Used to be folks would write to each other all during the year, then a card sufficed with short notes at Christmas. When the Christmas Letter became fashionable it, at first, was a sort of a state of the family recap of the year. Too lazy to have corresponded. Now social networks have taken the place of letter writting, but my perception is even though they are quite broad, the sites (At least the posts) lack depth.
An early issue with email was bandwidth. Lenghthy and detailed correspondence was discouraged and your dial up connection could not handle the bites transmitted over the phone line. DSL, broadband, and FIOs connections corrected those problems, but unless there are large attachments the details in the email are still wanting.
Communicating the details is an important skill for the leader or the follower. Too much and you loose your audience, too little and an incorrect decision at worst follows or at best frustration for the recipient. It is still a balancing act with which this writter struggles. For readers from the banking industry there has been considerable attention paid by regulators about disclosure required by a casual email to an FI customer. An example of too little, and anxiety of too much. As 2012 dawns it may be a good time to look at how you communicate to stakeholders with eye to too much or too little.
Happy Holidays.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Common Al!
Back in July I read a post from Al Lewis a (I guess) respected journalist with the Denver post via CBS Market Watch. Now to be quite honest I am not a follower of Mr. Lewis so of course I am not familiar with his overall philosophy, in additon, this post is not intended to attack Mr. Lewis for as a journalist his comments reflect the society and do not shape it. Right? Accepting that premise then the remarks in his post of July 13 titled "A Horrible Boss Better than no Boss" reveal how current economic conditions impact followership and leadership. The position taken in Mr. Lewis's post is that an employee is better off to tolerate a poor leader rather than give up a job considering the state of the job market. A reasonable postion. The consequence is the denegration of civility, good manners, and decency in the work place. Logically these behaviors will then spill into the general society. "As seen on TV" it is OK to be mean spirited and ill mannered.
Leaders still have a responsibility to insure subordinates "good behavior" as anything else will lead to poor morale, a deterioration in followership which leads to a decline in standards. Guess what happens next? This spills over to customers and clients. The poor behavior kick starts a downward spiral impacting company results.
As Mr. Lewis is a commentator on business culture he would serve his readers better by informing them of the consequences of letting poor managers continue in their bad behavior rather than advising employees to tolerate such behavior because the alternative of un-employment is worse.
Mr. Lewis's post: http://www.denverpost.com/allewis/ci_18471940
Leaders still have a responsibility to insure subordinates "good behavior" as anything else will lead to poor morale, a deterioration in followership which leads to a decline in standards. Guess what happens next? This spills over to customers and clients. The poor behavior kick starts a downward spiral impacting company results.
As Mr. Lewis is a commentator on business culture he would serve his readers better by informing them of the consequences of letting poor managers continue in their bad behavior rather than advising employees to tolerate such behavior because the alternative of un-employment is worse.
Mr. Lewis's post: http://www.denverpost.com/allewis/ci_18471940
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Learning Vicariously
The infrequency of my posts is due to the percolation time required for the thoughts to brew. Besides the blog posts I follow, typically those associated with bank compliance, credit cards, etc. all the bloggers complain about coming up with content daily. Better them than me.
From the time the girls were old enough to understand what I meant I preached to them they would, throughout their careers, work for princes and for pricks. There would be far fewer of the former than the later and if they were lucky may only one of the princes. Any of you who have held more than a couple of jobs and, I dare say both of you know, what I mean.
In past posts you have read about my affection for Larry Bossidy’s thoughts on leadership, and one of his premises is to have robust conversations in a safe environment. That is everyone is given the opportunity to “buy in” through a solid evaluation of skills, areas of improvement, and overall support for the mission. An important result of this process is assigning people the jobs they are best equipped to do. The famous story of George C. Marshall talking with his generals about a particular personality none of them felt they could support, and Marshall kept asking them ‘but what can he do?’ That personality most notably moved his army in 48 hours more than a hundred miles to relieve the 101st Airborne trapped in Bastogne France among many notable achievements after D-day. Everyone can do something for the good of the organization. True leaders recognize that fact and develop people accordingly. If they cannot then and only then do they look for other people who can help. Contrary to popular opinion allowing people to fail, is not unhealthy. Growth occurs and personal recognition of the followers own strength and weaknesses result granting them a chance to build self worth by shoring up what needs to be corrected and capitalizing on their strengths. To judge what the follower can do without giving them the chance to do it is the finest exhibition of a leaders hubris and a demonstration of their own weakness; an inability to set expectations then coach, teach, and lead followers to those expectations.
I have seen this kind of behavior throughout my own career and I continue to see this vicariously through those around me. My mind constantly wanders to the why? The simple and short answer is nearly everyone in a leadership role just does not know how to do it. Really? It is as simple as that? Reeeaaally. The “they don’t get it” syndrome is well entrenched in human nature (I am loath to limit it to local communities.) A more complex answer is the true reality; and only manifests itself in this way. As I have said before people find themselves in leadership roles; frequently led by those who have no ability, knowledge, or skill to develop people. So the leader takes shortcuts. These shortcuts are painful and humiliating to the follower. What is a follower to do? Frequently there is not much to be done other than stand up, dust off the pants, and move on. Fixing the leadership from a followership position is impossible to do or the follower would not be there in the first place—the leader would have been listening all along right?
The leaders who study leadership, as a skill they must master, understand what I am talking about; but this message is not really for them. The ones who should be paying attention are not, and that is the unfortunate truth. For the leaders who want to develop the skills, it takes a commitment of time and an understanding that what is achieved now will pay a benefit of better results in the future. The constraint is what is robbed from the now to get the future secure. There are demands enough on time already, but if you want to make a difference you will embrace this notion. I sometimes wish I was in a role again to practice what I preach, then laugh at myself for thinking like a masochist. Besides if my two readers decide to try and “get It” I will have achieved much.
Finally there is much the budding follower can evaluate in the leader to figure out if they are someone worth following:
1) Are the organizations goals clearly defined and are your expectations laid out in a way which makes clear how you will be helping the organization achieve those goals?
2) Does the leader frequently (and I mean daily) even informally talk about what you are doing and how those behaviors are impacting the path to the goals?
3) Does the leader set the example?
4) Does the leader provide a safe environment for discussion with the entire team of the organization goals and what is expected to reach them and indeed what the teams input is into the validity and achievability of the goals?
5) Is the leader a cheerleader (caution—this requires substance) and calls out milestones on the path to the goals?
6) Are team members allowed an honorable “out” if the buy in cannot be attained?
Obviously each of these need to be supported with additional commentary—should give me something to do.
More later
From the time the girls were old enough to understand what I meant I preached to them they would, throughout their careers, work for princes and for pricks. There would be far fewer of the former than the later and if they were lucky may only one of the princes. Any of you who have held more than a couple of jobs and, I dare say both of you know, what I mean.
In past posts you have read about my affection for Larry Bossidy’s thoughts on leadership, and one of his premises is to have robust conversations in a safe environment. That is everyone is given the opportunity to “buy in” through a solid evaluation of skills, areas of improvement, and overall support for the mission. An important result of this process is assigning people the jobs they are best equipped to do. The famous story of George C. Marshall talking with his generals about a particular personality none of them felt they could support, and Marshall kept asking them ‘but what can he do?’ That personality most notably moved his army in 48 hours more than a hundred miles to relieve the 101st Airborne trapped in Bastogne France among many notable achievements after D-day. Everyone can do something for the good of the organization. True leaders recognize that fact and develop people accordingly. If they cannot then and only then do they look for other people who can help. Contrary to popular opinion allowing people to fail, is not unhealthy. Growth occurs and personal recognition of the followers own strength and weaknesses result granting them a chance to build self worth by shoring up what needs to be corrected and capitalizing on their strengths. To judge what the follower can do without giving them the chance to do it is the finest exhibition of a leaders hubris and a demonstration of their own weakness; an inability to set expectations then coach, teach, and lead followers to those expectations.
I have seen this kind of behavior throughout my own career and I continue to see this vicariously through those around me. My mind constantly wanders to the why? The simple and short answer is nearly everyone in a leadership role just does not know how to do it. Really? It is as simple as that? Reeeaaally. The “they don’t get it” syndrome is well entrenched in human nature (I am loath to limit it to local communities.) A more complex answer is the true reality; and only manifests itself in this way. As I have said before people find themselves in leadership roles; frequently led by those who have no ability, knowledge, or skill to develop people. So the leader takes shortcuts. These shortcuts are painful and humiliating to the follower. What is a follower to do? Frequently there is not much to be done other than stand up, dust off the pants, and move on. Fixing the leadership from a followership position is impossible to do or the follower would not be there in the first place—the leader would have been listening all along right?
The leaders who study leadership, as a skill they must master, understand what I am talking about; but this message is not really for them. The ones who should be paying attention are not, and that is the unfortunate truth. For the leaders who want to develop the skills, it takes a commitment of time and an understanding that what is achieved now will pay a benefit of better results in the future. The constraint is what is robbed from the now to get the future secure. There are demands enough on time already, but if you want to make a difference you will embrace this notion. I sometimes wish I was in a role again to practice what I preach, then laugh at myself for thinking like a masochist. Besides if my two readers decide to try and “get It” I will have achieved much.
Finally there is much the budding follower can evaluate in the leader to figure out if they are someone worth following:
1) Are the organizations goals clearly defined and are your expectations laid out in a way which makes clear how you will be helping the organization achieve those goals?
2) Does the leader frequently (and I mean daily) even informally talk about what you are doing and how those behaviors are impacting the path to the goals?
3) Does the leader set the example?
4) Does the leader provide a safe environment for discussion with the entire team of the organization goals and what is expected to reach them and indeed what the teams input is into the validity and achievability of the goals?
5) Is the leader a cheerleader (caution—this requires substance) and calls out milestones on the path to the goals?
6) Are team members allowed an honorable “out” if the buy in cannot be attained?
Obviously each of these need to be supported with additional commentary—should give me something to do.
More later
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Professionalism
In a recollection of the distant past a question produced, what was then, a common inquiry. What is your pet peeve? Must have been from high school or something. To be honest I have one, don't you? Mine is the abuse of the language. Words taking on grossly incorrect meanings in the popular lexicon. For example the word 'massive' is used in the media to describe events which have nothing to do with weight. Instead it is intended to describe the size or intensity of an event, I guess. Another is the laziness of enunciation. 'Tuh' instead of to, 'furr' instead of for, and no this is not a prejudice, on my part, toward dialectal differences. I digress.
The colapse of the economy and decline in the US housing market created a bright light (in my mind) to shine on the word professional. More than one conversation has been blown to pieces over who (or what) bears the greatest guilt, how to prevent future bubbles (of a similar nature,)greed, personal responsibility, etc. As I have tried to keep this little blog, more or less, focused on what I call street level leadership; professionalism, its meaning, context, history, vulgarization, and perhaps mis-understanding considering recent events seemed to play a part. Professionalism is of course a noun, from professsional an adjective. Webster describes a professional as someone engaged in an activity as a remunerated occupation. What comes to mind is naturally a paid athelete. It could be also someone in engaged in one of the learned or salaried professions. Learned or as my mother might have prounced it lern-id implies something very powerful in 'profession or professional'. A person who has spent time and perhaps money learning their job thuroughly. Someone who through their knowledge and skill is completly trust worthy. Right? Your doctor, attorney, CPA would qualify would they not? These "professionals" know the consequences and benefits of actions, decisons, and life choices. You would trust them to give you appropriate counsel in your own life decisions, wouldn't you?
In my bad old days advising people in insurance, mortgages, securities, and etc. The sales managers would often describe their group of eager beavers as professionals. They meant it and in fact the state legitmized it by requiring licensing, which demanded some "school" to take the test to get the license. Then once licensed conntinuing education is required to maintain the license and earn renewal of the license before it expired. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, insurance agents, stock traders, and mortgage brokers and orgininators, etc are professionals then right? Humm, I wonder. Certainly doctors and lawyers come under the public microscope; we read about malpractice lawsuits from time to time, lawyers are thick as flies, but they do not all get work. To top it off those two occupations and perhps the third require years of expensive schooling to earn the priviliged of being examined by the state and earn their license. The others do not. Yet they are sold as "professionals". Bernie Madoff was a professional, wasn't he? The individual who sold you your house, the mortgage origininator (at least in Oregon) has a license who got the money for your mortgage, are professionals, I mean they said so. If they were how come they did not see what was coming? How come they did not forsee the outome of unsustainable value appreciation, how could they not have known, the very structure of deals they were selling as loans were extraordinairly fragile?
Well, dispite what appears to be an idictment of the entire realestate industry, the professionals are only partially at fault. Accepting such a moniker is the consumers license to abidicate their responsibility for vetting the information provided. Stories of liar loans are an example of what I mean. Followership requires you know yourself, and that means you should have known what you could afford. It is impossible to blame others in our society without looking in the mirror. Of course they might be the rare truly victimized in this recent mess, but I will wager a dollar that if circumstances were closely examined, the victim never once looked in the mirror and asked, "humm, I wonder what I could be doing differently?"
Once again the great political philosopher Pogo, was right, "we have met the enemy and he is us."
The colapse of the economy and decline in the US housing market created a bright light (in my mind) to shine on the word professional. More than one conversation has been blown to pieces over who (or what) bears the greatest guilt, how to prevent future bubbles (of a similar nature,)greed, personal responsibility, etc. As I have tried to keep this little blog, more or less, focused on what I call street level leadership; professionalism, its meaning, context, history, vulgarization, and perhaps mis-understanding considering recent events seemed to play a part. Professionalism is of course a noun, from professsional an adjective. Webster describes a professional as someone engaged in an activity as a remunerated occupation. What comes to mind is naturally a paid athelete. It could be also someone in engaged in one of the learned or salaried professions. Learned or as my mother might have prounced it lern-id implies something very powerful in 'profession or professional'. A person who has spent time and perhaps money learning their job thuroughly. Someone who through their knowledge and skill is completly trust worthy. Right? Your doctor, attorney, CPA would qualify would they not? These "professionals" know the consequences and benefits of actions, decisons, and life choices. You would trust them to give you appropriate counsel in your own life decisions, wouldn't you?
In my bad old days advising people in insurance, mortgages, securities, and etc. The sales managers would often describe their group of eager beavers as professionals. They meant it and in fact the state legitmized it by requiring licensing, which demanded some "school" to take the test to get the license. Then once licensed conntinuing education is required to maintain the license and earn renewal of the license before it expired. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, insurance agents, stock traders, and mortgage brokers and orgininators, etc are professionals then right? Humm, I wonder. Certainly doctors and lawyers come under the public microscope; we read about malpractice lawsuits from time to time, lawyers are thick as flies, but they do not all get work. To top it off those two occupations and perhps the third require years of expensive schooling to earn the priviliged of being examined by the state and earn their license. The others do not. Yet they are sold as "professionals". Bernie Madoff was a professional, wasn't he? The individual who sold you your house, the mortgage origininator (at least in Oregon) has a license who got the money for your mortgage, are professionals, I mean they said so. If they were how come they did not see what was coming? How come they did not forsee the outome of unsustainable value appreciation, how could they not have known, the very structure of deals they were selling as loans were extraordinairly fragile?
Well, dispite what appears to be an idictment of the entire realestate industry, the professionals are only partially at fault. Accepting such a moniker is the consumers license to abidicate their responsibility for vetting the information provided. Stories of liar loans are an example of what I mean. Followership requires you know yourself, and that means you should have known what you could afford. It is impossible to blame others in our society without looking in the mirror. Of course they might be the rare truly victimized in this recent mess, but I will wager a dollar that if circumstances were closely examined, the victim never once looked in the mirror and asked, "humm, I wonder what I could be doing differently?"
Once again the great political philosopher Pogo, was right, "we have met the enemy and he is us."
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Heroes setting an example
Oregon law requires motorists to stop for a pedestrian at an intersection to allow them to cross whether or not a cross walk is designated. From time to time I ride the public transit (MAX), my least favorite activity, to work. To cross from the parking garage to the station a clearly marked cross walk is available; which also happens to be across the street from the county sheriff's office and down the street from the city police department. I have yet to see a police or sheriff car stop to alow a pedestrian to cross the street.
Shouldn't heroes set an example? A lost opportunity to demonstrate street level leadership.
Shouldn't heroes set an example? A lost opportunity to demonstrate street level leadership.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
