California or Bust -- Fitting choice of words...

California can't pay its bills. It's begun issuing IOUs to companies who have provided products and services, and to individuals due refunds and payments.

Everyone repeat after me: You've got to be kidding me...!

How does this happen, you ask? The same way every organizational failure occurs: Ineffective, incompetent, or dysfunctional leadership.

You hear crap like "real estate values," and "proposition 13," and "unemployment is high..." It's all subterfuge. Smoke and mirrors at its very best.

Leadership is easy, until it isn't. Leaders don't get paid for simply giving more and more. There's no skill required to always say yes. Leadership is about choices... about decisions. Some of them are easier than others; some are damned hard. All must be made with a vision in mind. A vision-less leader is a false prophet; going nowhere just as bad as going the wrong direction. Both lead to failure.

California is a financial bust because leaders were unable or unwilling to make decisions. I'll go a step further, and say that in reality, California is broke because it has a bankrupt leadership pool. Don't for a second believe this was some unforeseeable force majeuaur, or indiscriminate cosmic event. False prophets runneth amok in Sacramento...

And it will get worse for the golden state (that IS California, isn't it??) before it gets better, since no leader has yet to surface in response to the challenge.

No leadership, no recovery. That. friends, is a guarantee.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Saving Your Way To Prosperity

Catchy title, eh?? Saving Your Way To Prosperity...

The bummer fact, of course, is it can't be done, so stop trying.

"We have to accept what we all know to be elemental -- that taking a defensive position can, at best, only limit losses. And we need gains." (emphasis added)
-- Peter Drucker, HBR 1961

Written in 1961 -- almost FIFTY years ago -- by one of the most brilliant management minds of our time.

Ok, we've had some economy missteps; I get it. Financial markets continue to be unstable, at best; I get it. Uncertainty seems to be the order of the day for many; I get that too...

But you know what? There's not squat you can do about the economy, or the financial markets as a whole, or about the uncertainty that others face. Not a damn thing.

I recently facilitated the strategic planning process for a client company. When we begin to drill down from top-level strategies, we agreed that "the economy" was not to be included as a limiter. Why? Because it's not actionable.

The things we should be focusing on today are those things we can control in some fashion -- things, tasks, decisions and directions that are actionable.

If the company, firm, or organization you are leading today is really-no kidding-sucking-serious-wind, then ok: retrench, cut back, hope for better times. But if like many of us, you're running the business, just feeling a bit uncomfortable about the future, then make sure that the future is within your control.

And much of it is. Just focus on the things you can do, stop fretting over the things you cannot control. Think, decide, act. It's time.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Memo to Harvard: Physician, Heal Thyself.

OK, I'll admit it. I didn't graduate from an ivy league institution. Probably closer to coastal bermuda league, but that's beside the point.

Harvard University has just announced severe cost reduction moves as its endowment loses another 30%.

Cue violins... no, wait, kill the fiddles, guys.

Lest we fall into alligator tears here, realize that this endowment is now worth a paltry $25B (yes, Billion) dollars. I used to work for a man, Jerome Robinson, who would say "well, isn't that just a nice, round number??" He was talking about single-digit millions, of course, but the concept holds true.

Harvard's draconian cost cutting measures are taking them back to 2005 spending levels. Oh the horrors of it all -- 2005 levels of spending??? So, you ask, why did spending increase so much in the four years since 2005??

Did enrollment increase? No, there's been no significant increase in enrollment.

Did fixed costs increase? Not likely, excluding the 5-month spike in gasoline price we all endured.

What happened, then? Well, far be it from me to second-guess some of the best strategic minds in this country, but it seems to me it was simply mis-managed. They, like many in the financial world, found themselves with windfall increases in money, and... they spent it.

Now, of course, they aren't cutting faculty, since faculty didn't grow all that much (remember, enrollment didn't substantially increase). No, they are using the time-honored tradition of cutting "overhead." You know, clerks, professionals, administration, etc.

Unbelievable. Do those guys even read the books they put out? Does anyone there subscribe to that Harvard Business review? I can loan them some books of mine, since they seem to be short on dinero...

Save the company on the backs of secretaries and clerks. Wow, no one's thought of that cool idea before.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Because I Don't Have To

I'm a Verizon customer. Have been since I got my first cell phone in 1992. They were GTE when I first signed on, I think.

Loyal? Hell no, just practical. They have the network that seems to support me best in my locale and travels. I'd dump 'em in a second if someone -- ANYONE -- came along with just a modicum of customer service or concern. I'm searching for the proverbial "iota" here...

I won't give a litany of examples of my thoughts and opinions on Verizon's poor customer service; after all, this is a blog, not a whine. I'll just use the most recent...

My daughter's cell phone flips on the horizontal to access a keyboard. It has, then, two screens; a small one when closed, and a larger one when flipped open, so you can use the keyboard. That bigger screen stopped working. Well, not exactly stopped working, just that my daughter has to smack it her hand two or three times to make it work for short periods. Though most of these devices aren't user-friendly, I feel certain that "bludgeon phone" is not in the tutorial.

Anyway...

Her phone is maroon, where most of this model are black. The Verizon rep at the store (FM 2920 and Kuykendal in Spring, Tx) told me she could replace the phone, but all they had was black. GREAT!, I thought. Then, the stupid news... "We can replace it with a black phone, but she'll still have to keep her old maroon battery."

Where in heaven's name do they come up with such nonsense??

I said, no, we won't do that. Either replace the phone as is (maroon), or -- my preference -- with a black phone, but it must actually be all black. Not some junkyard looking piece-together version.

You guessed it. Instead of simply giving me what I wanted, and making me happy, she spent the better part of 20 minutes searching high and low for a maroon phone she could give me, since I wasn't OK with the idiotic suggestion she made about a multi-hued phone. she found one, and it's being overnighted to my house.

Why? Because she didn't have to do anything else. Cost of battery? $29.95. Cost of FedEx shipment? $19.50. Plus 20 minutes of her time and a ticked off customer.

She did the worst thing we can ever do... Pay money to frustrate a customer or employee.

Don't do that -- we can generally tick 'em off for free.

Thanks for nothing, Verizon.

Are we guilty of that? Do we spend money to irritate employees or customers? Are our processes or procedures designed only for system convenience, not for end user value?

I wonder...

But that's just me.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Home Depot's Marvin Ellison: Leadership -- The Human Buffer

I mentioned in my last post how we in leadership would be better off if, after setting them up to succeed, we then let employees "do their job."

Seems this article about Marvin Ellison at Home Depot agrees with that sentiment. (I love being vindicated by others...!)

"Leadership as a Human Buffer..." HD's Ellison says to senior managers: "Leave 'em alone and let them do their job." "If you have issues, take 'em up with me."

In other words, it's about accountability. Marvin, in charge of all U.S. Home Depot stores, says "I'm responsible, you deal with me." Further, "You corporate managers -- stop cluttering up my store managers' day with superfluous BS. If you need something, I'm your guy. Leave my store people out of it."

To quote the BusinessWeek article, Ellison "...severely restricted messages from headquarters to the stores during the rest of the week."

What a concept.

Pay attention here; whether I agree with the article's commentary on Nardelli (I don't, necessarily), I do truly believe that leaders should be the buffer between those who"do" and those who "interfere," even if done with good intentions. The article mentions store managers receiving some 200-odd emails and reports per day.

Did you read that??? TWO HUNDRED REPORTS per day!!

Dumber than dirt. When something is that stupid, we've got to do two things: first, stop such stupidity from interfering with our troops. Second, when we've taken care of that, work to rid ourselves of such idiotic practices.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

They Let Me Do My Job

As do many of you, I travel a lot.

During the last couple of months, as I travel around, I've been asking people I come in contact with two questions:

1. Do you like your job?
2. Why or why not?

Creates some interesting conversations, I'll tell you. Almost missed a flight out of Baltimore when my conversation with the Hertz counter rep went into overtime.

I jotted down fairly copious notes for these discussions. And though I realize the lack of statistical "rigor" in my survey methodologies, I think the results were interesting nonetheless.

In 47 days, I spoke with 72 people about this. Most readily answered my questions. Some, of course, seemed hesitant to respond candidly to such questions from an unknown traveler (go figure). Most, however, spilled their guts without a drop of hesitation.

31 people said "yes, I like my job."
17 said "It's OK," or "It's a job," or something equally noncommittal and nonplussed.
21 replied "no," or something equally negative. A few expletives were included in several.
(for you math whizzes, this doesn't total 72; 3 would not answer the question at all)

The #1 reason given for "why?" with those 31 who said, "yes?"

They let me do my job.

Not "the money," though most in this category did mention the pay was either "good" or that they felt paid "fairly."

Not "it's easy," or "I don't have to do much work."

Nope, not those things we frequently imagine are in the minds of employees who seem satisfied, contended, or otherwise happy to work for us.

They let me do my job.

Never forget -- the vast majority of successful leadership application is not some fancy buzzword, or the chapter title from some consultant's new glossy book.

It's the basics. It's blocking and tackling.

So, what's the take-away from this incredibly scientific, statistically strict employee survey?

1. Hire right. Attitude, integrity, intellect and work ethic... none can be trained, all must be hired.

2. Set and manage expectations. Keep it simple, folks.

3. Empower people to do their jobs, and expect that they will.

4. Rinse and repeat.

Don't make this harder than it needs to be.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Women in Leadership -- Is There a Mapquest Link?

Anytime a man (and I 'are' one) attempts to discuss the challenges faced by women in leadership, it's a risky proposition.

What the hell... I've never been much for dancing around an issue, and this one presents a legitimate question:

To achieve professional success, must women learn -- and get better at -- networking "like a man," or should a woman's approach differ significantly solely because she's a women?

This article is a Forbes piece that discusses this issue. I don't portend to know the trials and tribulations that a professional woman faces in ascending the corporate ladder; I do know it can be a difficult path for some. I've personally seen women face challenges in their professional growth that I did not face, and at least part of the reason was gender.

So, I do appreciate the potential roadblocks, even if I can't say something so trite as "I know exactly what you're going through..."

Using real-world practices then, as a filter, should women with higher career aspirations learn to network like men (presumably to reach outcomes "more like men"), or does that downplay the need for doing it differently?

You want to know what I think?? Of course you do, that's why you're reading this... :)

I think women should simply get better at networking, not necessarily do anything different because of their sex. And before I raise any hackles, this is the same advice I give aspiring men. Network. Do it sincerely, make an effort, do it as if your career depends on it, because it does.

Do women face challenges in climbing the ladder that men don't face? Of course they do. Corporate USA has made some strides, but still has a long way to go. The reality, then, is that women should be networking more and better than men (sort of like the "dancing backwards and in high heels" joke), and I seldom see that.

Not that men are really good at it, and certainly not because they're men; but if you face a systemic obstacle (or even perceive you face one), your efforts must be bigger, stronger, and faster than those who do not face that obstacle.

Those obstacles could be sex, race, sexual orientation... they could be professional background, newly separated military, or later-in-life career-changers. Whatever the real or perceived obstacle, your efforts -- particularly around networks and relationship-building, must be redoubled. Victim or victor, it's largely your choice in the long run.

Some would say "that's not fair." I shouldn't have to work harder just because of some of those things... to that, I say "You want fair?" It comes to most towns once a year; they have rides, and clowns, and cotton candy. That's about the only reliable "fair" you'll see around here. Life's hard, wear a helmet.

I say, make your own 'fair.'

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Generations, Sasquatch, and Other Mythical Monsters

"That generation just doesn't have a work ethic."

"They always want things handed to them..."

Blah, blah, blah... we've all heard it, right?

All in all, I think the whole "work ethic" debate is a bunch of bunk.

In my experience, people really define "work ethic" as "works as hard as I do." So, if someone has a "good" work ethic, then they meet my standard of effort; if they don't, they don't. This is easily exemplified when people will disagree over a particular coworker's "work ethic."

It's a moving target, with as many definitions as people.

Regarding generations, it's simply one more diverse group to deal with, no different than race, background, gender, etc.

Further, it's largely a cop-out label, broad-brushing a "group" because of the transgressions of a visible few. Ten young 20-somethings working in MacDonald's or Wal-Mart are invisible; three pierced, tattooed, and spiked youngsters catch everyone's eye.

Finally, my anecdotal evidence... I work with a lot of manufacturers. When facilitating supervisors and managers, I'll pose the question: ""You are King/Queen for the day, and can fire three people without any thought, reason, or repercussion; who would those three be?" Invariably, they don't select a young employee -- they choose three dead-weights with looong company tenure (frequently 20+ years) who still don't "get it."

So, again, I think the whole "generational work ethic" thing is a bunch of hooey...

But that's just me.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Sometimes leadership and policies are mutually exclusive

Don't get me wrong -- workplace policies have their place.

They can help bring clarity to ambiguity, for example. They can create some level of consistency in management. And well-written (uh,oh, there's a nasty qualifier) policies can make leaders' jobs simpler, as they provide somewhat standardized solutions to simple, mundane, and repetitive issues.

They can also, however, be dumber than dirt.

Case in point: Last Saturday morning, my girls talked me into taking them to one of those typical box-like breakfast joints in our area. Our server, though pleasant and reasonably efficient, had a name tag on her blouse. Except, it was blank. There was no name actually on the name tag.

We joked about it, as did some people in a nearby table, and our server just smiled.

My curiosity piqued, I had to ask... "Why, pray-tell, are you wearing a name tag with no name?" Her response? "We have a policy that you cannot work your shift unless you are wearing A name tag. I was fairly astounded, and asked "Even if it doesn't have a name on it?" She said "Yep. It could even belong to someone else..."

Whaaaaat??

I corralled the manager, much to my wife's and daughter's obvious chagrin. I asked him if this was true; he replied, "Yes sir, our corporate policy doesn't require the name tag to actually have her name on it... there's nothing I can do if she's wearing a name tag -- any name tag."

It was all I could do to not choke him.

People, this is when policies get just plain stupid. Dumb. Idiotic. Never, ever, allow a poorly-written policy to supplant effective, positive leadership.

Policies don't lead. They support leaders. If they don't support leaders, change 'em or ditch 'em.

To Whomever is Writing Such Drivel... Stop it. Consider the doctor's Hippocratic oath when compelled to write your next inane policy: First, do no harm.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Can Nardelli Lead Chrysler -- Successfully -- Through Bankruptcy?

Short answer, yes, I believe he can.

Here's the deal: yesterday, Chrysler filed the papers to enter Chapter 11 protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy code. President Obama believes we can fast-track them in less than 60 days... I doubt that, but we'll see. If it were that simple, creditors would have agreed to a non-bankruptcy settlement(s).

Today/tomorrow should yield the judge's "first day orders,' which allow the company to continue operating. Essential since operations must continue -- with some gusto -- for a company to successfully emerge from bankruptcy protection.

Speaking of the judge, it's Arthur Gonzalez, the guy who presided over Enron and Worldcom's bankruptcies. He's top-notch and no-nonsense. Don't look to him to tolerate much grandstanding or intentional delays. Essential, since as many of you know, these judges wield near-godlike powers over the decisions to be made while in Chapter 11.

Count on Chrysler cancelling some supplier contracts (or severely -- and favorably -- renegotiating them), whacking some staff, reducing some wages, and bailing out -- at least partially -- on their pension system. I'd wager close to 30% of U.S. dealers will lose their franchise -- allowable under bankruptcy protection.

What about Nardelli? Is he the one? Can he pull this off? Is he leader enough to do this?

I'll take the contrarian side and say yes, he is.

Remove all the media hype and bluster from Nardelli's record, and here's what you've got: Hard-charging, über-successful heir apparent to Jack Welch at GE. Yes, Immelt was selected, and that had to hurt, but being runner-up for one of the most coveted top-jobs in the world puts you in rarefied performance air.

At Home Depot, don't be misled by out-of-context soundbites. Nardelli doubled revenues, nearly doubled earnings, increased most every available metric for success by some exponential value, then gets whacked as HD stock is on a year-long surge; the stock has trended down consistently since his departure.

Cerberus is top-of-the-line when speaking of private equity (why they got mixed up in Chrysler is beyond me), and they recognized Nardelli's prowess.

He's the right man to take them through bankruptcy, then leave for something easier. Like golf. Unless you play like I do, which is closer to work. Oh well.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/