Develop new leaders now or risk your company's future

Football teams plan ahead for injuries to their players but usually not for the departure of their head coach.  One result: teams often have trouble succeeding even with great replacements. Many companies set themselves up to fail because they aren’t developing replacements for their top leaders.  You can’t start cultivating senior leaders at the last moment, just like you can’t start cultivating a garden the day before you want to harvest.

To read the rest of this article from the East Bay Business Times, see: Develop new leaders now or risk your company’s future http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2005/01/17/smallb5.html

RHR International, management psychologists who help leaders develop new leaders, surveyed more than 100 Fortune 500 companies and found that:

• In the next five years there will be a huge exodus of senior talent.  Half the companies anticipated losing half their senior staff.
• 57 Percent of companies have been developing high-potential talent for three years or less.
• 75 Percent have low confidence in their ability to meet their growth needs through internal leadership develop.

The cost of putting off leadership development is huge.  Instead of a thorough program to find and develop the best people, frantic attempts to fill voids will require accelerated searches at premium prices.  Hasty replacement of senior leaders usually means fielding a team that isn’t adequately prepared to work together.  High failure rates cascade problems into every area of the company.

Inadequate succession planning can damage any company, big or small.  But my experience is that the problems are magnified at small and mid-sized companies because there’s usually less room for error.

Typical excuses of procrastinating leaders are:

• Teenage Thinking: They’re invulnerable; don’t care about what happens after they move out; and are shortsighted - too busy and too cheap to spend money on tomorrow.
• The Ostrich Philosophy: I’ll deal with it more easily later or it’ll take care of itself.  But, just like putting off health care, most people will pay dearly when it’s too late for preventative medicine to be effective.

The most important factor in successful programs is the personal involvement of leaders.  Other crucial factors are:

1. Constantly scout for new talent.  Make your effort intentional and integral to your daily activities.  Find who sparked successful projects, rallied people and brought in fresh thinking. Ask other senior leaders, “How do we round them out and who’s going to work personally with whom?”
2. Follow selection of high potential candidates with a systematic, individualized program to help them learn crucial leadership qualities you’ve identified.
3. Act as a model, not merely a repository of information.  Technical skills, information and today’s correct answer are not enough to develop people capable of leading your enterprise.
4. Be present and clear.  Brief potential leaders up front what you want them to demonstrate.  During development, include them in the inner circle of your thought processes; teach them how to ask the right questions; give them immediate, timely, specific feedback.  Debrief formally.
5. Have pride in leaving a personal legacy.  Successful transitions are usually directed by leaders who want to be remembered for building a company that’s prepared to thrive without them, not for leaving their babies exposed to the elements. Plug-and-play, mobile CEOs usually don’t have the emotional investment required for intensive mentoring.

Spend a little now to build the next generation of senior leaders or you might lose the farm paying the bill later.

Often, individuals need coaching and organizations need consulting to help them design and implement a plan that fits the situation.  To get the help you need, call Ben at 1-877-828-5543.

Cultivating tomorrow's leaders should be a priority for execs

The key to cultivating the next leaders of your organization is to work every day to help the candidates get what they need in order to make their next steps.  By “cultivation,” I mean gardening – not training, grooming or developing.  Cultivation takes time, sunshine, water and manure. You should require candidates to make the same investment of themselves.  Any potential leader who isn’t willing to do that should be removed from your list.

To read the rest of this article from Austin Business Journal, see: Cultivating tomorrow’s leaders should be a priority for execs http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2006/08/07/smallb4.html

Sometimes the next steps are easy – mastering and demonstrating specific skills.  The methods for learning may also be easy – training and practice.

More often, though, it’s not that easy.  The biggest challenge is mastering more difficult people skills – for example, making necessary adjustments of personal attitudes, learning how to lead different types of individuals.  You will have to weed out individuals who have poor attitudes – negative, defensive, arrogant, righteous, narcissistic, abusive bullies.

Many small business leaders concentrate on what they’ve been told they need to do in the workplace: develop vision and goals, bring in new clients, oversee daily details and monitor monthly earnings. Their meetings focus on tasks and tactics, on the urgent and daily business.

Since they don’t take time to cultivate their leadership team, they end up complaining that their candidates aren’t stepping up.  But cultivating the personal capabilities and people skills of the individuals they depend on is their most important task.

Managers of leadership candidates can play crucial roles without overburdening their schedules.

The key is offering yourself and your time – continuously, honestly and frankly.  Give up your excuses for not doing this personal, on-going mentoring, such as “too busy, don’t like emotion and personal interactions, I’m a big picture person, the worthy people will learn by themselves.”

If you keep putting off cultivating, you’ll continue being overwhelmed.  And you’ll wonder why your best people don’t develop – or why they quit.

Leaders who overreact can poison workplace, infect staff

Leaders set the tone for the whole workplace.  Like a deadly infection, your emotions and reactions are catching.  Generals who panic will create panicky troops.  It’s the same at work. No, you can’t be yourself if you overreact to sudden changes, crises, bad news or big mistakes.  Your team will also overreact and blow it if you act:

• Agitated, panicky.
• Discouraged, negative, hopeless, helpless.
• Stubborn, stuck.
• Defensive, harassed, victimized, paranoid, abused, explosive, bullying.
• Thrilled by a desperate adrenaline rush.

To read the rest of this article from Business First of Columbus, see: Leaders who overreact can poison workplace, infect staff http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2006/10/16/smallb5.html

Over reactors always have excuses for why they must react the way they do.  But remember the fire drill that every public figure, including athletes and celebrities, must learn in order to be followed – keep your head, have fortitude, persevere.

Don’t get sucked into any situation as if it’s life-or-death, no matter how important you’re afraid it is.  Step back, put it in a long-term context that restores your spirit, and start thinking and strategizing.

Sometimes a walk around the block is enough; sometimes you have to talk it out in order to see the big picture; sometimes you simply have to give up fear and control, and just go for it.

The ultimate goal of all the methods is that you rally yourself so you can rally the troops, no matter how bad the situation appears.

An effective attitude begins with, “We can handle this. Here’s my plan.”  Or you first go to the appropriate leaders, develop the best plan you can and then spread it to the troops.

You need a plan, but you don’t need a perfect, 10-year plan.  Don’t become immobilized by over planning.

By the way, “all-staff” meetings carry an underlying message of overreaction – unless there’s been a public disaster and everyone needs to see the leader calmly, energetically and resolutely explaining the plan for dealing with the situation.

Otherwise, have the manager of each team champion the plan with determination.

Practice courage and strength by taking on challenges and risks.  Be capable of rallying yourself from setbacks and handling seemingly overwhelming crises, or let someone else lead in the face of adversity.

There is an upside; leaders can also set the tone for the good.  Like inherited immunity, calm, vigor and stamina are also catching.  When you’re spirited and resolute, you’re testing everyone else.  People who continue overreacting have to be weeded out before they infect your workplace.

Don't ignore new hires after they start work

You’ve spent a lot of money finding and hiring the perfect employee.  Do you kick back, feel the thrill of success, and throw the new hire into the jungle in hopes they’ll become productive rapidly? If you do, you’ve just wasted all the time and money you spent making that great hire.

To read the rest of this article from Business First of Louisville, see: Don’t ignore new hires after they start work http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2008/01/28/editorial1.html

For example, Helen was a highly skilled manager with a great track record.  On the first day at her new company, she was introduced – then senior management abandoned her.  Thus, the predators on her team felt emboldened, and immediately tried to see how far they can push her.  Who’s really going to be the alpha wolf and control this turf?

Helen wanted to start off on the right foot.  So she talked reasonably to each of them, one to one.  She tried to understand why they were so hostile and tried to get them to understand how much her feelings were hurt.

The bullies interpreted her reasonableness as weakness and her hurt feelings as vulnerability.  They remained hostile and righteous.  They escalated their emotional harassment and abuse into a feeding frenzy.  They claimed it was Helen’s fault their feelings were hurt.  Her feelings didn’t matter to those narcissistic bullies.  They told her they had nothing to apologize or make amends for.  Their threat: If Helen didn’t leave them alone, they’d complain to the senior manager.

Helen felt like she was the new kid trying to break into a clique of junior high school princesses.

Leadership spent a lot of time, energy and money hiring Helen but they failed to support her.  They didn’t set the tone for how new hires are to be treated.  When they didn’t support Helen’s attempts to set high behavioral standards, they enabled a toxic workplace and she moved onto bigger and better things.

Imagine your company beginning with a vacuum of standards for behavior.  If you and the highest quality staff don’t set the tone for the workplace, the most vicious and nasty members of your staff will fill the vacuum with their standards.

I discovered that the leaders at Helen’s organization weren’t merely absentee, they were conflict-avoidant cowards.  They weren’t successful leaders.  They tried to avoid stopping bullying while they whined and complained, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Don’t throw new hires to the turf-building jackals.  The simple solution is to develop and implement an effective “How We’ll Welcome the New Employee” plan.

The welcoming process may sound like a huge expense.  But compare it to the cost of losing a perfect hire, having to repeat the hiring process and probably watching your next generation of leaders leave or sink down to the lowest level.  Problems welcoming new hires are a sign of widespread bullying and abuse, and lack of planning and oversight.

Don’t let that happen.  Your job as a leader is to actively set the tone.  You can’t allow the most predatory members of your organization to feed on other staff.

Learn what you can do to eliminate the high cost of low attitudes, behavior and performance.

All tactics are situational.  Expert coaching and consulting can help you create and implement a plan that fits you and your organization.

Don't be a Bystander-Spectator; be an Active Witness

There’s a world of difference between being an active witness to bullying and abuse, and being merely a bystander. A bystander has already decided to be an uninvolved spectator, to look the other way, to pretend ignorance if called upon.

A witness can make a tactical decision based on the circumstances – intervene now in some tactical way or speak up later.

At work, co-workers or bosses are bullies; at home, abusive parents will harass and bully one young child while lavishing goodies on the other; in addition, toxic parents will favor one adult child over another with love and inheritance on the line.

I’ll focus here on kids, but the larger implications should be obvious when you think about slavery or the Nazis or a hundred other public examples.

Often, at school and at home, mean kids will try to turn siblings or friends against each other.

For example, Charles’ friend, Brad, was relentlessly nasty to Charles’ sister Sarah.  He made fun of her, called her stupid, dumb and ugly, and, even though Sarah was tall and skilled enough to play with the older boys, he’d cut her out of their games or he’d intentionally knock her down.

Charles looked on in dismay but never interfered.  That was puzzling to Charles’ parents because, in one-to-one situations, Charles played well with Sarah and liked her.  Yet Charles had become a bystander; he wouldn’t step up to what he knew was right.

How come he didn’t protect Sarah from Brad?  Was Charles afraid that if he interfered he’d lose a friend or that Brad would beat him up?  Did Charles secretly want his sister out of the way?

More important than an analysis of “why,” was the potential effect on Charles of being a bystander.  What would be the cost to his character and mental and emotional well-being?  What would be the effect on his conscience and self-esteem if he played along and didn’t speak up against the abuse or if he colluded by joining in the harassment of his sister in order to make friends with Brad?

Without knowing the real answers to the “why” questions, the pain, shame, anxiety and stress of watching his sister tormented and the guilty laceration of his conscience finally drove Charles to choose which side he was on.  He stood up for his sister and for high standards of conduct, but then he had to solve another problem; Brad was a head taller and 30 pounds heavier than he was.

In front of Sarah, Charles got in Brad’s face and told him to cut it out.  If Brad wanted to be his friend and play with him, he had to be nice to Sarah…or else

Most of the Brad’s in the world would back down but this one didn’t.  Angry words led to shoving and Brad grabbed Charles and threw him down.  At this point Charles and Sarah’s advanced planning gave them a tactical advantage.  Sarah, as tall and heavy as Charles, jumped on Brad’s back and the brother and sister piled on Brad and punched and kicked him.

As with most kid fights it was over fast.  Brad got the message; he was facing a team.  If he wanted to play with them he’d have to play with both of them.  If he wanted to fight he’d have to fight both of them.  No parents were involved and Brad chose to play with them and be nice to Sarah.

As much as the incident helped Sarah, Charles was the major beneficiary of his choice.  His self-esteem soared.  He had been courageous and mentally strong.  And he learned that he and his sister could plan and stand firm together.

In a different situation, Ellen was popular and Allison, who was outgoing but had no friends, wanted Ellen all to herself.  At school, Allison put-down and cut out anyone Ellen wanted to play with.  If Ellen refused to follow Allison, Allison would get hysterical, cry and wail that Ellen was hurting her feelings.  Ellen didn’t want to hurt Allison but she wanted to play with whoever she wanted to play with.

The situation came to a head during the summer.  Allison wanted to play with Ellen every day.  And on every play date, Allison would be nasty to Ellen’ younger sister.  She’d mock Jill, order her to leave them alone and demand that Ellen get rid of her younger sister.  They were best friends and there was no room for a little kid.

Numerous times at their house, Ellen’ parents asked Allison to include Jill, but to no avail.  Allison would agree, but as soon as their backs were turned she’d be twice as nasty to Jill.

Ellen faced the same choice that Charles had; hurt her sister in order to collude with her friend or lose a friend and classmate.

Ellen didn’t agonize like Charles had.  Ellen was very clear; colluding is not how a good person would act.  However, her requests that Allison stop only brought on more hysterical anger and tantrums.

Ellen didn’t want to play with Allison any more but didn’t know how to accomplish this.  When she told Allison, Allison threw another fit – hurt feelings and crying.

This situation required different tactics from Charles’ because Ellen was younger and arrangements for them to play during the summer and after school had to be made by their parents.

Ellen’ parents could have gone to Allison’s parents and told them what Allison was doing.  However, they’d observed that Allison’s parents had never tried to stop her hysterics, blaming and finger-pointing at school.  They’d always believed Allison’s accusations about other kids and added their blame.  They demanded that teachers do what Allison wanted.

Ellen’ parents thought that raising the issue with Allison’s parents would only lead to negativity, accusations and an ugly confrontation, which would carry over to school.

They decided to use an indirect approach; they were simply always too busy for Ellen to play with Allison.  The rest of the summer they made excuses to ensure there would be no play dates.  When school started, they made sure there were no play dates after school, even if Jill wasn’t there.  They didn’t want their daughter to be friends with such a stealthy, manipulative, nasty, control-freak like Allison.

In addition, they told Ellen’s teacher what Allison was doing and asked them to watch if Allison tried to control Ellen and cut out other kids.

Most important, Charles stopped being spectator and became an effective witness-participant.  Ellen also would not remain a bystander.  She made her feelings clear and her parents helped intervene.  Both children learned important lessons in developing outstanding character and values.

Tactics are always dependent on the specifics of the situation.  As parents wanting to help and guide your children and grandchildren, remember that there’s no one-right-way to act.  The people involved get to choose where they want to start the process of standing up as witnesses and participants.  You can get ideas and guidelines from books and CDs but on-going coaching, to prepare you for your “moments of truth,” is essential.  You will need to adjust your plan in response to what happens at each step along the way.

For example, see the studies of Jake and Carrie in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks.”

Stop Abusive, Bullying, Toxic False-Friends

There are toxic people in every environment – toxic lovers, husbands, wives, parents, children, relatives, bosses and coworkers.  Many people let bullying friends continue abusing them because they want to maintain the friendship.  They won’t disagree with or hurt the feelings of the false-friend even if he or she’s a righteous, narcissistic control-freak. However, if you don’t stop these bossy, self-centered bullies, they’ll increase your anxiety and stress, harass you and make your life miserable, take over your life and eventually turn other friends against you.

Joan had a problem with her friend Shelly.  Shelly was sure that she knew what’s right about everything and was intent on straightening out Jane.  She told Jane that Jane was a failure because of numerous character flaws; that’s why Jane’s children were not as successful as Shelly’s.  She said that if Jane didn’t do things the way Shelly told her, Jane’s part-time business would fail and Jane would be a failure her whole life.

Shelly corrected Jane about every detail; how Jane dressed, what she ate, who she talked to, what she read and where she went to church.  She also knew how Jane should behave to prove she was a true friend to Shelly.  If Jane didn’t change, Shelly either cried or got very indignant and angry.

Shelly was always convinced she was absolutely right and perceptive enough to recognize Jane’s hidden fears.  Faced with Shelly’s certainty and a few accurate remarks by her, Jane was thrown into self-questioning and self-doubt.  She agonized that maybe Shelly was right.  It was hard to argue against Shelly’s righteousness and total conviction.  As soon as Jane started, Shelly got angry and rebutted every one of Jane’s objections with reasonable sounding answers.  Or Shelly changed the subject and verbally attacked Jane.  Jane could never convince Shelly that she was wrong or that she was a self-righteous bully.

Also, selfish Shelly was the center of attention.  Most of their conversation was about Shelly’s emotional melodrama.  Only at the very end did Shelly pause to tell Jane where she was wrong.

The few times Jane has brought up a problem of Shelly’s, Shelly attacked Jane, claiming that Jane was jealous of Shelly or that Jane once did what she didn’t want Shelly to do.

After every conversation with Shelly, Jane felt discouraged, depressed and defeated.  She was afraid that if she told Shelly what she really felt, she’d lose her best friend.

Every situation is different; every situation has complications that limit possible solutions.  Solutions to each situation will have to be designed specifically for the people involved.  For example, in Jane’s case, she was afraid that if she argued or disagreed with Shelly, Shelly would sabotage Jane to all their friends. However, there is a general rule: The longer you accept the righteous put-downs and control by a bullying, abusive false-friend, the more your confidence and self-esteem will be battered.  You must gather the will and determination to act.  You must learn skills of planning and successfully executing effective tactics.

The key to Jane’s breaking free was to see that Shelly was an abusive bully, not a true friend.  Jane realized that true friends don’t act the way Shelly did.  That realization gave Jane the will – the determination, perseverance and grit – to be honest with Shelly.  Jane realized that the friendship she might lose was one that hurt, even though Shelly called it “best friends.”  Jane also prepared herself and her other friends for what Shelly was likely to do in retaliation.

Jane didn’t argue, debate or try to prove to Shelly that she was a bully.  Jane simply stated how people had to act in order to be her friend and to be in her personal space.  Shelly was shocked that Jane finally found the backbone.  Of course, Shelly was convinced that Jane was wrong.  Shelly tried to turn their friends against Jane, but Jane’s preparation paid off.  The friends had had similar experiences with Shelly.

For another example, in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks,” see how Tammy stopped a false-friend who tried to force food down Tammy’s throat even though Tammy was trying to diet.

Toxic, righteous, controlling, bullying, abusive false-friends usually don’t change.  The relief and freedom you feel when you clear them out of your environment tells you that it was worth the effort.  You’ve reclaimed your spirit and your life.

"Mr. Negativity" proudly destroys teamwork

Carl loved the title of “Mr. Negative.”  He was proud of being smarter than anyone else and thought his put-downs were funny.  No matter what you said, he would disagree, counter it or top it.  His personal attacks, sarcasm and cutting remarks could bring most people to tears.  He could create a tense, hostile workplace in minutes. He could bring a brainstorming or planning meeting to a halt by finding fault with every suggestion or plan, and proving that nothing would work.  He was convinced that his predictions were accurate and more valuable to the team than the frustration and anger he created.  On his team, sick-leave and turnover were high, while morale, camaraderie and teamwork were low.  Productivity was also low because most people wasted a huge percent of their time talking about Carl’s latest exploits.

What can you do?

In this case, his manager had heard me present “How to Eliminate the High Cost of Low Attitudes” at a conference, and had brought me in as a consultant.  She wanted me to help her create a culture that would be professional, retain high quality staff and be much more productive.

Why did his manager, Jane, bring me in, instead of simply evaluating Carl honestly and having consequences leading to demotion and eventual termination if he didn’t change?  Jane thought that:

• Carl was bright and expert enough in his specialty that she was afraid of losing him.
• If she was a good enough manager and learned to say the magic words, Carl would straighten out.
• Her hands were tied because Carl was a long-term employee in a government organization.

Coaching helped Jane see that she was victimizing the rest of the team by giving in to her fears and helplessness.  Carl was verbally abusive and emotionally intimidating.  And he was subtly manipulative because he had a soft voice and a smile on his face while he sarcastically cut his co-workers to ribbons.  She saw that if she continued to give in to her fear of losing Carl, she’d lose her reputation and position because her team would mutiny or quit.

Despite these insights, Jane remained a conflict-avoidant manager.  She would allow the team to act, but she wouldn’t lead the way.  Therefore we worked around her.

I helped the team create a set of behavioral expectations for individual professional interactions and for team meetings.  It was no surprise that the list did not included any of Carl’s behaviors, that his behaviors were specifically prohibited and that the list of appropriate behaviors contained the opposite ones Carl had been bullying coworkers with.

The rest of the team voted to accept the code of professional behavior.  Carl said he’d sign but he wouldn’t change his behavior.  He’d been Mr. Negativity as long as he could remember and didn’t think he could change.

That seemed like an impasse.  No one wanted to waste a lifetime waiting for Carl to go through therapy, especially since he didn’t want to change anyway.  I helped the team realize that Carl had no reason to change.  There were no adverse consequences to him if he kept doing what he was doing.  The team needed some leverage.

Since the manager wouldn’t act on her own, the rest of the team took a bold step.  They told Carl that they wouldn’t tolerate his hostility and the tension it caused.  They said that they’d remove him immediately from any meeting in which he started his negative putdowns.  He laughed nervously, thinking they’d never really do that.  He still wouldn’t accept that his behavior was so hurtful and despised.

At the next meeting, of course, Carl was negative as usual.  He was shocked when the rest of the team immediately stood up and told him to leave.  He sheepishly did, with a parting shot that they’d never come up with a good plan without him.

He was wrong.  They did develop a good plan to deal with the problem they’d been working on. They also gave him his assignment within it.  They told him that people who weren’t at meetings must be happy with the tasks assigned to them.  Carl was outraged and protested.  He looked for support from anyone on the team, but everyone was against him.  That also stunned him.  They told him that they were following the team’s behavior code.  He could play according to the rules and take what he got or leave.  They also told him that he could be very likeable when he wanted to and they’d be glad to be on a team with the “likeable Carl.”

It took two more meetings at which Carl was asked to leave, before he began to change.  It was amazing to all of them, including Carl, that what he thought was a life-long pattern, changed when enough leverage was applied.  He really did like what he did and he also had wanted to be liked.

This example is over the top in many ways.  But I have a question for you: Did the rest of the team bully Carl or were they right in voting him off their island when he was an abusive bully?

One general lesson here is: “When the legitimate authority won’t act and, therefore, leaves a power vacuum, the most hostile and power-hungry people usually fill it.  Your task is to fill it with the best behavior instead.”

There are many other ways to solve the problems that the Carl’s of the world cause at work and at home.  A stronger manager would have done it by herself.  Jane obviously had problems as a manager and wouldn't step outside her comfort zone to solve them.  Her boss soon took appropriate action.

It’s also a different matter if the negative person is the manager or boss.  There are many other problem behaviors that can be resolved with the Behavioral Code approach.  In other blog posts I’ll cover those bullying situations at work.

Please tell me your story so I can be sure to respond to it.