Joe Bradshaw's Blog

ACT change article response

joebradshaw — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:57:14 +0000

Advanced Change Theory is a great idea for transforming oneself. Recognizing hypocrisy and patterns of self-deception are key to growing as a leader and a person. The problem with this change theory is that it sounds great on paper but many of the leaders who read about the effectiveness will say great lets do that and never make the painful and self-interest sacrificing changes necessary for it to be implemented in the first place.

To use this change theory in practice a leader must be prepared to give up authority on issues and hold back or reframe viewpoints on given situations. One must alawys try and make the right choice for the team and not always the direct goals that benefit one’s self-interest. The relationship with subordinates becomes one of trust with eachother to work towards commen goals. This change is not a one time deal it is a constant look inside ones self and continuously making the hard changes based on critical self reflection and self-examination. This will create conflict with others who are just trying to maintain the status quo but is necessary behavior if one wants to be remarkable. It is up to the individual leader to empower themselves in this manner, the success is their to grab but only if they are willing to sacrifice and work hard to reach it.

On Organizational Silence

joebradshaw — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:41:37 +0000

There is a huge problem going on in most organizations regarding organizational silence. There is a huge fear factor that employees possess regarding being the bearer of bad news. Noone wants a negative review and noone wants their boss mad at them. I propose that the culture should be one that educates employees about failures or problems and lectures on doing it right the next time. Failure needs to happen for learning to commence and employees should not be scared of losing promotion or incentive just because they make a few mistakes.

The other issue with Org. Silence is the bottom up issue. The workers can be seen as bellow the boss and not important enough to listen to when issues arise. Bosses typically wait for a top down instruction to make change. A good manager will listen to her employees and not take their suggestions for granted or at least open some discussion regarding the merits of their ideas.

Build a trusting work environment and encourage people to speak up its the only way to truly succeed.

Stanford Business School: Men’s Warehouse Case Study

joebradshaw — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:22:57 +0000

George Zimmer was an early adopter of servant leadership for his company he wanted to establish a company that allowed its employees to work together with the management so they could both see the success. He wanted to untap the human potential at his work to create a successful company that everyone who works there is invested in. Senior executive at MW stated this in the article and it is so true “Most retailers are not really considering, first of all, the employees. But I don’t think they consider the customers that well, either. If they considered the customers more, they’d pay more attention to their employees.” So true this hits the nail on the head for any business that involves customer service. The employees are inextricably connected to the customers and their welfares are on the same path up or down.

The company has seen a lot of success from the fact that executive’s such as zimmer arent taking on ludicrous bonuses and salaries. There is commitment to the company since most of its positions are full time 88%. I see a problem in the favoritism and nepotism in the highest level at the company and while this familial environment maybe nice and friendly it certainly isn’t operating to its best ability. There wont be a strong voice of dissent and there will be a strong chance for power abuse to occur. Also I believe the company is wasting money on training seminars at fancy locations, provide bigger bonuses and paychecks instead of budgeting forced vacations on employees. But overall MW has a sense of a company that is run by the people for the customers and employees alike. I like their approach to selling and their understanding of where they stand in their market it can only bode well for future success.

HBS: Treadway Tire Case

joebradshaw — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:02:28 +0000

Treadway Tire had a huge turnover problem. Mostly in their Lima, OH plant. The plant had some of the most modern infrastructure and equipment but had a problem keeping line foreman. Only 23 of 50 foremen stayed in their position over the course of the year. Looking at the root causes for this sort of job dissatisfaction led me to the fact that there was a large divide between the non-college educated union employed assembly line worker and the new foremen. There was either resentment on both sides or unequal treatment and unreasonable demands placed on the foremen. The only goal that mattered was meeting daily targets and when you don’t have a good relationship with your line workers there is a high chance of lack of productivity. Also it seemed this lack of relationship between the foremen and the employees had a lot to do with meeting strict time schedules and not having the time to be trained in the many different tasks a foremen is required to complete.

The foremen are being rated on how well they do their job by some plant supervisors, and even ones who did a good job and quit seemed to have a hard time in the role. This is upper managements problem and they need to make the time to train the new employees, and establish what level of authority the foremen have to discipline under performing employees. It seems the level of compensation and responsibility are good for the poistion but the company’s commitment to preparing the candidates for the job is completely lacking. Shape up and spend the money on the training.

HBR: The Layoff

joebradshaw — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:44:42 +0000

This is on an article in the Harvard Business Review about the layoff issues facing Astrigo.

The layoffs at Astrigo had to happen if the large cash reserve was to be maintained. The decision of whether or not to tap in to that cash reserve because it was the right thing to do should have been broached much earlier in the thought process. Now the discussion of the proposed two options of rank and yank ( a performance evaluation based firing method) and the first in first out (a forced early retirement for some of the most senior level people) took place. The rank and yank theory is terrible in my opinion since while you may fire your worst performing employees you are in a sense creating an environment of low working morale, making employees watch what they say and affecting how they act. This uncertainty will cause production to decline far more than other options. The senior level retirement packages would have to be generous but they may save the company in the long run, people at the end of their careers are earning their highest salary levels and sometimes just grind it out til they hit that magic number of years of service or money in the bank just ask anyone who works for the government. Last in first out is a simple but terrible firing option since you need to grow people within your organization to establish a system based on the values you want to create the best way to make that short term is to stop hiring new people or create a large gap between the low level employees and managers. The head of HR questioned the idea of losing a unit instead of a blanket firing policy and to me that seems to make the most sense regardless of who decided that acquisition is in their best interests. But Sushil’s recommendation of an across the board pay cut of 5% seems to make the most sense, that worked for my company during this recession. After reading all the expert commentary on this case I agree with Bob Sutton’s opinion on making the layoffs a one time deal and not an impending threat. Layoffs should be a companies last option in a time of crisis since people are what make the company function and grow. The economy will cycle but the ability to respond to the market is dependent on your cash and your human resources. Hopefully Astrigo made the right decision.

Good Leadership Requires Executives To Put Themselves Last

joebradshaw — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:59:52 +0000

This WSJ article clearly points out the tough self-sacrificing decisions good executives must make. CEO Michael Levin of US Franchise Systems, Atlanta tells the story of the time his ethical decision making as Leader of Days Inn almost cost him his career. He knew that the numbers were going to miss targets but there was some funny accounting going on and when he looked into it there were catastrpohic problems with the company, and although his resignation cost him a ton of salary he avoided the moral and legal pitfall that the crooked owners befell for defrauding the banks. The second point of the article dealt with the makeup of the board of directors. Board room power abuse is nothing new corporate execs often give themselves lavish bonuses and surround themselves with complacement yes-men. Hiring smart and personally unconnected board members might create a level of checks and balances that is acceptable. Leaders need to know when they are being ineffective and when they are acting improperly our companies should not be run by greedy power hungry dictators.

Steven Covey’s 1994 article on Servant Leadership

joebradshaw — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:45:44 +0000

In the article New Wine, Old Bottles Steven Covey makes a case for servant leadership. His opinion is that this change in leadership style requires humility of character and core competency around a new skill set. The goal is not to create a leader who looks and acts differently but still resorts to the same old styles of employee performance evaluation (directing, motivating, and evaluating.) The first step is to create a relationship of equal standing, while I get paid more than you for my experience you are just as integral to the companies success. Creating this relationship builds trust with the employee and a common mindset that all employees will ascribe to in pursuit of team goals. The second step creates a method for the employee to develop including guidelines to grow and the accountability and consequences she’ll be given. This autonomous relationship may not have the same structured discipline as more tried and true systems of leadership but it does find out the employee’s capacity for problem solving and dealing with failure. The third step sets the servant leader as a coach and reference but not the answer guy or the forboding judge of performance. This allows a more honest and open relationship to develop between the employee and boss and will make transistioning responsibility to the employee much easier.

Level 5 Leadership HBR response

joebradshaw — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:21:37 +0000

On the Harvard Business Review Article “Level 5 Leadership”

Jim Collins who authored the ever popular Good to Great penned this article in 2001 prior to his book coming out. Darwin Smith the Level 5 leader of Kimberley Clark is his first example in the article of a person who is filled with humility and an intense will to succeed. While this quality is a great quality for a leader, CEO, mentor or any other position of power it does not in itself attribute success to those qualities. Maybe Smith got lucky with risks he took during his tenure. I think discounting luck in business can often lead you to false conclusions, and while I believe it is possible to succeed in any market if you have the right people and product/service it will take a great deal of fortune to avoid some of the obvious pitfalls today’s companies face. Collins states that hedgehog companies are a key to business success but when you look at many multi-faceted companies like HP and GE you see that just specializing in one field does not always set you apart as a leader in the industry. It does give you a better chance to hit it big in that market due to increased R&D dollars though. Good leaders will give credit to their employees for most successes and will take the brunt of the punishment for mismanagement. The key to successful companies going from good to great is in your system and your people. Collins is right on with his view about the importance of the right people for your business. However his data that drives his conclusions were derived through data mining a large set of information and didn’t solve a set hypothesis he just found a sample that would portray his ideas as fact and ran with it. Don’t think this line of thinking needs to be brought into every business but humility and stoic resolve could help every leader.

WSJ article on Col. Joe Dowdy’s Loss of Command

joebradshaw — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:08:56 +0000

Colonel Dowdy was in charge of the First Regiment of Marines during the race to Baghdad in 2003 of the second Iraq war. His instructions from his commanding General told his regiment to drive to Al Kut to fight a resistance of 8000 dug in republican guard soldiers. However to even reach Al Kut Col. Dowdy’s regiment had to go through town of Nasiriyah which met the men with heavy resistance. The hesitation Dowdy exhibited in moving through the violence in Nasiriyah turned out to be the first nail in the coffin of his career. After moving through the town and capturing an airfield the second strike was not repairing the runway for a resupply drop. The last straw was the push through Kut as a limited objective mission. Dowdy saw the heavily guarded resistance the men would meet in Kut as a hazard that was not worth the risk, valueing men over the mission. This did not sit well with his commanding officers. And while his decision to bypass the city on the way to Baghdad did not delay the regiment enough to miss out on the Baghdad assault it had sealed his fate of loss of command. Gen. Mattis stripped Col. Dowdy of his command telling him he was not engaged enough, you’ve got four battalions and you’re not pressing the attack. To a Marines career your combat record means everything the decision making by Col. Dowdy only cost one life of his men but whether his lack of aggressive strategy was part of a greater tactical error has yet to be determined. This story is a good example of a strong system with high tendency for group think and power abuse showing the harsh consequences of questioning that power whether it be right or wrong.

WSJ article on Lt. Withers

joebradshaw — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:27:18 +0000

This very touching piece tells the story of how a black American soldier during world war 2 risked his clean record to take on and care for two young holocaust survivors. The Army system had some strict rules to obey especially during wartime. It takes a strong leader to go above the letter of the law to achieve the greater good. All of this worked out in the end as both men lived to old age. The Army provided Lt. Withers the opportunity to escape the South and the poor upbringing he had and get his PHD, while the Lt.’s courage to fight the sytem which wouldve sent the two boys back to a relocation camp allowed the boys to get healthy and emigrate to America and achieve much greater hights than wouldve been possible for two poor boys without families.