By Bill Catlette and Richard Hadden
A belated but heartfelt Happy New Year.
While some are in the midst of trying out some new
outlooks and behaviors in this brand spanking new
year, we'd like to hearken back to a subject that has
visited these pages before - the topic of managers
who can't or won't measure up as leaders. In so
doing, it is our hope that our readers, all 5143 of you,
will get serious about seeing to it that every soul
placed into a leadership position in your organization
has the tools, skills, character, and proclivity to lead
others. That's a resolution we can get excited
about.
We have consistently encouraged leaders to maintain
the highest standards of conduct and performance
for everyone on the payroll. Successful organizations
don't suffer slackers, and they're careful not to put
people in positions they're not suited for. And that
certainly includes managers who can't lead and
inspire people to perform.
We think this would be a good time for a sober
assessment of the process used at your place to
identify, select, and train new leaders. Are you
identifying people who have demonstrated both
leadership and technical job skills, or just the latter?
Are you identifying folks who really (REALLY) want to
take on a leadership burden that can be difficult,
lonely, and at times unpleasant, or those who merely
want to make a little more money (with emphasis on
the 'little')?
Does your selection process exclude those who, by
virtue of character or reputation, simply cannot
attract motivated followers in your organization?
Does that process somehow capture and meaningfully
use the opinions of the candidate's peers? If not,
why not?
Once selected, how is the person prepared prior to
assuming their new duties? Please don't tell us you
rely on the Donald Trump school of management
development (e.g., lock everybody in the
cafeteria, 'er boardroom, initiate a food fight, and see
who emerges.)
Seriously, are you devoting the time, attention, and
resource to ensure that newly appointed leaders
have a fighting chance of succeeding? What steps
are you taking to provide them much needed
coaching during their initial weeks and months in the
position? Are you setting reasonable goals and
observing/evaluating performance in a timely
manner? Perhaps most importantly, are you, as a
leader, setting the kind of example you expect this
person to follow?
If a bona fide non-leader has somehow been placed
in a leadership position, and reasonable amounts of
training, support, and encouragement don't seem to
be helping (quite often they won't, because things
like courage, honesty, and humility can't be easily
taught to adults), the individual should be
encouraged to pursue other opportunities more suited
to their abilities. In other words, move them out. Do
it humanely, but do it.
If this sounds harsh, or perhaps inconsistent with this
column's central purpose of creating a great place to
work, think again. There are few job conditions more
miserable than working under the direction of an inept
or uncaring leader. Moreover, the real purpose of all
this is NOT to create a 'happy-happy atmosphere' but
to generate better business outcomes through the
efforts of a focused, fired up, capably led
workforce.
Who among us would keep seeing a dentist who was
lousy at administering anesthesia? Or would continue
to employ a chef who, despite training and
encouragement, never developed the ability to cook?
Or a web designer who couldn't master html? So why,
then, do so many of us tolerate people in
management positions who have demonstrated a
remarkable ineptness for managing people?
A strange and curious pattern has developed in many
organizations whereby we:
1. Promote someone who is good at what they do to
a position of leadership, without regard for their
ability to perform in a leadership capacity, or even
their desire to do so.
2. Evaluate them primarily on their ability to
episodically generate short-term results, and only
secondarily, if at all, on their ability to lead people
(which is ostensibly why that management position
exists in the first place.)
3. If it becomes apparent that they have failed in
their leadership role, continue to tolerate (and in
many cases, promote) them despite demonstrated
incompetence in a fundamental function of the
role.
And we wonder why one of the chief complaints in
employee opinion surveys is expressed as "Lack of
management credibility."
In addition to a handful of character traits, leadership
hinges on at least three broadly defined critical
success factors: 1) the ability to get people
Committed to the organization's core purpose and
destination; 2) Enabling others, through tools,
training, and systems, to do their best work, and 3)
Caring about those they lead, as real, pulsating
people, with real needs, feelings, and contributions to
make.
Some of the most successful organizations on the
planet know that being an effective people leader is a
requirement - not a preference - of a manager's job.
They've made these skills an absolute condition of
employment for everyone in a management position,
from first-line supervisor to CEO.
GE, under legendary leader Jack Welch, came down
clearly on the side of leadership when it determined
that those managers who failed to embrace the
company's value of strong leadership skills would be
required to change or leave. Simple as that.
Referring to his own company's managers in Fortune
magazine (3/7/05), Dell Chairman Michael Dell said, "If
you're a manager who is not addressing employee
issues, you're not going to get promoted... or get
compensation. And, if you consistently score in the
bottom rungs of the surveys, we're going to look at
you and say, maybe this isn't the right job for
you."
We've observed, as have you probably, many
organizations that appear to turn a blind eye to
struggling or misplaced leaders they have put in
positions of authority. Some of these managers are
helpless, clueless, and deserving of pity. Others are
abusive, insensitive, self-absorbed, pompous, callous,
uncaring, weak kneed, in over their heads, and not
possessed of particularly good judgment. Some of
them are just not very nice people. The high-falutin'
technical term for a person who possesses three or
more of the aforementioned attributes is "jerk", and
let's face it, we've got some of them. And jerks just
don't make good leaders. As one of our favorite
leaders, Gen. Melvin Zais put it, they are, "a little
person with a little job and a big head."
One company we worked with had a senior manager,
a guy named Mark, who, despite formidable technical
knowledge and skills, had managed to alienate just
about everyone on his team over the course of the
year or two he'd been in his position. He was brilliant,
but a lousy boss and an even lousier leader.
The CEO, a fellow who regularly espoused strong
leadership values, defended Mark's "numbers" and
denied the negative impact he was having on the
workforce. What started as an outward trickle of
talent from his team soon developed into a
hemorrhage. His employee survey scores were eye-
poppingly low. Still, the CEO did nothing, until poor
morale caused a costly project failure. Mark hung on
for two more years (!!!), while the CEO kept hoping
for improvement. When the inevitable separation
happened, it was ugly, expensive, and several years
too late.
Got a manager in your outfit who's not fit to lead?
Get them help, support, and training. Be bone honest
with them, and give them a reasonable amount of
time to come up to speed. If they can't, or won't, do
the right thing, before your best talent walks - to
your most formidable competition.
