Is it Time to Tune Up Your Firm’s Values?

December 4, 2008 By 4 Comments
Are Your Corporate Values Just Wall-Art For Your Conference Room?

Are Your Corporate Values Just Wall-Art For Your Conference Room?

While Mission is the “reason for being” of a firm, the organization’s clearly stated Values are supposed to define critical behaviors, offer context for decision-making and generally serve as bedrock for defining culture.  And like Mission descriptions, the Values are often collections of lofty thoughts that are so far removed from the minds and actions of employees as to be nearly useless.

I survey (either in writing or by show of hand) management audiences on the meaningfulness and utility of their firm’s Values.  It is rare to find groups where more than 20% are either positive or very positive that their firm’s Values are widely used to define and enforce acceptable behavior.  Even fewer individuals indicate having been trained on the meaning and use of the firm’s Values in their day-to-day activities. (Note from Art, take the anonymous 2-question Values Poll in the sidebar here at Management Excellence and see the cumulative feedback from all respondents immediately!)

Four Common Problems and Solutions:

1.  Values statements are often generic lists of well-intentioned, positive virtues.   There is nothing actionable or tangible to help guide decision-making.

Solution: make the Values as specific as possible.  For example, one firm’s “Never let a profit center conflict get in the way of doing what is right for the customer,” is actionable, while a more common variant, “We exist to serve the customer” is not.  Sharpen your Value statements until they are tangible, meaningful and actionable.

2.  Senior leaders define the Values without employee input.

Solution: defining or revising Values should include input and ideas from across the organization.  One way to make the desired cultural and behavioral norms tangible for everyone is to let employees help define them.

3.  Values, like Mission statements are viewed as something reserved for a handsome plaque hung in the lobby or a conference room.

Solution: Values should be brought to life through internal education and constant reinforcement.  Publicize the reinforcement.

4.  Values are not leveraged as a powerful management tool.

Solution: a firm’s Values are incredibly powerful in identifying and selecting new hires, deciding on promotions, resolving conflicts and deciding on proper courses of actions.  Teach managers to leverage the firm’s Values as part of their decision-making process.

The Bottom-Line for Now:

Instead of frowning at the vagueness of the concept of Corporate Values, recognize that individuals and teams perform best when they embrace their mission, understand the tools and approaches that they should take to get there and have input into defining the roadmap.  Strong, clear and tangible Value Statements are part and parcel of creating a high-performance culture.

Filed Under: Decision-Making, Leadership, Values Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Weak Leadership at the Top Derails The Pursuit of Performance Excellence

October 20, 2008 By 2 Comments

While some top executives err on the side of asserting a dictatorial style of leadership that poisons the working environment and stifles independent action, in my experience, many more struggle with just the opposite.  Instead of overwhelming their associates with strict orders in pursuit of rigid targets, they default on their responsibility to set direction in a poorly constructed attempt to create an environment of empowerment. The results of this approach include endless discussions without resultant actions and massive frustration of well-intended personnel that want to move projects and ideas forward.

This laissez-faire top leadership style is particularly problematic when teams are facing vexing problems: a new strategy vector, the need to change imposed by external forces or a new operating initiative (e.g. a quality program).  At the point in time where resolve is required to step off the cliff in pursuit of the new initiative, this leader steps back and waits for the group to agree to jump. And waits, and waits, and then waits some more, while the group endlessly debates what it means to jump.  Committees are born, research initiatives established, and political agendas developed and asserted.  And still, the top leader waits, fearful that asserting authority will undermine the independent thinking and free spirited structure of the team.  What a disaster.

Don’t misinterpret my tone as an indictment of empowerment and the need for self-directed work teams at the senior level. I believe that the best performing teams have a wide berth when it comes to identifying problems and developing and implementing solutions.  However, this type of effective team culture comes as a result of a conscious decision to empower.  Inherent in this conscious decision is the understanding of all parties that there is accountability for making progress and for ultimately improving the organization.  This is very different from the form of leadership where the lack of a decision and lack of responsibility for action is the permanent outcome.

I cannot speak with certainty about why some top leaders suffer from a chronically weak leadership and decision-making style, however, I suspect that it has a lot to do with a concern for upsetting people and a general discomfort with giving feedback.  Top leaders are most definitely not immune from the same challenges that everyone else faces when it comes to conducting tough discussions with others. Top leaders want to be liked, they want to be respected and they want their direct reports to feel good about what they are doing, where they are working and who they are working for.   All of these provide good reasons for not upsetting the apple-cart in the mind of the top leader.

The Bottom-Line for Now:

There are no magical cures for the top leader that lacks the resolve to assert direction, require action or give feedback to under-performing teams or individuals.  Coaching can help if the individual recognizes his or her shortcomings and truly wants to change.  And while some top executives are willing to go down this path, too many are beyond the point where they think that they need to improve.  After all, they are in charge.

Next: How to survive if you work for a weak leader.

Filed Under: Decision-Making, Leadership, Leading Change, Surviving Lousy Leaders Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Decision-Making and The Three Rules of Risk Management

July 24, 2008 By Leave a Comment

Your decision-making style says a lot about you as a leader.  Some people make a lot of decisions with little more than a gut hunch to guide them and others spend a lot of time gathering insights and information to support their decision.  Others struggle to make decisions on anything and might still be considering what to order for breakfast when it’s time for dinner.  And still others avoid making decisions because taking a stand increases the odds that they will be held accountable for results.  

Our decision-making style is driven in large part by our tolerance of risk, something that can change based on many personal and professional circumstances.  An executive guiding a turn-around might operate with a high-degree of risk tolerance, while a project manager leading a construction project might have a much lower risk tolerance.  First-time leaders might not have formed a solid decision-making style and might process risk at a slightly more conservative level than how they perceive their direct manager dealing with it. 

A participant in a recent leadership workshop that I conducted offered up the Three Rules of Risk Management that she learned from her father (an engineer).  I am grateful that she shared and appreciative of the wisdom her father passed along in these simple but powerful rules.

The Three Rules of Risk Management

1. Don’t risk more than you can afford to lose.

Good advice for corporate leaders, mid-level managers and everyone in their personal lives.  Determining what you can “afford to lose” is of course the key issue here, and sometimes not so easy to calculate.  A patient requiring a heart-transplant to live has one definition and a single parent that needs a paycheck to feed his family has another.  It’s OK to agonize over this one a bit…it is the foundational data point of the Three Rules.

2. Never risk a lot for a little.

Common sense, yes, but I see this one violated everyday. People risk their credibility arguing over who’s right and who’s wrong on small issues.  Boards and executive teams pursue ill-conceived acquisitions based on questionable assumptions.  Marketing and development teams invest heavily in new products without a good understanding of the problem they are trying to solve for their prospective buyers. The operative issue here is defining whether the perceived end game or outcome is worth a lot (usually the assumption) or some fraction of a lot (usually reality).  Align risk with the true definition of the outcome.

3. In general, take the risk if you can affect the outcome.

In my opinion, this is the most profound of the three rules, and another point worth agonizing over as you formulate your decision.  Hoping that the dice roll your way is what helped build all of those grand palaces in Las Vegas.  You cannot control the dice…they have a mind of their own, and in a business environment, hoping for the market to move your way is a guarantee that you will make your better-prepared competitor rich.  You cannot affect the outcome of most situations at 100 percent, so once again, you are left to sort what you can control and what is beyond your control.  This rule guides you to accept risk if you can control a significant portion of the outcome. 

The Bottom-Line for Now:

Learning to think through your risk-environment can help you make the right calls on the tough issues.  The Three Rules are not a silver-bullet, but they do offer a simple framework for mentally processing the implications of a decision. 

In general, I’ve found that most people prefer working for leaders that make a lot of decisions and that make decisions quickly.  Certainly, a leader that is slow to make up her mind or that will never make a decision has an adverse impact on her team and her organization.  Alternatively, a leader that is too fast to decide or that decides more on a hunch than a good understanding of the facts, issues and risks, is prone to making significant mistakes as well.  The trick is finding the right balance, and balance is about understanding and measuring your risks against possible returns.  Use the Three Rules to find the right risk/return balance for your decisions. 

Filed Under: Decision-Making, Leadership Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Leadership Decision-Making: Learn to Be Like Mike

January 28, 2008 By 1 Comment

I worked for two executives with very different styles in my first job out of college.  The first executive, Tom, was a polished professional that liked to study a problem, gather the facts, look at the situation from all angles and then sleep on it.  And sleep on it.  And sleep on it some more.  Tom would rarely make a decision and when he did, so much time had elapsed that his team had moved on and made the decision for themselves.  (Often choosing a very different direction than the one Tom had finally decided upon.) 

The firm’s other key executive, Mike, would quickly frame an issue, ask for input and decide.  Mike was less concerned about developing what he believed was the perfect answer, and he clearly did not fear being wrong.  If he made a mistake, he had no qualms about admitting his error, adjusting his course and plowing ahead.  I decided very early that I would strive to be like Mike and not like Tom.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Leadership Tagged With: , , , ,
« Previous Page