention and efforts as a mentor.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

If you’re a frequent reader of this blog you know from time-to-time I’ll take aim at a sacred cow and pull the trigger. I’ve had issues with some of the concepts contained in Jim Collins book Good To Great since it was first released. Given the legions of those who have drunk the Good to Great Kool-Aid, I realize today’s post might be akin to spitting into the wind. That said, it is nonetheless my hope to burst a few bubbles and bust a few myths. The issue that finally placed the theories purveyed by Collins squarely into my cross-hairs was a recent conversation I had with a very intelligent man who referenced Good To Great as if he was quoting scripture, and referred to Jim Collins as if he were the Almighty Himself – enough was finally enough…

Let me be clear – I have nothing against theories so long as they’re presented as such. But when theories are marketed as fact, I begin to lose patience rather quickly. Just because an opinion is expressed boldly, and even when data can be developed to support the opinion, opinion doesn’t become fact – it’s still an opinion. I’ve been around far too long, and cleaned up far too many messes that resulted from theory being applied as fact to be lulled into stepping on this very slippery slope. Let me put this another way – not all business logic is good business logic.

Not only do I believe that most people should rethink aspects of Good To Great, but they should also reevaluate many best selling business books that use biased statistical data as a substitute for common sense business wisdom. The simple truth is that anyone can prepare a chart or graph to support virtually any premise or position at a given point in time. However when one expands the window of time under which static data is observed, and the static data has to withstand the test of time as it becomes subject to the fluidity of changing markets, and the results are rarely as constant as many authors would have you believe.

The first thing that readers need to keep in mind is that there is very often a huge difference between a commercial best seller, and a book that provides real value. Being a commercial best seller is about buzz, hype, and branding…it is about book sales rather than the root value of the content. In being true to my contrarian self, and with rare exception (Peter Drucker, Adam Smith, etc.), I believe that the more popular a non-fiction business book is the more likely it is proffer fluff over substance.

Before I go any further, let me acknowledge there are valuable nuggets to can be taken away from most books so long as the reader is capable of discerning the fictional hype from the factually substantive. While I believe there is an element of quality information to be gleaned from the pages of Good To Great, I also believe there are some potentially dangerous and misleading concepts/principles that can cause great harm to a business if taken out of context. The key to understanding, validating, and appropriately applying any form of research is to understand the context in which it was developed, as well as the business logic that was used to frame it.

The problem with Good To Great is that the reader is left with the false impression that the principles contained in the book can be universally transferred to their individual situation without regard for context. The reader is led to believe that if they apply the principles contained in the book to their business, that the results will mirror those of the companies examined in the book, and that their business will in turn make the leap from good to great and enjoy sustaining good fortune. This is simply not true. You see all research, even good research, must be evaluated contextually. There are very few universal truths in business that can be applied in a vacuum. In the text below I will examine what I believe to be three of the most critical flaws in business logic contained in Good To Great:

1. The Study Itself

The study in and of itself has a bias in that Jim’s research staff focused their efforts on 22 Fortune 500 Companies. The study compared and contrasted 11 companies that made the transition from good to great, and 11 peer companies that did not over a time period certain as judged by growth in stock returns. The problem with this study is that it applies to a very small universe. How many of you reading this post are currently CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies? Fortune 500 companies are mature, well branded, well capitalized, already successful companies. To assume that a start-up, small, mid-size, or even relatively large company can universally adopt and apply the business practices of Fortune 500 companies is just not realistic. Adopting this line of thinking in a vacuum can actually send a company into a death spiral.

2. Level Five Leaders

Jim refers to a hierarchical matrix of leadership that describes 5 different types of leaders, and suggests that only with rare exception can anything other than a Level 5 leader take a company from good to great. While I agree with many of his suppositions on what makes a great leader, I vehemently disagree that only one leadership style can work effectively. I have personally witnessed just about every style of leader both succeed and fail. While I find some leadership styles more pleasant than others, to adopt a “one size fits all” mentality toward what it takes to lead a company is a huge mistake. It is not the leadership style in a vacuum that is as important as selecting the right leader based upon aligning style with the environmental, situational and contextual circumstances of the time along with the mission at hand. There is NO perfect leader – just the right leader for a given situation at a given point in time.

3. The Flywheel and the Doom Loop

Jim’s theory here is that “those who launch radical change programs and wrenching restructurings will almost certainly fail to make the leap” (from good to great). While I am a strong believer in the flywheel principal as a general practice, there are also times when radical change is in fact the critical element needed to move a company to the next level of success. It is not change or reengineering that are the evils, rather it is ill-conceived or poorly implemented change that can cause harm. Beware the change agents for the sake of change, but embrace change by design (radical or otherwise) for the good of the enterprise.

Conclusion

The primary differences between Jim’s view of the world and mine: is that Jim believes his data is applicable to virtually any situation in business, and I believe everything must be evaluated against the situational, environmental, and contextual aspects of any given scenario. Assuming that all formulas are made up of constants, without consideration for the inevitable set of variables that always come into play, is just not sound thinking. Bottom line – Just because a book or an author is popular, doesn’t mean the opinions espoused within the covers of the book are synonymous with fact. Remember…Challenge everything!

Thoughts?

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

Just because something gets published doesn’t necessarily mean it has any value. In fact, misleading or wrong information that finds its way into the public domain can be quite harmful. I just finished reading a research study conducted by Harvard Business School (HBS) that is nothing short of academic hoo-hah, and is a case study with everything that’s wrong with business schools today. The HBS research is laughable, and lends credence to the old axiom “don’t believe everything you read.” While the study accurately concludes there is value in CEOs spending time with employees and directors (duh), the conclusion that there is no value in CEOs spending time externally makes me cringe.

Where a CEO chooses to spend their time is without doubt an important decision. Furthermore, it would be a gross simplification to create an either/or scenario by suggesting that spending time in one arena vs another holds more value. The simple truth is that CEOs need to spend time with a wide variety of constituencies (that’s the job), and the best CEOs know how to generate a return on their time regardless of who they’re meeting with. I don’t disagree with Harvard’s point that spending time with employees and directors is valuable, I just disagree that time spent with other individuals and groups has no value.

Having a sample pool of CEOs that I’ve worked with which is far larger than that of the 94 CEOs tracked in the HBS study, I can tell you with great certainty that my experience differs from the conclusions drawn by the professors who authored the study. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that if I interviewed the 94 CEOs tracked in the study they would agree with my conclusions more than those produced by the study itself. The following statement exposes either an extreme bias or a very healthy naïveté: “the time CEOs spent with outsiders had no measurable correlation with firm performance.” The aforementioned statement is utterly ridiculous and patently false.

To be fair, CEOs who squander their external facing time don’t get much of a return on said time, but then again, they don’t typically remain in the C-suite for very long. However my experience with CEOs is that engagement with external constituencies is highly productive. Following are a few questions for you to ponder – When a CEO meets with a prospective customer and generates a huge contract, does that not impact performance? What about when a CEO favorably negotiates a contract dispute that both saves an existing account and avoids costly litigation – no value here either? How about when a CEO improves credit accommodations which result in substantial reduction in interest carry? I guess that doesn’t count as productive either. While I’m at it, I guess an accretive acquisition, lowering manufacturing costs by making supply chain enhancements, making key external hires, or opening new distribution channels or geographic markets probably didn’t get on the radar screen of the faculty either.

The study had other flaws such as viewing CEOs as predominantly management types as opposed to leaders, inaccurate allocations of how CEOs spend their time, and other fallacies that could only surface in the halls of academia. The point I want to make here is just because research is produced at a business school, shouldn’t automatically qualify it as good research. Bottom line – just because this study found no corollary between CEOs spending time with constituencies outside the company and gains in performance doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It just means that the study was biased, flawed or both.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

“Managing Up” is a great catch phrase and an interesting concept – it’s also a practice that can get you in deep trouble rather quickly if misunderstood or misapplied. Many people would say the purpose of managing-up is to have the by-product of your efforts enhance the work of those you report to. While I have nothing against this concept (I call it doing your job), I do have a problem with the reality that many practitioners of managing-up miss the point altogether. When the practice of managing up gets confused with promotion of self-interest, brown-nosing, deceit, manipulation, the gymnastics of corporate climbing, or other mind games, a good theory rapidly becomes twisted resulting in a false and dangerous reality.

While the premise of “managing-up” is sound, the reality of how it’s most commonly implemented is representative of everything that’s wrong with business today. It’s human nature to attempt to control circumstances where possible. It’s also quite normal to desire to position yourself well with those you report to. That said, it’s important to understand the realities, rules and boundaries associated with organizational structure. Newsflash – as much as you don’t want to hear this, there is a good reason why you’re reporting to someone else – you’re probably not ready to be the boss yet.

Here’s the thing – the best way to be looked upon favorably by those you report to is not through various charades and other forms of skulduggery, but by simply doing your job and serving them well. When the emphasis of your efforts shifts away from others and to yourself you have placed yourself on a very slippery slope. If you want to move up in the organization let it be the quality of your work that catapults you upward, not your skill in manipulation. If your timetable for career acceleration isn’t matching up with that of your employer, surface your concerns with them in a straight-forward fashion, don’t revert to amateurish corporate hi-jinks.

If I might be so bold, it’s not your job to manage your boss. Most good leaders love to be challenged, but I don’t know to many who like to think their being managed by subordinates – there’s a subtle but distinct difference. Your responsibility is to do the job the way those above you want it done, not how you want to do it. Granted, in a perfect world there would be alignment between the two, but alas, the world is not perfect. When it comes to enhancing the efforts of those above you, I would encourage you to think about it like this:

• Engage – Yes
• Collaborate – Yes
• Challenge – When needed
• Advise – Where appropriate and value is added
• Object – When it’s the right thing to do
• Loyalty – Until it’s no longer earned (if you can’t be loyal – go work for someone else)
• Manage – NEVER

There is little debate that some subordinates are more intelligent and gifted than those above them. In fact, if you’re lucky enough to be considered a high potential in your organization, you might want to give your boss some credit as the best leaders make every attempt at building their organizations with people who are brighter and more talented than they are. This is a laudable practice that should be admired by workers, not resented. If your work doesn’t speak for itself, or if it does and isn’t being recognized, rather than play silly games, move on honorably and look for a better fit.

Thoughts?

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.