Leadership and Most Favored Status

You're familiar with the Most Favored Nation status that countries use to give import tariff breaks to those countries that they want to support for some reason. I believe the US granted China MFN status, which is a good thing since everything we purchase seems to come from China these days. Even if you aren't a tariff genius (and I know nothing about tariffs) you can understand that a country that has Most Favored Nation status must be, well, more favored than a country that has, say, Not So Favored Nation status. Or "We Don't Like You" status. Someone is getting a better deal than someone else.

Special status sometimes applies in a corporate setting too. It's not supposed to, but we're all adults here so let's admit that it does. Some companies might grant unofficial status to, oh let's say the Pretty and Studly group. The photogenic get special consideration in some way. Perhaps they get to work from home while others must adhere to policy and schlep in to their dismal little cube day after day. Perhaps the "I Used to Work For The Boss" group gets special consideration - a nicer office and invitations to corporate events. You know what I mean.

Let's say, in an entirely hypothetical situation, that someone has special status. I'm just making this up to make a point about leadership under duress. It's entirely hypothetical. Perhaps this person belongs to that most revolting of Most Favored Groups, the Brownnosers. They have no special skill, but through diligent application of sucking up to the right people at the right time, they have advanced their career far beyond where it should be.

Perhaps our entirely hypothetical person has even pulled the old "If you don't promote me I'll quit" stunt, and succeeded. Shame, in a not hypothetical way, on the HR Department for falling for such an act of corporate terrorism. But our Brownnoser has managed to move himself or herself into a position of responsibility. Much is expected of them. They are going to be expected to lead the organization through some difficult changes. They must be able to communicate effectively with hundreds of other staff members, and must be able to sell the changes. They must build trust within different departments.

What happens when our entirely hypothetical person screws up? I'm not talking about putting a dinner on an expense account that wasn't business related. That's stupid, but that can be handled with a stern warning and restitution. No, I'm talking about some screwup that goes out to the entire organization, that makes it nearly impossible for the rest of the company to have any respect for this person. Let me try to think of an example.

Suppose an email goes out to all hands explaining a process. Further suppose that our MFB (Most Favored Brownnoser) sends a reply to his mentor that people in the company are too stupid to understand the memo. And in a way that only the gods understand, our MFB hits the "Reply To All" button, sending that email to every, and I mean every person in the company.

Yeah, you know what would happen if you sent the email. You aren't in a Most Favored Group, so you would be packing your bags and out the door. HR would be wearing their most serious frown, perhaps even a scowl as they goosestep you out the door. But what about the MFB? How will senior management (leadership) handle the situation? What is proper and effective damage control when someone who allegedly represents senior management tells 90% of the employees that they are stupid? I mean, didn't your mom ever tell you not to call someone stupid? Isn't the "No Asshole" Rule built for situations like this?

We've had this hypothetical discussion lately. Some think an apology is sufficient. Some think it will blow over if it is forgotten. Me, I think something like this will never be forgotten by the ones that were the recipients of the email. To me, management must be decisive. They must make a clear and public statement that such attitudes will not be tolerated, and the MFB needs to find work somewhere else. To me, that's a firing offense.

Consider the plight to the late Gov. Elliott Spitzer, formerly of New York. Gov. Spitzer was found to have spent large sums of money on ladies of the evening. Not very attractive ladies of the evening either, if you ask me, but perhaps I don't understand the market. And because Gov. Spitzer was caught canoodling with a woman other than Mrs. Spitzer, he was forced by public opinion to resign.

There are some who ask why he had to resign for this. He didn't use government funds. He didn't use government resources, like the limo or the mansion for his affairs. It was his cash and his time. Why should what he does in his free time reflect on his ability to govern?

Such talk is very naive. In public life, everything you do reflects on your ability to govern. And when you climb the corporate ladder, the same rules come into play. You have what lawyers call a "higher duty of care" to the company. And part of that duty of care is to always present a positive and professional image externally and internally. And if you screw up big time, the price you pay is your job.

But our hypothetical case is a Special Person. Should management sweep it under the rug? Should they punish with a slap on the wrist? I say that if they do, they have abdicated their responsibilities as leaders. A case like this needs to leave no doubt in the mind of others what the attitude of the corporate leadership is. They need to say "We will not tolerate this from anyone" and dismiss the individual. Failure to act would send a message that leadership agrees with the concept that most of the staff are stupid. They therefore have no right to expect any reasonable level of performance from that staff. After all, they are "stupid".

Sometimes, even the littlest of errors can entrap us. But that's life. The senior management of an organization has a responsibility to many stakeholders - shareholders, banks, customers, suppliers, and even employees. Tom Peters, writing about the perception customers have of certain products, said "Perception is all there is." And that applies to everything. If employees perceive their work isn't valued, they will turn in work that is worthless. Much of leadership deals with the management of perceptions. If an incorrect perception isn't corrected, it will fester and grow like a cancer, and can even consume the organization.

Spitzer didn't wait for the next election to step down. In our example of Bill Marsh's leadership on the Canadian Everest Team, he didn't wait for team members to make up their minds, then let them hang around to poison the group with negativity. It was make a decision now, then act on it. I may have an entirely hypothetical post on what action our entirely hypothetical company leadership might take in a few days.

What do you think?

Having The Right Leader at the Right Time

The task of putting together a successful team of high ego athletes is one of the great leadership challenges there is. Mountain climbing is no different. The egos of climbers are huge, and the opportunities for failure great. At least with a baseball or football team, someone else is responsible for the recruiting and cash management. In mountain climbing, the team leader usually has the responsibility for all those things. A misstep in football might mean a lost game, or even a championship. A misstep in climbing can mean death.

The Canadian Expedition started, as many great ventures, on the back of a napkin in a bar. Canmore-based climber Roger Marshall was sitting around a table with a few of his climbing buddies when the topic of climbing Everest came up. A few beverages and a couple of cocktail napkins later, a plan was in motion to have the first Canadian team climb Everest.

Marshall’s plan was simple, as napkin-based planning systems often are. A small team of climbers would use the South Col route for a fast ascent of Everest. The South Col was the best choice because it was the most common route and had the best chance for success. A small team would keep costs low.

Just a few months after the initial tavern planning meeting, “Project Creep” had taken hold. Others in the climbing community wanted to be part of this adventure. The team had grown, and some wanted to try a more challenging route. Roger Marshall had lost control of the original small scale assault team, and was replaced as leader by Greg Kinnear.

Kinnear brought organization to the group. He hired a skilled climber, John Amatt, as business manager. Amatt was able to secure a major sponsorship from Air Canada, and organized the logistical and fund raising challenges that a large scale project required. The team worked on designing and stockpiling specialized equipment. Training climbs were scheduled for various other mountain peaks around the world.

But relations were being strained in the group. Marshall’s friends and Kinnear’s friends were frequently at odds. A third group tried to remain neutral, but was affected by the hubris of the other groups. Kinnear was diagnosed with an eye ailment that would be dangerous for him at high altitude. It became apparent that Kinnear could not lead the group on its mission. The group took a vote, and Bill March was elected group leader. March immediately appointed Lloyd Gallagher as his second. A quiet but firm man, the group had recognized that March had the abilities to lead the team to success.

So before getting to the mountain, the team is already on its third leader. What lesson does that have for us? First, we should always remember that the leader that got us started may not be the leader that helps us finish. Unlike your high school prom, organizations shouldn’t concentrate on making sure that they go home with the one that brought them.

Different leaders bring different skills to the table. Marshall brought an enthusiasm and zeal to the goal of climbing Everest, but wasn’t the best organizer. Kinnear was an organizational guru. But when it became apparent he wouldn’t be able to physically make the climb, another leader needed to be chosen. Bill March was an experienced climber who had the respect of his teammates. Different leaders who brought different skills at different times to the mission. And each was needed in their time and place, but there was no fear to replace the leader when new leadership was needed.

Second, this has implications for our own careers. Not only should organizations be prepared to replace leadership when needed, but individuals need to be prepared to move on when their time is up. This is perhaps the greatest challenge – recognizing that our time has passed and we need to toss the torch to new hands. It shouldn’t be viewed as failure. As this team recognized, there are different skills required for different parts of any venture. To keep an individual in a leadership position when they lack the necessary skills places the entire team at risk.

Next week – death on the mountain threatens to tear the team apart, and Bill March shows amazing leadership skills dealing with the events.

Are we on the road to Abilene?

My 3 and a half year old granddaughter Hayley, a perfect child in every way, wandered into the kitchen one morning and announced to her mother “I love God.” Her mother, not sure where this conversation was going, wisely nodded her head and said “That’s good.” “Well, that’s what He wants to hear,” Hayley shrugged, and wandered back out.

I’m not one to say something just because someone wants to hear it. But I have been in situations where I’ve been hesitant to speak up. What causes that? In my case, the leader was an overbearing jerk who would belittle anyone that spoke out against his ideas. It was simply less aggravation to keep quiet than to be the target of his insanity. But there was never a case where serious money or lives were in danger.

Jerry Harvey, professor of management at The George Washington University, has seen situations where “groupthink” has led to disaster. He calls it “The Abilene Paradox”, and raised the issue in his book “The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management”. Dr. Harvey begins by telling of a hot, dusty day at his in-laws in Coleman, Texas:

The family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles north] for dinner. Jerry’s wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." Jerry, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."

The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.

Looking to spark some discussion, Jerry says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it." The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. Jerry says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.

The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.

I heard Dr. Harvey speak on The Abilene Paradox in Columbus, OH a few years ago. He has a great Texas accent, and speaks in a down home, folksy sort of way. But his message is serious: Groups will take actions that contradict what individual members want to do or think is right. He suggests that managing “agreement” is a more serious issue that managing conflict.

At his Columbus lecture, he raised the account of the Challenger explosion. He had received a letter from someone on the launch committee detailing the process for the pre-launch meeting. He described how every person on the committee had the opportunity to stop the launch just by saying “We’re not ready.” And although the writer knew that there was an issue with the seals, he couldn’t go against the pressure of the group by being the one to stop the launch. By voicing agreement, he delivered the Challenger and its crew to its inevitable end.

Not many of us deal with life and death situations like that, but our fear to speak up can still have repercussions. One company where I worked, everyone spoke up against a project except the senior executives, and it ended up being a $4 million boondoggle. Saying “I told you so” wasn’t much consolation when the bonus checks were canceled.

One employer made “The Abilene Paradox” part of their management training. And anyone had the opportunity (duty?) to raise the flag if they thought the team was going in the wrong direction. All they had to do was ask the question “Are we on the road to Abilene?” Everyone knew the story, and it made the team stop of consider the actions they were taking. Many times I saw this simple technique cause a team to change or finesse its action plan. Many times, it saved the company thousands of dollars as suggestions from front line people were worked into the plan. Without knowing it, the company was really doing a kaizen style review of their processes and systems, eliminating waste before it was built into the system.

“Are we on the road to Abilene?” is a good question to ask whenever teams reach decisions. You don't want to make a decision based on what the leader wants to hear.