In my last blog post I detailed the leadership of Alan Mullaly and how it was key to the transformation and turnaround at Ford Motor Company. In this post I would like to go in the other direction and discuss how bad leadership can destroy a company. Carly Fiorina, former Senate Candidate and HP CEO, is a prime example of this.
Carly Fiorina took over HP in 1999 after completing the split between AT&T and Lucent Technologies, a split that was bound to lead to the demise of Lucent Tech. There were high hopes for Fiorina, after all it was the height of the tech bubble and HP's stock price was skyrocketing. Fiorina was a charismatic leader, she gave speeches praising the employees and labeling them the 'shining star' of HP. She had a way of making her employees feel like what they were working for actually mattered.
Fiorina completely altered the culture at HP when she took over. She was a big believer in positive reinforcement. Employees were give gold stars to wear on their name badges, the more gold stars an employee had the better benefits they got. For instance, one employee recalls getting his first gold start 6 months after being hired, he was given free lunch for the week. Employees strived to get gold stars. Fiorina, in this aspect, was also a believer in extrinsic motivation. She motivated employees through lunches, vacations, and bonuses.
But as the tech bubble burst, Fiorina had to alter her strategy. 6000 employees were fired as part of a cost savings initiative, followed 2 weeks later by the announcement that HP was going to be buying Compaq at the cost of $21 billion. Fiorina, during those fiery speeches that made her so popular and inspiring, made promises to not cut jobs. She had to break that promise. She spent lavishly on corporate jets, high end clothes, and bonuses for high level employees. Fiorina also eliminated many of the positive reinforcement programs that had made her popular.
Fiorina had lost all the trust that she built up and was then completely ineffective as a leader. Employees all blamed her for the troubles HP had. The layoffs followed quickly by a merger completely dissolved all motivation Fiorina may have been able to conjure up. She was not respected and only followed because of her position. Employees did not want to work for Carly Fiorina, they had to. Fiorina may have been a transformational leader in that she had a larger view for HP, but her decisions as CEO did not reflect this. She made many mistakes, appearing on Oprah with Gwen Stafani during the merger for one. Her refusal to see long term indicates more of a transactional leader. Fiorina, when she left in 2002 after 3 short years, was cheered by many as she walked out. It's not surprise why; Fiorina was as bad as it gets in terms of leadership.
Article based on http://www.businesspundit.com/10-reasons-people-hate-carly-fiorina/2/
Chase Behrendt
Friday, June 24, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Developing Critical Thinkers and Creative Leaders
As discussed in class, effective leadership can lend itself to cognitive development, such as creativity and critical thinking, in the workplace. It has been shown that the correct amount of conflict fosters creativity and innovation, whereas some leadership styles help develop critical thinking skills. Interestingly enough, this article questions whether or not business and industry properly trains and prepares employees to become creative, critical thinkers. As such, the military is suggested as a positive model for leaders to parallel in shaping employees who are concerned with more than just business operations and bottom line.
First, it has been shown that businesses and industry spend the vast majority of their time in business execution, whereas very little time is spent directing cognitive development. In fact, it seems that the majority of training consists of the command - control stereotype that surrounds business and industry, instead of focusing on how to improve both the individual and the organization. Conversely, the military devotes equal amounts of time to executing and developing competence through actual experiences. Many ambiguous events are created to force trainees into critical thinking and realization that there are many solutions to the problem. Furthermore, immersing members of the military into actual experiences (developed by the leader) not only provides them with practical experience, but it also facilitates creative thinking and creativity as they learn. This experiential training in the military is an excellent way of teaching "how to think," as opposed to business's training of "what to think."
Next, it is important to discuss a limitation of actual, experiential training the military imposes. To begin, the physical nature of military is literally impossible for business and industry to imitate. Situations such as those require muscle memory and an innate sense of how to make the most out of the environment. Although businesses cannot recreate combat training in a corporate environment, it is possible for them to focus on the theme of military training: improving human capital. As stated by the article, training and missions are only considered a success if there are both proper execution and improving competence.
Finally, the military focuses on providing an immense amount of feedback after all training exercises. Trainees sit down with the leaders and discuss the timeline of the actions, from planning to result, with their leader and the leader subsequently discusses strategy and beneficial changes to their behavior through feedback. In essence, leaders must become very good at coaching, supporting, directing, and delegating in order to be effective in fostering development amongst trainees.
So, what do you think? Given the synopsis of this article, is this an effective approach for developing employees in business? Instead of focusing on the physicality of military training, pay attention to the theme of creating situations for trainees to develop creative and critical thinking. Does removing constraint while allowing for risky decision making work in business training? If not, what is another effective way of encouraging employees "how to think," instead of "what to think?"
Matthew Fowles
Blogging and Leadership - Plus Other Communication Issues
As a communicator and speechwriter for two IT executives, I often find myself wondering about the best way to communicate with employees. When a colleague indicates he or she has no idea about the newest campaign in our department, it makes me think twice about the way we attempt to disseminate information. Because our department is made up of over 10,000 people, we struggle with several communication barriers. One is that our employees tend to engage in selective perception. The weekly online newsletter we send out has so much information in it, employees cannot help but filter through the messages and only pay attention to what they think involves them. I also believe that some of our employees do not know our executives very well and therefore disregard most messages sent from them, indicating a lack of source familiarity or credibility. Additionally, as an IT organization, we tend to use acronyms. AIAOT (An Insane Amount of Them). This jargon means something to part of our department, but for the non-techie folks, the message falls flat when it uses a lot of these semantics.
All of these barriers seem to lead back to the fact that employees are trying to deal with information overload - the idea that there is simply too much out there to know. Verbal communication to everyone from executives is just out of the question; when the executives try to disseminate messages through mid-level management, the message seems to get lost. Which brings me back to my original concern: How do we get the important messages to the employees in a way that they will pay attention? Last year we began experimenting with blogs. We have a monthly post from one of our top three IT executives on the most relevant topic to everyone in the department at that time. Employees can comment on the blog and occasionally, the executives will respond to certain comments. While we do see good readership numbers with these blogs, I don't think we're necessarily using them to the extent of their capabilities.
All of these barriers seem to lead back to the fact that employees are trying to deal with information overload - the idea that there is simply too much out there to know. Verbal communication to everyone from executives is just out of the question; when the executives try to disseminate messages through mid-level management, the message seems to get lost. Which brings me back to my original concern: How do we get the important messages to the employees in a way that they will pay attention? Last year we began experimenting with blogs. We have a monthly post from one of our top three IT executives on the most relevant topic to everyone in the department at that time. Employees can comment on the blog and occasionally, the executives will respond to certain comments. While we do see good readership numbers with these blogs, I don't think we're necessarily using them to the extent of their capabilities.
Northern Trust CEO Rick Waddell is an example of a leader who takes advantage of his internal blog. Waddell started his blog in 2007 at the behest of his communication team, who did a survey and found out employees wanted to hear more from senior leaders. Waddell posts twice a month and addresses important issues such as what happens at the company's board meetings and the company's diversity. He even used the blog to announce a change in benefits. Employees are allowed to post comments - and Waddell responds personally. The blog is well-received internally, and Northern's Trust company culture has no doubt played a part in 2007 fourth-quarter results that were better than expected in light of the banking crisis.
Effective employee communication can also help during times of change. Although blogging is perhaps the most fashionable way to get the message to employees these days, internal memos and documents have done the trick in the past. When Microsoft was facing the threat of falling behind the industry in web technology, CEO Bill Gates sent a memo assigning the Internet the "highest level of priority" at the company. Gates created a vision for change and then communicated that change in a way that showed the transition was supported directly by him and other senior leaders, a key element of ensuring the change resonates with employees.
At my company, we are undergoing a lot of organizational change, including ones related to technology, hiring, and a change in consumer base. The more our leaders are called upon to communicate about this, the more we need to seriously consider the best way to get the message across to all employees. What methods would you suggest if you were in my position?
Traci Finch
Sustainable Leadership: The Problem with Iconic Leaders
Work is going great at your company. Everyone is getting his or her jobs done swiftly and effectively and the boss man has a solid hold on the situation. Then, boss man gets sick, or wants to retire. What is a company to do then? They (board of directors) have not groomed anybody to take boss man’s place, thinking he would last forever. But forever is impossible. So what should the company do?
Many organizations are having problems just like this. Apple is unsure of Steve Jobs health, and cannot seem to even think of an individual who can replace him. Their tactic is to ignore the issue in hopes that Jobs will get better. Becoming an iconic leader takes a lot of hard work and respect. Jobs is innovative and charismatic. From what I can gather, he helped sky rocket Apple Corporation into a technology guru. Apple comes out with many new gadgets first, of which is followed down the line of organizations hoping to cash in on the success.
From what we have studied in class, iconic leaders are few and far between (granted we did not talk specifically about iconic leaders per se, but we mentioned a few and their impact on the business world). The article discusses ways that organizations can be prepared for a situation where their main leader, for someone reason, does not return to work. Edward Lawler, the author, suggests that all companies install a sustainable leadership model. The best way to describe the model is to say that it puts many responsibilities of the organization in many hands as opposed to putting them in the hands of one. This way the company is grooming future employees to potentially take over some day. Edwards makes a good point, noting that, “When leadership is shared, people throughout the organization take advantage of leadership moments to influence the direction of the corporation.” This shared leadership approach lets other individuals in the organization step up to the plate and take a crack at helping to run an organization. Examples of successful shared leadership approaches include Bill Gates and Microsoft as well as Herb Kellehe at Southwest Airlines. Each of these companies has had continued success with their leader turnaround.
Why is it so difficult to replace an iconic leader? One could say, that because of what they have done for their company and their success while working at that company is irreplaceable. However at some point, a replacement or shift does happen. Looking at what makes a good leader could help with this situation. However, let it be noted, that each company is different and works differently, so a different minded leader works in different situations.
The book for class mentions four traits that have been studied that make for a good leader and are what could be a starting point for organizations to look for when trying to find that new iconic leader. They include; intelligence, personality, self-esteem, and integrity. One would guess that you would have to be highly intelligent with an open and extraverted personality, have a good self-esteem and have some kind of a moral compass, to be a successful leader. Okay, yes this is somewhat the case, however there is more to it than that. Although intelligence is a factor in being successful, the book notes that a paper and pencil IQ test has shown that individuals tend to have weaker IQs then what they portray or are being perceived as. And though mental abilities are important, sometimes, emotional abilities are just as critical. The balance between the two is what makes for a solid leader.
When we refer to personality, we are referring to the Big 5 Personality Traits. They include; openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. It has been highly studied that extraverted individuals make for the best leaders. They are sociable and assertive. To go along with that it has been found that conscientious individuals make for good leaders as well, because they are organized, take initiative and are persistent in their endeavors. Something to be aware of when hiring for a leadership position is agreeableness. Those who tend to agree with everything show that they may not have an idea of their own or that they may not care. These individuals are the ones you may see being used and being pushed over because they are too trusting and kind. It could be difficult to determine the type of leader an individual will be with just one meeting, but during that meeting looking for these qualities in an individual are important to the well being and future success of an organization.
Lastly we have self-esteem and integrity. Those individuals who are comfortable with who they are and how they work and believe in their own worth is someone most companies want working for them. Those with high self-esteem are more confident in their decisions and are more then likely to portray charisma in their leadership approach. A lot can be said for charisma being a key component for success and employees willingness to follow. Steve Jobs charisma inspires an organization beyond everyday thought, and his motivation and belief in the organization gets passed down through its employees. Those individuals, who are honest and work to follow a moral compass, tend to have only the best outlook for an organization. They work hard to see the company succeed and are not afraid of asking questions.
When looking for new leaders, as the article suggests, it could be easier to breed them yourselves. Letting others take over some leadership situations will help to maintain the group dynamic of the organization. Although this is true, something can be said for bringing in a new person, an outsider with an unbiased look at the organization who may have a slue of ideas. It’s getting that individual to meld with the rest of the organization that becomes the tricky part. Everyone who has ever been a leader works in his or her own way. It’s finding that one individual who can mesh with your company, that makes the hiring process that much more daunting, and although daunting, could make your company that much more successful in the future.
Angela Minichiello
article: http://blogs.forbes.com/edwardlawler/2011/04/18/sustainable-leadership-the-problem-with-iconic-leaders/
Many organizations are having problems just like this. Apple is unsure of Steve Jobs health, and cannot seem to even think of an individual who can replace him. Their tactic is to ignore the issue in hopes that Jobs will get better. Becoming an iconic leader takes a lot of hard work and respect. Jobs is innovative and charismatic. From what I can gather, he helped sky rocket Apple Corporation into a technology guru. Apple comes out with many new gadgets first, of which is followed down the line of organizations hoping to cash in on the success.
From what we have studied in class, iconic leaders are few and far between (granted we did not talk specifically about iconic leaders per se, but we mentioned a few and their impact on the business world). The article discusses ways that organizations can be prepared for a situation where their main leader, for someone reason, does not return to work. Edward Lawler, the author, suggests that all companies install a sustainable leadership model. The best way to describe the model is to say that it puts many responsibilities of the organization in many hands as opposed to putting them in the hands of one. This way the company is grooming future employees to potentially take over some day. Edwards makes a good point, noting that, “When leadership is shared, people throughout the organization take advantage of leadership moments to influence the direction of the corporation.” This shared leadership approach lets other individuals in the organization step up to the plate and take a crack at helping to run an organization. Examples of successful shared leadership approaches include Bill Gates and Microsoft as well as Herb Kellehe at Southwest Airlines. Each of these companies has had continued success with their leader turnaround.
Why is it so difficult to replace an iconic leader? One could say, that because of what they have done for their company and their success while working at that company is irreplaceable. However at some point, a replacement or shift does happen. Looking at what makes a good leader could help with this situation. However, let it be noted, that each company is different and works differently, so a different minded leader works in different situations.
The book for class mentions four traits that have been studied that make for a good leader and are what could be a starting point for organizations to look for when trying to find that new iconic leader. They include; intelligence, personality, self-esteem, and integrity. One would guess that you would have to be highly intelligent with an open and extraverted personality, have a good self-esteem and have some kind of a moral compass, to be a successful leader. Okay, yes this is somewhat the case, however there is more to it than that. Although intelligence is a factor in being successful, the book notes that a paper and pencil IQ test has shown that individuals tend to have weaker IQs then what they portray or are being perceived as. And though mental abilities are important, sometimes, emotional abilities are just as critical. The balance between the two is what makes for a solid leader.
When we refer to personality, we are referring to the Big 5 Personality Traits. They include; openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. It has been highly studied that extraverted individuals make for the best leaders. They are sociable and assertive. To go along with that it has been found that conscientious individuals make for good leaders as well, because they are organized, take initiative and are persistent in their endeavors. Something to be aware of when hiring for a leadership position is agreeableness. Those who tend to agree with everything show that they may not have an idea of their own or that they may not care. These individuals are the ones you may see being used and being pushed over because they are too trusting and kind. It could be difficult to determine the type of leader an individual will be with just one meeting, but during that meeting looking for these qualities in an individual are important to the well being and future success of an organization.
Lastly we have self-esteem and integrity. Those individuals who are comfortable with who they are and how they work and believe in their own worth is someone most companies want working for them. Those with high self-esteem are more confident in their decisions and are more then likely to portray charisma in their leadership approach. A lot can be said for charisma being a key component for success and employees willingness to follow. Steve Jobs charisma inspires an organization beyond everyday thought, and his motivation and belief in the organization gets passed down through its employees. Those individuals, who are honest and work to follow a moral compass, tend to have only the best outlook for an organization. They work hard to see the company succeed and are not afraid of asking questions.
When looking for new leaders, as the article suggests, it could be easier to breed them yourselves. Letting others take over some leadership situations will help to maintain the group dynamic of the organization. Although this is true, something can be said for bringing in a new person, an outsider with an unbiased look at the organization who may have a slue of ideas. It’s getting that individual to meld with the rest of the organization that becomes the tricky part. Everyone who has ever been a leader works in his or her own way. It’s finding that one individual who can mesh with your company, that makes the hiring process that much more daunting, and although daunting, could make your company that much more successful in the future.
Angela Minichiello
article: http://blogs.forbes.com/edwardlawler/2011/04/18/sustainable-leadership-the-problem-with-iconic-leaders/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)