I was recently asked about the types of manipulation that I see occurring in leaders. At first, I was puzzled why I couldn't come up with an immediate, pithy reply (my norm), and then it dawned on me...
The base premise is flawed.
Leadership is not manipulation, and anyone who resorts to same -- even the "positive spin" version -- is not leading. They are manipulating, or at best, managing (controlling).
Leadership -- true leadership -- is forward-looking and visionary. It sets a path, a course, and creates meaningful ways to accomplish the journey.
If the vision is strong enough, the leader has enough credibility, and the alignment is right, people will follow.
Don't confuse reactive manipulation with proactive leadership. And this isn't simply a play on words; the difference is fundamental to the core of effective leadership.
This premise is a problem plaguing faux leaders today -- they believe "I must be a good leader, since I got them to do what I wanted."
Nothing could be further from a true leader.
But that's just me...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/
 |
 D. Kevin Berchelmann View my profile here |
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Leading during layoffs...
Citigroup just announced job cuts of 53,000, on top of a prior 23K+
Pepsico 3K; Xerox 4K; Chrysler 17.5K; Sun 6K; DHL 9k.
Even e-Bay and NASCAR are facing layoffs. NASCAR!!
As leaders, what do we do? First, some context:
If we layoff staff, and can continue reasonably unfazed with general levels of productivity, we likely had too many people to begin with. that's a leadership issue.
If we could have forseeably determined a significant change in demand, and did nothing, that's at least partially a leadership issue.
If the market, or supporting industry, tanked without notice, perhaps we aren't entirely culpable. But it's still our responsibility. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Whether we are laying off staff ourselves, or merely reeling from the constant news barrage of others doing so our responses as leaders are largely the same: we must -- simply must -- demonstrate Responsibility, Vision, and Trust.
Responsibility, so employees know clearly who is in charge, that we hold ourselves personally accountable (quit blaming 'the economy' and acting like this is an equal-pain scenario).
Vision, since in good times and bad, people follow leaders. And leaders, to be successful, must have a vision that others can see, touch, and feel. It needn't be a plaque on the wall, or even stated specifically; people must know, however, that following us is a good thing, that we are taking them somewhere successful, and that -- to a large extent -- we know where we're going.
Finally, never forget that Trust is the currency of leadership. People charge hills, not because the general has silver stars, but because they believe the general knows that it's the right thing to do. And they trust that judgment. Employees share concerns, ideas, revelations... not because they have to, or because that suggestion box just looks so inviting, but because they trust that leaders will do the right thing(s) with that information, and because leaders have openly shared with them.
Stay focused. I've always said that leading is easy "as long as it's easy;" when it gets a little difficult, it becomes the purview of the skilled and learned.
Layoffs suck. They are hard on those directly effected, those who think they may be next, those who feel guilty to still be "alive,' and those who must make the really hard decisions.
Be a purposeful leader, and realize that others are watching.
But that's just me...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/
Pepsico 3K; Xerox 4K; Chrysler 17.5K; Sun 6K; DHL 9k.
Even e-Bay and NASCAR are facing layoffs. NASCAR!!
As leaders, what do we do? First, some context:
If we layoff staff, and can continue reasonably unfazed with general levels of productivity, we likely had too many people to begin with. that's a leadership issue.
If we could have forseeably determined a significant change in demand, and did nothing, that's at least partially a leadership issue.
If the market, or supporting industry, tanked without notice, perhaps we aren't entirely culpable. But it's still our responsibility. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Whether we are laying off staff ourselves, or merely reeling from the constant news barrage of others doing so our responses as leaders are largely the same: we must -- simply must -- demonstrate Responsibility, Vision, and Trust.
Responsibility, so employees know clearly who is in charge, that we hold ourselves personally accountable (quit blaming 'the economy' and acting like this is an equal-pain scenario).
Vision, since in good times and bad, people follow leaders. And leaders, to be successful, must have a vision that others can see, touch, and feel. It needn't be a plaque on the wall, or even stated specifically; people must know, however, that following us is a good thing, that we are taking them somewhere successful, and that -- to a large extent -- we know where we're going.
Finally, never forget that Trust is the currency of leadership. People charge hills, not because the general has silver stars, but because they believe the general knows that it's the right thing to do. And they trust that judgment. Employees share concerns, ideas, revelations... not because they have to, or because that suggestion box just looks so inviting, but because they trust that leaders will do the right thing(s) with that information, and because leaders have openly shared with them.
Stay focused. I've always said that leading is easy "as long as it's easy;" when it gets a little difficult, it becomes the purview of the skilled and learned.
Layoffs suck. They are hard on those directly effected, those who think they may be next, those who feel guilty to still be "alive,' and those who must make the really hard decisions.
Be a purposeful leader, and realize that others are watching.
But that's just me...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/
Brother, have you got a dime?
Bail out the auto industry, you say??
$25B sounds like a lot of cash to normal people, but it's barely a band-aid for the automakers' troubles. If we do this, they'll soon be back at the trough for more.
The problems with U.S. automakers are cost of labor, stupid supplier agreements, and way, way too many dealerships.
I say allow them to go into bankruptcy, use that as impetus for renegotiating labor agreements, changing inflated supplier contracts, and allowing many borderline, cash-driven dealerships to go away. If the government simply MUST provide bail-out cash, do so as a guarantee to whomever comes forward with post-bankruptcy DIP financing.
At least then it's a better structured industry receiving a bail-out.
A problem here is perception. Many seem to think that "going into bankruptcy" necessarily means "going away," and that millions of jobs will go away as soon as an automaker declares bankruptcy.
It doesn't.
It means potentially allowing a renegotiation of debt, of decades of bad labor agreements, poor supplier relationships, and some reduction in the "dealer-on-every-corner" mentality.
...and just to be clear: the UAW President, when not fighting automaker mergers/consolidation, has said they will push to "use" bail-out money to fund current retiree health care.
We should consider driving those inefficient monoliths TOWARD bankruptcy, not helping them avoid it.But that's just me...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/
$25B sounds like a lot of cash to normal people, but it's barely a band-aid for the automakers' troubles. If we do this, they'll soon be back at the trough for more.
The problems with U.S. automakers are cost of labor, stupid supplier agreements, and way, way too many dealerships.
I say allow them to go into bankruptcy, use that as impetus for renegotiating labor agreements, changing inflated supplier contracts, and allowing many borderline, cash-driven dealerships to go away. If the government simply MUST provide bail-out cash, do so as a guarantee to whomever comes forward with post-bankruptcy DIP financing.
At least then it's a better structured industry receiving a bail-out.
A problem here is perception. Many seem to think that "going into bankruptcy" necessarily means "going away," and that millions of jobs will go away as soon as an automaker declares bankruptcy.
It doesn't.
It means potentially allowing a renegotiation of debt, of decades of bad labor agreements, poor supplier relationships, and some reduction in the "dealer-on-every-corner" mentality.
...and just to be clear: the UAW President, when not fighting automaker mergers/consolidation, has said they will push to "use" bail-out money to fund current retiree health care.
We should consider driving those inefficient monoliths TOWARD bankruptcy, not helping them avoid it.But that's just me...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
