You’ll rarely encounter the words leadership and surrender used together in complementary fashion. Society has labeled surrender as a sign of leadership weakness, when in fact, it can be among the greatest of leadership strengths. Let me be clear, I’m not encouraging giving in or giving up – I am suggesting you learn the ever so subtle art of letting go. A leader simply operates at their best when they understand their ability to influence is much more fruitful than their ability to control. Here’s the thing – the purpose of leadership is not to shine the spotlight on yourself, but to unlock the potential of others so they can in turn shine the spotlight on countless more. Control is about power – not leadership. Surrender allows a leader to get out of their own way and focus on adding value to those whom they serve.

If you’re still not convinced the art of leadership is learning the focus point should be on surrender not control, consider this: control restricts potential, limits initiative, and inhibits talent. Surrender fosters collaboration, encourages innovation and enables possibility. Controlling leaders create bottlenecks rather than increase throughput. They signal a lack of trust and confidence an often come across as insensitive if not arrogant. When you experience weak teams, micro-management, frequent turf wars, high stress, operational strain, and a culture of fear, you are experiencing what control has to offer – not very attractive is it?

Surrender allows the savvy leader to serve where control demands the ego-centric leader be served. Surrender allows leadership to scale and a culture of leadership to be established. Surrender prefers loose collaborative networks over rigid hierarchical structures allowing information to be more readily shared and distributed. Leaders who understand surrender think community, ecosystem, and culture – not org chart. Surrender is what not only allows the dots to be connected, but it’s what allows to dots to be multiplied. Controlling leaders operate in a world of addition and subtraction, while the calculus of a leader who understands surrender is built on exponential multiplication.

I have found those who embrace control are simply attempting to consolidate power, while those who practice surrender are facilitating the distribution of authority. When what you seek is to build into others more than glorifying self you have developed a level of leadership maturity that values surrender over control. Surrender is the mindset which creates the desire for leaders to give credit rather than take it, to prefer hearing over being heard, to dialogue instead of monologue, to have an open mind over a closed mind, to value unlearning as much as learning. Control messages selfishness, while surrender conveys selflessness – which is more important to you?

Keep this in mind – we all surrender, and not all surrender is honorable. Some surrender to their ego, to the wrong priorities, or to other distractive habits. Others surrender to the positive realization they are not the center of the universe – they surrender to something beyond themselves in order to accomplish more for others. Bottom line – what you do or don’t surrender to will define you. Assuming you surrender to the right things, surrender is not a sign of leadership weakness, but is perhaps the ultimate sign of leadership confidence. I’ll leave you with this quote from William Booth: “The greatness of a mans power is the measure of his surrender.”

Thoughts?

With 2012 staring us right in the face, I thought I’d dust off an old post as a useful reminder as you plan the year ahead –  ”help” is not a dirty word. I have always believed asking for help is a sign of maturity as a leader. I think John Lennon said it best: “I get by with a little help from my friends.” So my question is this - are you easy to help? Think about it…do you make it easy for others to want to help you, or is your demeanor such that most people won’t lift a finger to assist you in a time of need? How many times during the course of your career have you witnessed executives and entrepreneurs who desperately need help, but either don’t recognize it, or worse yet, make it virtually impossible for someone to help them? In today’s post I’ll address the importance of positioning yourself to be helped…

If your pride, ego, arrogance, ignorance, the way you were raised or any other excuse (yes I did say excuse) keeps you from asking for help, it is precisely those traits that will keep you from maximizing your potential. I hate to break it to you, but you don’t know everything or everybody, so why even bother pretending that you couldn’t use a bit of help? No single person can or should go it alone in today’s business world. The more partners, sympathizers, champions, allies, supporters, enablers, influencers, advisers, mentors, friends, and family you have helping you succeed, the faster you will achieve your goals. Without question the most successful business people on the planet are those that have learned to blow through self-imposed barriers to openly harness the power of broader spheres of influence.

I don’t know about you, but I am so tired of all the “self-made man” propaganda floating around business circles. I sincerely believe there is no such thing as a “self-made man”. While I take complete responsibility for all my failures and shortcomings, I take very little credit for my own success. Virtually all of the good things that have happened to me over the years have been the result of the collaborative efforts of many. I don’t see asking for help as a sign of weakness, rather I see it as a very smart thing to do, and I therefore tend to seek out help wherever I can find it. I have long made it a practice to encourage others to help me succeed. My personal and professional network are far more important to my success than my individual competencies. My clients hire me not solely on the basis of what I can personally do for them in a vacuum, but rather what the collective influence of my network and resources can accomplish for them when I operate outside of my own personal bubble.

If you take anything away from today’s post let it be the following two statements: 1.) If a single day passes where you don’t ask for help you have failed yourself and those around you, and; 2.) If a single day passes where you have not helped someone else you have failed as a leader. If you desire to enlist others in your success the following 5 items are the basic prerequisites for getting others to help you:

1. Be Trustworthy: Say what you mean, mean what you say, and do what you say you’ll do. By simply honoring your commitments and being reliable you’ll be someone who easily engenders the trust and confidence of others. People clearly do things to help those whom they trust, and will quite obviously avoid going the extra mile for those whom they don’t.
2. Don’t be a jerk: While people don’t necessarily have to like you in order to help you, it certainly doesn’t hurt. However I can promise you that if you’re perceived as a jerk people will not only go out of their way not to help you succeed, but they will do everything possible to impede your success. I have long been a believer that contrary to popular opinion, nice guys (and gals) do in fact finish first.
3. Go out of your way to help others: Do unto others – what goes around comes around – you reap what you sow, and any number of other statements to that effect ring true more often than not. If you are sincerely interested in helping others, and make it a habit to go out of your way to do so, then those people will likely be inclined to reciprocate.
4. Know what you want and focus your efforts to that end: You must develop a clear picture of what it is that you want to accomplish, and then apply laser-like focus in the pursuit of your goals.
5. Make your goals known to those that can help you: It is not only important to communicate your vision to those in a position to help you succeed, but always make sure and ask for their help. Don’t be bashful or embarrassed, but rather confidently recruit others to become enablers and evangelists of your cause. You need to believe that one of your top priorities is team building, and consistently seek out greater numbers of people to champion your cause and scale your efforts.

In the final analysis it’s really all a matter of perspective…you can either view yourself as part of a hierarchical world sitting at the top of the org chart puffing your chest and propping-up your ego, or you can view yourself as the hub at the center of a large and diverse network. The latter is both more profitable and enjoyable than the former. You can either choose to build your personal brand and your success at the expense of others, or by helping others.

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts about the importance of asking for help no matter what your title is, or where you sit on the org chart…Thoughts?

Bonus or no bonus? That is the question. This is the time of year where expectations are high, and so is the volume of chatter around the water cooler in anticipation of that great corporate tradition…The year-end bonus. So what’s it going to be this year…a turkey, an extra paid day off, a cash bonus, stock/options/warrants, something creative or nothing at all? Complicating matters further for CEOs, Boards, and Comp Committees attempting to determine what to do about bonuses is all the recent media attention and public outrage in regard to what is perceived by many to be excessive, frivolous compensation. In today’s post I’ll take a look at the well intentioned but often misguided practice of year-end bonuses…

Here’s a question – do bonuses work? There is a tremendous amount of conflicting data as to whether or not incentive compensation in any form is an effective motivation tool. Perhaps the best summary for this position is the short video by Daniel Pink. There are those who passionately argue for and against the merits of year-end bonuses. My experience is that bonuses are absolutely effective given this caveat: they must be structured and implemented properly.

In order for bonuses to be truly effective they must be relevant, meaningful, in alignment with cultural values, and tied to the right set of metrics. It is not the bonus that is right or wrong, but the manner in which it is rolled-out. I have witnessed company bonuses work marvelously well, and I have seen them create great animosity and discord. I have witnessed bonuses motivate the correct behaviors and I’ve watched them motivate abhorrent behavior. The validity of a bonus should not be at issue, but the wisdom, motives and expertise of the bonus program architects should come under great scrutiny. Keep this in mind – the best bonus plan in the world won’t retain top talent if the qualities mentioned in Dan’s video above are not present as well.

I can’t even begin to communicate the number of times I’ve heard employees complain about the size of their year-end bonus…It was if they felt entitled to significant rewards solely based upon the fact that they happen to be employed. Is a year-end bonus a right of entitlement or a privilege to be earned? I believe that it can actually be both, but that decision lies solely with the employer, and is not really up to the employee no matter how much they might feel it is.

Some employers believe in providing a little something extra to all employees during the Holiday Season as an expression of gratitude for their loyalty and contributions during the year without regard to performance. While showing gratitude for work well done is in alignment with the proper spirit behind a bonus, regrettably it is in this type of culture where I believe employee expectations can easily confuse the difference between a gift and a reward…Let’s say that in the previous year the company provided what was considered by most to be a fairly generous bonus, but in this calendar year, the company struggled while also needing to make heavy expenditures in Q1 of the upcoming year so it opted to distribute no year-end bonus. How do the employees feel about this? One would hope that the employees would understand and put the needs of the enterprise ahead of their expectation that this year’s bonus should eclipse that of the previous year, but would they? I’m certain not distributing a bonus would only spawn a sense of resentment among many, and the gossip at the water cooler would shift to criticizing the CEOs car, or how much vacation time he/she took that year…

As contrasted with the environment discussed above, some cultures distribute annual bonuses based on a formulaic approach calculated on metrics designed to reward individual, team or company performance according to the goals of the specific entity. While many tend to favor this structure, it is far from perfect as well. It is very typical that in this type of environment that the controversy shifts from company vs. employees, to employee vs. employee. As an example, the marketing assistant who receives a comparatively small bonus when contrasted to that of a sales person feels that his/her contribution is minimized and feels treated unfairly. Imagine working at Goldman Sachs where bonuses in any given year are expected to range from secretaries receiving $10,000, analysts garnering close to $100,000, junior executives seeing as much as $2-4 million and top income producers receiving upwards of $40 million dollars in bonus money…You don’t think there’s a bit of green-eyed bonus envy at Goldman Sachs each year?

Regardless of whether your firm embraces a meritocracy, a tenure based system, a highly sophisticated compensatory system, or some form of a benevolent dictatorship, bonuses are always an issue. Should bonuses come off the top-line, bottom-line, be based on contribution margin, be subjectively or objectively distributed, be paid in cash, stock, options, profit sharing, perks, or some other mechanism? The structures of corporate bonuses are as varied as there are numbers of entities.

At the end of the day, employers should hire well, bonus generously, and provide public thanks where merited. Employees on the other hand should be thankful for the privilege of having gainful employment and be grateful for any bonus compensation received. Whatever the bonus, I hope it works for the grantor as well as for the grantees. For those on the receiving end, I hope you enjoy it and will perhaps consider giving some of your bonus to those less fortunate this season…

I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about incentive compensation. Please leave a comment and let me know whether or not you think bonuses are effective, describe creative bonus structures you’ve observed, or share what you’re thinking about doing this year, if anything.

All sizzle and no steak is not a formula for leadership success. If your organization looks good, but lacks substance, then I would submit this unfortunate condition is a reflection of your leadership team. Great leadership isn’t meant to be proprietary – it’s not exclusive, but inclusive. In fact, truly great leadership cannot be contained – it’s contagious and destined to be transferred to others. You see, it’s not how a leader positions themselves that matters, it’s what they do.  The truth of the matter is that weak leadership really isn’t that hard to detect – it’s disengaged, aloof, arrogant, dismissive, disingenuous and self-glorifying. In today’s post I’ll share some thoughts about how to spot leaders who shouldn’t be…

Stop Talking – Start Doing
Here’s the thing; Leadership is about doing – not talking. While a leader’s actions must inspire and motivate, they must also challenge and convict.  Anyone can be a big thinker, but not everyone can be a deep thinker.  It’s not particularly difficult to be a prolific talker, but it’s never easy to be a prolific performer. Lots of people listen, few really hear, and even fewer understand. Most people can spot a problem, few can solve them, and even fewer can see beyond the solution to the next challenge or opportunity. Anyone can be part of a team, but not everyone can contribute to a team, and fewer yet can lead a team. The best leaders transfer and distribute their vision such that it is not just owned by the balance of the organization, but it’s improved and scaled by the organization.

Be Part of the Solution – Not The Problem
Real leaders aren’t commentators, but catalysts. They participate in driving things forward rather than playing arm-chair quarterback. You’ll rarely find a great leader who points fingers, blames or belittles. They simply won’t accept credit for successes, but they will own all failures. If you’re not buying what I’m preaching, then I want you to step back and examine your own personal experiences. Have you ever come across a great leader who was negative, arrogant, had a bad attitude, was a pessimist, wasn’t engaged, or who didn’t care about their people? I didn’t think so…

Fixing The Problem – Make a Decision and Then Act On It
Right about now you’re probably thinking “Okay Mike, it doesn’t really require rocket science to spot poor leadership, the bigger issue is what to do about it when you see it.”  I’ve always found dealing with poor leadership to be easier than most people make it out to be. If you’re a subordinate to poor leadership you have 3 options: 1) accept it; 2) confront it, or 3) move on. If you’re senior, and in a position to do something about it, you have 2 choices: coach them to productivity or get rid of them – there is no third option.  The good news is in most cases poor leadership will eventually cause it’s own demise. I’ve often said that leadership not accountable to it’s people, will eventually be held accountable by it’s people.

Thoughts?

When it comes to leadership, I can share the issues of creating and delivering on expectations are no small matter. In fact, understanding how to come out on the right-side of the expectation curve can often be the difference between being viewed as an average leader and one held in high regard. Let me make this as simple as I can; managing expectations is gamesmanship – aligning them is leadership. Moving the goal posts by arbitrarily raising and lowering expectations creates confusion, and is often an intellectually dishonest exercise. Aligning expectations doesn’t need to be difficult – set them, align them, stick to them, and execute on them.

Conflicts, disagreements, disputes, and litigation are often born out of expectation gaps. The thing leaders need to keep in mind is expectations cut both ways. Keeping what you perceive as being your end of the bargain is only half of the equation, as what you think only matters if it’s in alignment with the understanding of the other party. We have all found ourselves in the unenviable position of assigning work product only to end-up with the deliverable falling far short of expectations, while having the producer of said work product thinking they exceeded all expectations. I’ve often said, those leaders who fail to clearly communicate their expectations have no right to them.

Nothing engenders confidence and creates a trust bond like delivering on promises made, and likewise, few things erode confidence and credibility like commitments not kept. Leaders who deliver on promises quickly rise to the top, and those that fail to develop this skill won’t survive long.  The best leaders make a practice of saying what they mean, meaning what they say, and doing what they say they’ll do.

The science of aligning expectations is about systematically connecting what is said with what is done. The art of aligning expectations is about closing, or better yet, eliminating the expectation gap. Blend the art and science together and you have the framework for what is becoming the differentiating factor in performance based decisioning. Several years ago I created the Venn diagram depicted below to explain the confluence of factors that need to occur in order to close the expectation gap:

Expectations exist throughout the entire value chain, with every stakeholder needing and deserving to have their expectations understood and met (hopefully exceeded). Whether it is addressing customer expectations, shareholder or analyst expectations, or the inverse situation of employees having to deal with the expectations of executives, it is the ability to excel at decisioning based upon setting, aligning and executing expectations that creates high performance organizations.

Promises made and consistently kept based upon solid reasoning and underlying business logic, will help to create a solid brand attracting loyal customers and talented employees. The following three practices will help create an organization that delivers on its commitments:

1. Collaborate early and often: Decisioning in a vacuum, or without all the facts, will place you in a deficit from the beginning. It is at best extremely difficult to align expectations and deliver on commitments made if you don’t have clear visibility as to what is wanted or needed. Before making promises or commitments collaborate with all concerned parties to ensure that expectations are understood.
2. Resist making verbal commitments: Most misunderstandings occur as a result of improper interpretation of oral communications. Most broken commitments result from impulsive verbal promises made before all the details were sorted out. Once you have gained clarity as to the perceived need to be fulfilled, place your understanding of the deliverables in writing by outlining key business points and circulate the document for review and comments. Where possible resist formalizing agreements, proposals, or other commitments until you have alignment on key expectations and deliverables.
3. Treat promises like projects: Build a culture that breaks down all commitments into deliverables, benchmarks and deadlines. Allocate resources, budget and staff while delivering the commitment within a framework of measured accountability. Treating all commitments and promises as formal projects will help manage performance risk and will also create continuity of process and delivery.

Performance focused decisioning based upon principles of expectation alignment will lead to a certainty of execution that should translate into one of your company’s greatest competitive advantages. Top CEOs recognize that they can promise and deliver, under-promise and over-deliver, or even over-promise and deliver…they just don’t dare over-promise and under-deliver. Thoughts?

As much as some don’t want to hear this, there is an “I” in team - there is simply no getting around the fact that teams are comprised of individuals. If you crush the individual character and spirit of those who form your team, how can your team operate at its best? It cannot. The strongest teams don’t weed out or neutralize individual tendencies, they capitalize on them. The goal of a leader is not to clone him/herself, but to harness individual strengths for the greater good of the team, and for the overall benefit of the organization. This is best accomplished by leveraging individual talents; not stifling them.

The simple fact is that no team can maximize their potential by ignoring or minimizing the strengths of  individual members. While smart leaders seek to align expectations and to create unity in vision, they understand this has nothing to do with demanding conformity in thought, or perspective. In fact, savvy leaders do everything possible to inspire non-conformity in approach. It’s only by stretching the boundaries of “normal” that organizations can fuel change and innovation.

If unique perspectives, philosophical differences, and dissenting opinions are viewed as an opportunity as opposed to a set-back, growth and development are certain to follow. What I like to refer as “positional gaps” are best closed by listening to all sides, finding common ground and then letting the principle of doing the right thing guide the process. When a leader develops the skill to transform negative conflict into creative tension, they have found the secret sauce for developing high performance teams. Mature leaders see individual differences as fuel for development, not as barriers to success.

It is absolutely possible to build very productive relationships with even the most adversarial of individuals. Regardless of a person’s original intent, opinion or position, the key to closing a positional gap is simply a matter of finding common ground in order to establish rapport. Moreover, building rapport is easily achieved assuming your motivations for doing so are sincere. I have always found that rapport is quickly developed when you listen, care, and attempt to help people succeed. By way of contrast, it is difficult to build rapport if you are driven by an agenda the other party sees as being a threat to their success or security.

While building and maintaining rapport with people with whom you disagree is certainly more challenging, many of the same rules expressed in my comments above still apply. I have found that often times dealing with difficult people simply just requires more intense focus on understanding the needs, wants and desires of the other party. If opposing views are worth the time and energy to debate, then they are worth a legitimate effort to gain alignment on perspective, and resolution on position. However this will rarely happen if lines of communication do not remain open. Candid, effective communication is best maintained through a mutual respect and rapport.

In an attempting to resolve conflicts, misunderstandings, or positional and/or philosophical gaps, the first step is to identify and isolate the specific areas of difference causing the difficulty. The sad fact is that many people in leadership positions are absolutists in that they only see things in terms of rights and wrongs. Thinking in terms of “my way” is right and therefore “other ways” are wrong is the basis for polarizing any relationship, which quickly results in converting discussions into power struggles. However when a situation can be seen through the lens of difference, and a position is simply a matter of opinion not a totalitarian statement of fact, then collaboration is not only possible, it’s probable. Identifying and understanding differences allows people (regardless of title) to evolve their thinking through rational and reasoned dialog. The following perspectives if kept top of mind will help in identifying and bridging positional gaps:

• Listening leads to understanding.
• Respect allows differences to evolve thought and create new behaviors.
• Accepting a person where they are, creates an bond of trust.
• Trust, leads to a willingness to be open to:
  • new opportunities;
  • new collaborations;
  • new strategies;
  • new ideas, and;
  • new attitudes.

The key to maximizing the individual talents within a team is to focus on the shared vision rather than individual differences. By adhering to the following principles, most individual points of departure can be used as a springboard for growth and innovation rather than barrier:

1. Be Consistent: If your desire is to minimize misunderstandings, then I would suggest you stop confusing people. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and follow-through on your commitments. Most people don’t have to agree with you 100% of the time, but they do need to trust you 100% of the time. Trust cannot exist where leaders are fickle, inconsistent, indecisive, or display a lack of character. Never be swayed by consensus that calls you to compromise your values, rather be guided by doing the right thing. Finally, know that no person is universally right or universally liked, and become at peace with that.
2. The Importance Factor: Not every difference needs to be resolved. In fact, most differences don’t require intervention as they actually contribute to a dynamic, creative, innovative culture. Remember that it’s not important be right, and more importantly, that you don’t have to be right for the right things to be accomplished. Pick your battles and avoid conflict for the sake of conflict. However if the issue is important enough to create a conflict then it is surely important enough to resolve. If the issue, circumstance, or situation is important enough, and there is enough at stake, people will do what is necessary to open lines of communication and close positional gaps.
3. Make Respect a Priority: Disagreement and disrespect are two different things, or at least they should be. Regardless of whether or not perspectives and opinions differ, a position of respect should be adhered to and maintained. Respect is at the core of building meaningful relationships. It is the foundation that supports high performance teams, partnerships, superior and subordinate relationships, and peer-to-peer relationships. Respecting the right to differ while being productive is a concept that all successful executives and entrepreneurs master.
4. Define Acceptable Behavior: You know what they say about assuming…Just having a definition for what constitutes acceptable behavior is a positive step in avoiding unnecessary conflict. Creating a framework for decisioning, using a published delegation of authority statement, encouraging sound business practices in collaboration, team building, leadership development, and talent management will all help avoid conflicts.
5. Hit Conflict Head-on: You can only resolve problems by proactively seeking to do so. While you can’t always prevent conflicts, it has been my experience that the secret to conflict resolution is in fact conflict prevention where possible. By actually seeking out areas of potential conflict and proactively intervening in a well reasoned and decisive fashion you will likely prevent certain conflicts from ever arising. If a conflict does flair up, you will likely minimize its severity by dealing with it quickly.
6. Understanding the WIIFM Factor: Understanding the other person’s WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) position is critical. It is absolutely essential to understand other’s motivations prior to weighing in. The way to avoid conflict is to help those around you achieve their objectives. If you approach conflict from the perspective of taking the action that will help others best achieve their goals you will find few obstacles will stand in your way with regard to resolving conflict.
7. View Conflict as Opportunity: Hidden within virtually every conflict is the potential for a tremendous teaching/learning opportunity. Where there is disagreement there is an inherent potential for growth and development. If you’re a CEO who doesn’t leverage conflict for team building and leadership development purposes you’re missing a great opportunity.
8. Clarity of Purpose: Everyone who works for me knows that I care about them as an individual. They are important to me. They know that I’ll go to great lengths to work with them so long as one thing remains the focus point – the good of the organization. So long as the issues being worked on are leading us toward our vision, they know they’ll have my attention regardless of positional gaps or personal differences. Likewise, if things degenerate into placing pride or ego ahead of other team members or the organization as a whole, they know I’ll have no tolerance whatsoever.

The bottom line is that people matter, and but for people, organizations don’t exist. It’s important to remember that a manager exists when the company says so, but that said manager only really becomes a leader when their team says so. As a leader you have only two choices when it comes to your people –  serve them and care for them. Sometimes this means working through challenging scenarios and situations. If as a leader you’re not up to this task, then you should rethink your decision to lead.

Please share your thoughts and observations in the comments section below.

If your organization confuses loyalty with tenure there is trouble on the horizon. Put simply, tenure kills productivity, and ultimately tenure kills culture. If your business rates tenure higher than performance as a measure for employee evaluation, it’s time for you to consider updating your talent management practices. So, what’s wrong with tenure you ask? In principle very little; but in practice virtually everything. Think of any organization that has mediocre talent, where management has frustrated you with consistent under-performance, or where cavalier attitudes and a sense of entitlement overshadow a focus on productivity & performance, and I’ll show you an organization that embraces tenure…

An old business saying that sums-up my feelings about tenure goes like this: “The only thing worse than an employee who quits and leaves is an employee who quits and stays” – I refer to these types of folks as office squatters.  You see, tenure is not synonymous with loyalty, but rather is more often a measure of compliance and survival. Ask yourself this question: who is more loyal; an employee who has been with the company a long time but is an under-performer, or a less tenured employee who always goes the extra mile and consistently exceeds expectations?

Let me be clear – I don’t have anything against long-term employees so long as something other than length of service in a vacuum is what accounts for them still being employed. I’m suggesting that healthy organizations value performance and contribution more than tenure. If you’re still not tracking with the difference between loyalty and tenure, please take a moment and read a previous post entitled: Leadership and Loyalty. Following are the top 5 reasons why tenure as business practice simply constitutes flawed business logic and will kill your culture:

1. Tenure is Outdated: In case you haven’t checked your calendar lately it isn’t 1950…Outside of government and academia (this should be more than enough proof that tenure is counter-productive) most people don’t work for 30 years for the same employer.
2. Tenure Suppresses Talent: Just because “Employee A” has performed a task longer than “Employee B” doesn’t necessarily mean that “A” is more skilled than “B.” Furthermore, just because “A” has been with the company longer than “B”, doesn’t necessarily mean that “A” possesses more talent, upside, knowledge, or adds more value than “B.” When an organization promotes based upon tenure, and not based upon recognition of talent, merit, performance, etc., the company is not leveraging its true talent base. Not recognizing, developing, and rewarding talent is the fastest way I know of to drive talent out of your organization and directly into the hands of your competition.
3. Tenure Breeds Obsolescence and Mediocrity: The sad reality is with very few exceptions, if you have someone on your payroll who has been with the organization in a similar capacity for an unusually long period of time without increasing in role or responsibility, you likely have a mediocre employee producing mediocre work. Walk into an organization that embraces tenure and it’s akin to traveling back in time 40 years. These companies have placed themselves far behind the both the talent and technology curve because tenured managers hire employees with obsolete skill sets and together they create mediocre solutions. This is a dysfunctional cycle that can send companies into a death spiral of obsolescence.
4. Tenure Inhibits Change and Cripples Innovation: Organizations that favor tenure also tend to be prone to majoring in the minors. The mandates for compliance along with the accompanying maze of bureaucratic processes and procedures, will often take precedence over doing the right thing. Tenured organizations also tend to embrace comfort zones and are often built upon the “DITWLY” (Did It That Way Last Year) principle. All of these traits preclude the advancement of change initiatives and cripple innovation.
5. Tenure Kills Brands: As an organization expands and continues to promote mediocre talent up through the ranks, you’ll notice that growth will eventually slow, quality and customer service suffer, and eventually these negative attributes will be reflected in declining brand equity. Think of any negative brand connotations you have, and you’ll likely find an organization that embraces tenure. The Costco experience isn’t what it used to be, US auto manufacturers continue to struggle, the banking industry has been crippled, and government agencies (pick one…USPS, IRS, DMV, etc.) often evoke feelings of hatred at the mere mention of their name.

The bottom line is this…as an employer you need to possess an extreme bias toward performance. Reward talent, initiative, innovation, loyalty, attitude, creativity, work ethic, contribution, and leadership ability – not tenure. Meritocracy or Mediocrity – the choice is yours…

Thoughts?

In the text that follows I’m going to poke holes in a process generally accepted as productive, when it rarely is. I’ll likely take some heat over this, and while this post works off some broad generalizations, in my experience having worked with literally thousands of leaders, they are largely true. More than $60 Billion dollars is spent each year in the U.S. on employee training. More than 25% of those dollars are spent on “Leadership Training.” Here’s the thing – when it comes to leadership, the training industry has been broken for years. You don’t train leaders you develop them – a subtle yet important distinction lost on many. Leadership training is alive and well, but it should have died long, long ago…

An Overview of The Problem
My problem with training is it presumes the need for indoctrination on systems, processes and techniques. Moreover, training assumes that said systems, processes and techniques are the right way to do things. When a trainer refers to something as “best practices” you can with great certitude rest assured that’s not the case. Training focuses on best practices, while development focuses on next practices. Training is often a rote, one directional, one dimensional, one size fits all, authoritarian process that imposes static, outdated information on people. The majority of training takes place within a monologue (lecture/presentation) rather than a dialog. Perhaps worst of all, training usually occurs within a vacuum driven by past experience, not by future needs.

The Solution
The solution to the leadership training problem is to scrap it in favor of development. Don’t train leaders, coach them, mentor them, disciple them, and develop them, but please don’t attempt to train them. Where training attempts to standardize by blending to a norm and acclimating to the status quo, development strives to call out the unique and differentiate by shattering the status quo. Training is something leaders dread and will try and avoid, whereas they will embrace and look forward to development. Development is nuanced, contextual, collaborative, fluid, and above all else, actionable.

The following 15 items point out some of the main differences between training and development:

1. Training focuses on the present – Development focuses on the future.
2. Training focuses on technique – Development focuses on talent.
3. Training adheres to standards – Development focuses on maximizing potential.
4. Training focuses on maintenance – Development focuses on growth.
5. Training focuses on the role – Development focuses on the person.
6. Training indoctrinates – Development educates.
7. Training maintains status quo – Development catalyzes innovation.
8. Training stifles culture – Development enriches culture.
9. Training encourages compliance – Development emphasizes performance.
10. Training focuses on efficiency – Development focuses on effectiveness.
11. Training focuses on problems  - Development focuses on solutions.
12. Training focuses on reporting lines – Development expands influence.
13. Training is mechanical – Development is intellectual.
14. Training focuses on the knowns – Development explores the unknowns.
15. Training is finite – Development is infinite.

When it comes to current and future leaders, training will place them in a box, while development will free them from the box. If what you desire is a robotic, static thinker – train them. If you’re seeking innovative, critical thinkers – develop them. I have always said it is impossible to have an enterprise which is growing and evolving if leadership is not. What say you?

Creating a talent advantage begins with smart hiring. That said, it never ceases to amaze me at the number of people who are charged with hiring who possess absolutely no skill at doing so. While I rarely meet a CEO who is completely comfortable with turning the hiring process over to HR, most of them still seem to acquiesce and do exactly that…”Who should do the hiring?” is a question that more CEOs should spend time pondering. Here’s the thing; Anyone can make a hire, but not all hires are good hires. Smart leaders do more than just hire smart people – they have a smart hiring process and/or methodology. In today’s post I’ll share my philosophy on the best way to insure that you hire tier-one talent.

Put simply; talent matters. The problem is that very few people actually possess the talent to identify talent. Identifying and recruiting talent requires much more than screening a resume and having a set of standard interviewing questions to guide you. There are issues of values, vision, culture, context etc., that need to be creatively and intuitively addressed in the hiring process that often go overlooked because the wrong person is evaluating talent.

Further complicating matters, is just because someone has succeeded in the past doesn’t mean that they’ll be a success for your company. Likewise, just because someone has failed in a previous position doesn’t mean that they might not end-up being a top performer for your company. Assessing talent is in fact a talent… Adding even more complexity to the hiring process is that not all those capable of identifying talent are capable of recruiting the talent by sealing the deal…Think about it, does the person in charge of your hiring process have the experience and charisma to convince a top performer at another company to take a pay cut to work for your company?

While CEO’s can’t be in charge of recruiting, it’s important to realize that CEOs still own responsibility for the outcome – the buck always stops at the desk of the chief executive. I also believe that if HR is solely charged with the recruiting efforts for senior management and executive level positions you’ll end-up with a very weak management and leadership team. Unless your company is a large enough organization to have a Chief Talent Officer, I don’t believe recruiting is an HR function (other than for administrative positions). Rather in most instances, I believe HR should be a compliance, training and risk management function. It is HR’s function to make sure that processes are implemented and followed, but having a mid-level manager attempt to identify or recruit tier-one senior talent is a recipe for disaster. The following commentary came from Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft when he was asked about his philosophy on hiring:

“I did all the hiring myself for a long time. No one joined Microsoft without my interviewing them and liking them. I made every offer, decided how much to pay them and closed the deals. I can’t do that anymore, but I still invest a significant amount of time in insuring that we’re recruiting the best people. You may have technology or a product that gives you an edge, but your people determine whether you develop the next winning technology or product.”

I tend to be similar in positioning to Steve in that I believe one of the highest and best uses of time is to make sure that we attract the best talent for our company and our client companies. I believe that C-level executives can’t afford not to keep their hands in the talent function at some level. In order to insure that you make the best hiring decisions possible, I would strongly recommend that you follow the practices listed below:

1. Definition: Make sure that you know exactly what you are looking for, both in terms of the job description, and the profile of the individual most likely to be successful in that role. If you can’t define what you’re looking for, you shouldn’t be looking.
2. Timing: There is wisdom in the old axiom “hire slow and fire fast.” Don’t panic and end-up making a regrettable hire out of perceived desperation. Give yourself plenty of runway. You’ll be much better-off taking your time and making a good hire rather than using the ready, fire, aim methodology and end-up terming the new hire before they eclipse their probationary period.
3. ABH: Always Be Hiring…Never let your organization be put behind the talent 8-ball, as great talent is rarely available on a moment’s notice. In the world of professional sports the search for talent often starts during the middle-school years, which is long before the potential talent being tracked by the scouts has matured. Your organization should always be on the look-out for great talent whether that talent is still in graduate school, in the military, working for competitors, or working outside the industry. Some of the best hires I’ve made over the years were executives that I spent months, and in some cases, years developing relationships with.
4. Identify Your Talent Scout: Look for and identify the person within your organization that has the best nose for talent. Regardless of what position this person holds, get them involved in the process. If you don’t have a natural talent scout internally, seek outside assistance in the form of a consultant. Don’t turn your talent scout into just another corporate bottleneck, rather give them leverage by having them collaborate with outside recruiters. Outsourced recruiting is very effective and affordable if managed properly.
5. Team Based Hiring: While I’m not generally in favor of management by committee, hiring based upon a team approach works very well. In a perfect world, a hiring team would consist of your HR manager (compliance), your internal and external talent scout (the gut-check), the direct supervisor over the position being hired for (competency, capability, and compatibility) and the senior executive who is the best at selling your organization (the closer). Hiring in a team based fashion eliminates many of the typical mistakes that can be made in the hiring process.
6. Values Based Hiring: You can either spend time finding employees who share your organization’s values, or deal with the brain damage of managing conflicts that arise due to opposing values. Smart companies focus on the former and not the latter. It simply isn’t necessary to compromise on core values to get talent. A new hire should desire to be part of your company for more than the ability to maximize immediate earning potential…they should be interested in your company because there is a sincere alignment of values and vision. Trust me when I tell you that compromises in this area which seem insignificant during the interview process will become visibly and materially significant down the road.
7. Hire Leaders: I have a basic premise when it comes to hiring – most companies get exactly what they deserve. When companies complain about a lack of leadership, or how difficult it is to identify leaders, my question is simply this: Why didn’t you hire a leader to begin with? Sure, leadership can be learned, but not everyone is willing to learn, and even if they are, education takes time and has a very real cost. Let me be clear, I’m not knocking leadership development initiatives – there is no perfect leader, and all leaders need to focus on development. What I am saying is that development of an existing leader is faster, easier, and more effective than creating a leader.
8. Cultural Fit: Culture matters – forget this and all other efforts with regard to talent initiatives will be dysfunctional, if not lost altogether. Don’t allow your culture to evolve be default, create it by design. The first step in cultural design is to be very, very careful who you let through the front door. People, their traits, attitudes, and work ethic (or lack thereof) are contagions. This can be positive or negative – the choice is yours. The old saying, “talent begets talent” is true.
9. Pay for Talent: I cannot even begin to count the number of times I’ve witnessed companies pass over the right hire, or worse yet, not even look for the right hire because they let self-imposed financial constraints serve as a barrier precluding sound decisioning. I’ve actually personally observed HR managers filter better qualified candidates because they were a few thousand dollars outside the “top-end” of the salary range. It is precisely this type of thinking that will keep a company from being competitive in the market. To put it bluntly, you get what you pay for…Real talent produces real results, and is worth the investment. Always hire up where possible…find the right talent and then do what it takes to secure the services of said talent. You cannot afford not to invest in talent.
10. Constantly Upgrade: You can hire the best talent in the world, but remember that “best” is a subjective evaluation largely measured within the context of a snapshot in time. Obsolescence can take root in anyone if growth and development are not focus points. Development needs to occur at every echelon of the workforce  - the top, middle, and bottom performance tiers. Top performers need to be stretched, mid-tier performers need to be challenged to up their game, and you should always look to upgrade the bottom 20% of your workforce. This can be done through training and development or via new hires. You need to ask yourself the following question: Who are the least productive members of your team? Why? Coach them to productivity or replace them – there is no third option.

Hiring is a blend of art and science. The reality is that those organizations that identify, recruit, deploy, develop and retain the best talent will be the companies who thrive in the market place. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback below…

Review any list of positive leadership traits and “passion” will undoubtedly rank near the top – rightly so. In most cases passion is an asset capable of carrying you through tough times, sharpening your perspective, revealing purpose, and helping you succeed in the face of overwhelming odds. You’ll find no shortage of content describing the positive attributes of passion, but few that examine the downside of passion, and trust me, there is a downside. On more than a few occasions I’ve witnessed passion run amok resulting in untold harm. Virtually any positive trait when taken to extremes, misunderstood and/or misapplied can quickly become a liability. So, in today’s post I’ll examine the downside of unbridled passion…

The word “passion” comes from the Latin root which quite literally means “to suffer.” Therefore it should come as no surprise that those who are passionate in their pursuits are often willing to make personal and professional sacrifices in order to reach their objectives that the unimpassioned simply won’t make. Channeled properly, this is a huge advantage. As a person who provides advice and counsel to leaders I can tell you I’ve rarely come across a successful person who hasn’t been truly passionate.

You’ll find no argument from me that passion can almost single-handedly propel leaders to new heights of success. History is littered with accounts of marginally talented individuals who have risen to greatness based upon little more than being passionate about the pursuit of their objective. Passion creates a “refuse to lose” mentality which can enable the average person to move outside comfort zones, take-on greater risk, go the extra mile, and achieve phenomenal results. However it’s important to note the same trait which can propel you to the top can also send you over the edge of a cliff. Passion is not aptitude, nor is it omnipotence, neither is it totally unique. These are nuances lost on many…

This is where things begin to get a little tricky – passion without perspective and/or reason can actually serve to distort one’s perception of reality. These distorted perceptions can quickly become a very slippery slope that will blur the lines between fact and fiction…very dangerous territory for any leader. Have you ever known someone who wanted something to be true so badly that they started to adopt positions and manufacture circumstances to support their own false reality? Just because you can convince yourself (or others) that your position is correct, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is…

Just as there exists a very fine line between brilliance and insanity, there also exists a fine line between passion and many negative traits such as narrow-mindedness, narcissism, fanaticism, delusion, and even paranoia. For instance, there is a big difference in a leader who is passionate about their business, and one that is emotionally over-invested in their business. Passion which is balanced by perspective and reason can reveal purpose, but passion absent those filters can just as easily impede purpose.

Healthy passion for one’s business actually brings focus and clarity of thought, which serve to accelerate growth and create sustainable success. However being emotionally over-invested in one’s business can lead to irrational decisioning, prideful or ego-driven actions, the use of flawed business logic, and poor execution. These are the regrettable and completely avoidable precursors to unnecessary loss and/or failure.

It is not at all uncommon for entrepreneurs and executives to be too close to the forest to see the trees. Passionate professionals thinking clearly will seek independent outside counsel and advice to continually gut-check and refine their thinking. Emotionally over-invested professionals will either avoid counsel or surround themselves with legions of yes-men. Another trait of healthy passionate thinking is to recruit tier-one talent at the executive leadership and senior management levels in order to stimulate innovation and thought growth. Effective leadership teams have a balance of left-brain and right-brain thinkers from a variety of backgrounds so that they can draw from the broadest possible array of experiences when formulating positions and options. Emotionally over-invested professionals tend to surround themselves with very small teams of like minded individuals from similar backgrounds who tend to reinforce each others thinking instead of challenging it.

I applaud those of you reading this post who constitute the passionate minority…I would however also counsel you to take pause and evaluate your current positioning and thinking. Are you operating in a vacuum? Do you seek advice and counsel from those who will tell you the truth, or from those who will just tell you what you want to hear? Is your passion creating clarity, focus and purpose, or is it blinding you from seeing the reality of your current situation?

As always, I welcome your thoughts, experiences and opinions and encourage you to comment below…