Project Management Podcast

Andy Kaufman interviewed me recently for his terrific People and Projects Podcast series.   Andy's expertise lies in the field of project management.  His blog has a wealth of resources for managers responsible for managing complex projects in a variety of fields.   To access the podcast, please click here.  I hope you enjoy it. 

Read More

Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer

Here's a fun video that we produced to introduce readers to the new edition of my book, Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer.   Enjoy!

Read More

Employee Recognition: The Yum Brands Way

Fortune has a feature article this week about David Novak, the CEO of Yum Brands.  The article focuses on the leadership development efforts at Yum Brands, with a specific emphasis on the employee recognition program at the firm.  Yum Brands has a lot of fun with employee recognition, but they also take it very seriously.  They know that it's vitally important, and they stress the need for leaders at all levels to recognize the contributions of key employees.  However, they also do it with a smile and a joke - they have fun with it.   Here's an excerpt from the article:

As in all things, the way it's done makes all the difference. Every company offers recognition -- a trophy, a plaque, a ceremonial dinner. It typically accomplishes little, for two big reasons: It happens long after the performance that's being recognized, and it's impersonal. The Yum version is the opposite. Faster is better. "You go into a meeting, and somebody blows you away by something," Novak says. "You get up, go back to your office, get your Yum award out, and you go back and say, 'God, that's so great.' Boom! You give him a recognition award. That's the best recognition of all."

And it must be personal. Every Yum acknowledgement -- a rubber chicken, a cheesehead (used at Pizza Hut), a roof tile -- can be written on, and it must carry a handwritten message. "You want to give away a piece of yourself," says Novak. 

These two attributes are so crucial: it must be immediate and personal.   I would add a third criteria.  Recognition must be about behavior, not just results.  You have to identify the key behaviors that you want to reinforce, and you must recognize the individuals who engage in these activities.  People must understand what you think is important for achieving the broader objectives of the organization.  Moreover, they must know that you not only care about achieving the desired results; you also care about how people about achieving those goals.   

Read More

The Protege Effect

Fast Company's Drake Baer has a new column titled, "Why Teaching Makes You Smarter."   In the article, he draws upon a terrific blog post by Annie Murphy Paul about how people learn.  Paul writes about the so-called "protege effect" that has been discovered by teaching and learning researchers:

Students enlisted to tutor others, these researchers have found, work harder to understand the material, recall it more accurately and apply it more effectively. In a phenomenon that scientists have dubbed “the protégé effect,” student teachers score higher on tests than pupils who are learning only for their own sake. But how can children, still learning themselves, teach others? One answer: They can tutor younger kids. The benefits of this practice were indicated by a pair of articles published in 2007 in the journals Science and Intelligence. The studies concluded that first-born children are more intelligent than their later-born brothers and sisters and suggested that their higher IQs result from the time they spend showing their younger siblings the ropes.

Are there lessons here for business leaders?  Absolutely!   Mentoring, apprenticeship, and succession processes all involve the transmission of knowledge from expert to protege.  Most of the attention often focuses on the benefits to the recipient of this new knowledge.  This research demonstrates that a great deal of benefit exists for the expert as well.  They develop a better understanding of how to do their work by showing others the ropes.  I would argue that they can even become better leaders by reflecting on how they do their work, and helping to groom young future leaders of their organizations. 

Read More

Fox Business News Segment About My Research

Organizational psychologist, Michael "Dr. Woody" Woodward talked extensively about my work during this segment on the "Career Accelerators" show on Fox Business.   Here is the link at which you can view the segment. 

Read More

Do You Wear Rose-Colored Glasses?

NYU Professor Nathan Pettit and LBS Professor Nino Sivanathan have written a new research paper titled, "The Eyes and Ears of Status: How Status Colors Perceptual Judgment.”  They conducted a series of experiments examining how a person's status affects his or her perceives feedback from others.    The studies show that people of high status felt that people were applauding louder and responding more favorably to them than those of lower status.  For instance, in one study, one half of the audience members exhibited favorable facial expressions, while the other half reacted negatively.  However, the high status presenters perceived that almost two-thirds of the audience members were reacted positively to their presentation.  

I'm sure you are not surprised by these results, but they do offer an important reminder to leaders of organizations.  Leaders need to be mindful that they often underestimate the negative reaction to their decisions, presentations, and other interactions with members of the organization.  Therefore, leaders need to take a second look at how people are receiving their messages.  Perhaps they should use a sounding board, a confidante, who can help check the pulse of the organization.  Sometimes, they might check in with small groups of people in an informal way to see how they are really feeling about a new plan or proposal.   At the extreme, on certain occasions, it's useful to watch yourself on video.  On many occasions, a leader's speech is captured on video to put on a company intranet or share with remote geographical locations.  An astute leader takes the opportunity, on from time to time, to take a look at himself or herself on video.   Watching themselves can be incredibly revealing.  They often will see things that they never realized. 

Read More

Lululemon: How Much "Discretion" Should a CEO Exercise?

This week Lululemon CEO Christine Day announced that she would be stepping down.   Her resignation comes just three months after the substantial product recall of yoga pants that led to the departure of the firm's Chief Product Officer.   On the day of Day's surprising announcement, Lululemon shares fell 17%.  Investors wondered if other bad news might be coming from the company that has been a terrific growth story over the past several years.  Day chose not to discuss the detailed reasons for her departure.  She told Fortune, "There is no difference in strategic vision for the company, we were and are aligned... My values include discretion. While I know everyone would like to know 'the reason' [I'm leaving] there are some things that should remain private because the truth is the good things outweighed the bad and by being respectful and grateful one can remember that."  

I find this incident very interesting.  It raises some difficult questions regarding the responsibilities of a public company CEO.   While I respect Day's right to privacy, I can't help but look at that stunning 17% drop in the firm's shares.  Do the shareholders deserve more information?  Does Day have a responsibility to disclose more information about her departure so as to prevent such a drop in the firm's shares?   It's hard to say, of course, given that we don't know the reasons.   However, it seems clear that investors were spooked by the surprise departure.   Investors simply do not like being left in the dark. 

Read More

Do you care? How to increase employee engagement

In this Fast Company interview, Gallup's Jim Harter comments on the sad state of employee engagement in American corporations.  According to Gallup's research, only 30% of the U.S. population is engaged in the workplace, i.e. deeply committed to their jobs.  52% of the employee population is disengaged, and 18% is actively disengaged, meaning that they are "actively against what the organization, and their boss, is trying to get done."  Those statistics are rather alarming. Some companies, of course, have begun to focus intensively on employee engagement over the last decade.  Harter comments on what leaders need to do to increase employee engagement:

So, what are the qualities of leaders that businesses must now be seeking? According to Harter, it begins with a combination of being results oriented and authentically concerned about the development of every worker. “Some people are better at getting results and some are better at developing. But, we’ve found both are equally important.”  Harter describes the most effective managers as being deeply caring--and capable of seeing, supporting, and adjusting to the differences in people. “They help people build jobs that fit them as an individual person, while still helping them get to the outcome they need from an organization perspective.”

Authentically concerned - it's such a simple, yet powerful idea.  Think about what makes great professors or teachers.  Beyond simply knowing the material or being able to explain concepts clearly, great teaching is about showing students that you care.  My colleague, Jane McKay-Nesbitt, has this great saying about teaching: "They must know that you care before they will care what you know."  The same principle holds true for leaders.  People will not follow you if they do not believe you care about their well-being and development.  Engagement starts with authentic concern. 

Read More

How Should You Balance Your View vs. Your Team's Perspectives on a Key Decision?

Leadership coach and blogger Julie Pierce has an interesting blog post on the question of how leaders should balance the desire to solicit input from their team with the desire to make the call based on their convictions?  She offers three tips:

1. Be clear on who is making the final decision.

2. Be specific on what kind of input you need from the team.

3. Be selective with your “no”. 

First, you need to be clear whether you are making this decision on your own vs. facilitating a highly collaborative process in search of consensus.  Second, you need to be clear about the type of feedback and advice you want from your team. Do you want them to generate options, critique a proposal, explain potential obstacles during implementation, etc.?   Finally, be judicious with your vetoes.  Exercising veto power over the team if all members feel strongly something is never easy.  If the stakes are small, consider acquiescing and holding onto that veto for a bigger issue. 

Read More

Leaders, Listen First!

Here's some great advice for leaders from Deborah Triant, CEO and President of Check Point Software Technologies.  She tells Fast Company:

Making and implementing decisions boils down to a key ingredient: listening. I often wonder why schools emphasize debating. Why not have listening classes as well? Debating is easy; listening with an open mind is not. The worst thing that you as a leader can do in the decision-making process is to voice your opinion before anyone else can. No matter how open and honest your people are, stating your opinion first will short-change the discussion process and taint what you hear later. I've learned this the hard way.

I agree with Triant.  In my work, I have argued that leaders who state their positions firmly at the outset of a decision-making process can affect their teams adversely in three different ways. 

1. Decision Framing Effect:   You may trap your team into one way (your way) of thinking about a problem or issue.
2.  Conformity Effect:  You may discourage those team members with a dissenting view from expressing their ideas, options, or feedback. 
3. Legitimacy Effect:  You may create the impression that the decision has already been made, that the process of consultation is simply a facade since the choice is a fait accompli.

Read More

Bill Marriott Jr. on the Lesson He Learned from Ike

In this week's New York Times Corner Office column, Adam Bryant interviews Bill Marriott Jr., Executive Chairman and former CEO of Marriott International.   The hotel company's longtime leader and founder's son offered this interesting anecdote about a time when he met President Dwight Eisenhower. 

In 1954, I had just finished Supply Corps School and came home for Christmas to our farm in Virginia. Dad’s best friend at the time was Ezra Taft Benson, who was secretary of agriculture and later became president of the L.D.S. church [Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]. And he invited Ike and Mamie Eisenhower. So here’s the president and the secretary of agriculture, here’s my father, and here I am. They wanted to take Ike to shoot some quail, but it was cold and the wind was blowing like crazy. My dad said, “Should we go and shoot quail or should we stand by the fire?”And Eisenhower turned around and looked at me and he said, “What do you think we should do?”  That made me realize how he got along with de Gaulle, Churchill, Roosevelt and others — by including them in the decision and asking them what they thought. So I tried to adopt that style of management as I progressed in life, by asking my people, “What do you think?” Now, I didn’t always go with what they thought. But I felt that if I included them in the decision-making process, and asked them what they thought, and I listened to what they had to say and considered it, they usually got on board because they knew they’d been respected and heard, even if I went in a different direction than what they were recommending. 

I found the anecdote fascinating, because it confirms my conclusions about Eisenhower as a decision-maker.  In Chapter 9 of Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer, I examine Eisenhower's leadership during the months leading up to the D-Day invasion.    Here is an excerpt:

General Dwight Eisenhower commanded one of the most powerful military forces ever assembled in human history during World War II.   Under his skilled leadership, the Allied Forces stormed the beaches of France, defeated Hitler’s army, and liberated Europe.  Several years later, the American people elected the popular war hero as their President.   Naturally, not everyone believed that the retired general would make a smooth transition to the Oval Office.  During Harry Truman’s final months in the White House, he reflected on the challenges awaiting his successor: “He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen.  Poor Ike – it won’t be a bit like the Army.  He’ll find it very frustrating.”[i]  

Truman spoke from experience.  Getting his ideas and decisions implemented had been a formidable challenge at times.  The obstacles did not always prove to be his opponents in Congress; at times, Truman encountered resistance from members of his own administration.[ii]  Political scientist Richard Neustadt, who worked for Truman and several other chief executives, once observed, “The President of the United States has an extraordinary range of formal powers… despite his ‘powers’ he does not obtain results by giving orders – or not, any rate, merely by giving orders.”[iii]   Even the leader of the free world needs to build commitment and shared understanding if he wants his decisions to be executed in a timely and efficient manner.    

As it turns out, Eisenhower could not simply issue dictums from on high, even as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in World War II.[iv]   He needed to hold a complicated alliance together and balance the competing demands of many strong-willed individuals on both sides of the Atlantic including the two heads of state, Churchill and Roosevelt; each nation’s military chief of staff, Marshall and Brooke; and powerful field commanders such as Montgomery, Patton, Tedder, and Spaatz.   Historian Stephen Ambrose has pointed out that Eisenhower’s diplomatic skills often proved to be more important than his strategy-making prowess.  He observed:

“Although none of his immediate superiors or subordinates seemed to realize it, Eisenhower could not afford to be a table-thumper.  With Montgomery’s prestige, power, and personality, for example, had Eisenhower stormed into his headquarters, banged his fist on the table, and shouted out a series of demands, his actions could have been disastrous.”[v] 

 

Eisenhower learned the importance of persuasion from one of his mentors, Brigadier General Fox Conner.  Eisenhower served on Conner’s staff in the Panama Canal Zone during the early 1920s.  Conner shared stories and lessons about his time on General Pershing’s staff during World War I.  He made the young Eisenhower study history extensively.  Eisenhower explained what he learned: 

 

“He laid great stress in his instruction to me on what he called the ‘art of persuasion.’  Since no foreigner could be given outright administrative command of troops of another nation, they would have to be coordinated very closely, and this needed persuasion.  He would get out a book of applied psychology and we would talk it over.  How do you get allies of different nations to march and think as a nation?  There is no question of his molding my thinking on this from the time I was thirty-one.”[vi]  

As Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force many years later, Eisenhower indeed proved quite adept at bringing people together and finding common ground. The enemy too recognized Eisenhower’s strengths as a leader; the Germans once wrote that, “His strongest point is said to be an ability for adjusting personalities to one another and smoothing over opposite viewpoints.”[vii] Consider how Eisenhower chose the D-Day invasion strategy amidst much contentious debate among the heads of state and military commanders.  He built commitment to the final plan by leading a fair and legitimate decision process.   During often heated deliberations, Ambrose points out that Eisenhower “acted as chairman, listening judiciously to both sides, then making the final decision.”[viii]   He insured that everyone “received a fair hearing.”[ix]  Moreover, “his basic method was to approach all problems objectively himself, and to convince others that he was objective.”[x]  

---

[i] R. Neustadt. (1980). Presidential power. New York: John Wiley and Sons. p. 9. 

[ii]Reflecting on the inefficiencies of decision-making within the U.S. government, Truman once said, “When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship." 
[iii]Neustadt, (1980). p. 10. 
[iv] This discussion of the decision-making process leading up to the D-Day invasion draws from historian Stephen Ambrose’s book on Eisenhower’s war years.  See S. Ambrose. (1970). The supreme commander: The war years of Dwight D. Eisenhower. New York: Doubleday.  For instructors wishing to teach about Eisenhower’s approach to planning the D-Day invasion, they might consider asking students to view a film about the decision-making process that the general led during the first half of 1944.  See R. Harmon. (2004). Ike: Countdown to D Day. Columbia Tristar.
[v] Ambrose, (1970). p. 323.   
[vi]Jean Edward Smith. Eisenhower in War and Peace.  2012.  New York: Random House. pg. 66.  
[vi]Ambrose, (1970). p. 324. 
[viii]Ambrose, (1970). p. 371. 
[ix]Ambrose, (1970). p. 373. 
[x]Ambrose, (1970). p. 664.

Read More

Leadership Development Technique: Board Interaction

Adam Bryant recently interviewed Ilene Gordon, CEO of Ingredion, for his New York Times "Corner Office" column (an excellent weekly feature).   Gordon explained one technique she has used to further the development of young emerging leaders in her organization:

I use one dinner a year with my board to bring in young, high-potential managers. We have everybody give an “elevator speech.” You have three minutes to tell the board and other people in the room where you came from, the challenges you’re facing and how you’re trying to create value for the company. Everybody might want to take 15 minutes, but you have to be succinct.  This is part of what we’re looking for in people who have potential; it’s all about communication. What are the challenges you have, and you have three minutes to explain them, because there are 40 of you and we’re going to be here all night otherwise. And if you take somebody else’s time, that’s not respectful. It’s all about being succinct and articulate. 

Why do I like this technique?  First, it provides the board an opportunity to interact with people who may become senior leaders in the organization in the future.  They can begin to develop a relationship with these individuals.  Second, it challenges these young leaders' communication capabilities.  Can they be succinct, interesting, and engaging?   Can they create a powerful conversation based on their three minutes of remarks?  Third, it fosters the establishment potentially of some key mentoring relationships.   Not only may the young leaders gather advice and counsel from board members, but the board members may learn a great deal by hearing from young people who come from a different generation and may be more similar to the firm's actual core consumers.   Fourth, the invitation to present, in and of itself, offers a wonderful reward and recognition for these high performers.   Yes, they would love to be paid well.  However, these folks also care about their future career path.  Having this opportunity certainly will be welcomed and may help retain top young talent.  Finally, the board hears from voices other than senior managers about what is going on at the company. That can be important.  Senior managers naturally filter information as they present updates to the board.  Senior executives present information through their lens and perspective.  Having a different voice and perspective talk to the board can be helpful. 

Read More

Do You Have a Mistake Diary?

The Wall Street Journal reports on an interesting new leadership phenomenon.  According to this article by
Rachel Silverman, "Some self-aware managers are trying out “mistake diaries” or “failure reports” to help minimize the chances that a problem happens twice – and to help foster an environment where it’s OK to try and fail."  

Silverman describes the efforts of Meebo co-founder Elaine Wherry, who has kept a mistake diary for a number of years.   Silverman writes that, "Using a series of sketchbooks, she started taking notes and making drawings to record her mistakes – such as time-management problems and hyper-perfectionism — as a personal way to remember them."   Wherry has even shared her "most common blunders" with her staff, since she noticed many young new employees making many of the mistakes that she had made earlier in her career.  (Take a look at a video created by Elaine Wherry by clicking here). 

Everyone should note the importance of reflection as a tool for improving as a leader.   We can't just focus on what's next, on the newest pressing problem.  We have to find a way to carve out some time for reflection if we are to improve and develop.   Of course, finding that time can be difficult in hectic schedules that many leaders keep.  So, before thinking about crafting a mistake diary, you have to take a hard look at your schedule.  Blocking out some time for reflection is hard, but necessary, if we are to identify and learn from our mistakes. 

Read More

Abraham Lincoln: Leadership Lessons

Today we celebrate President Abraham Lincoln's birthday.    In honor of the great 19th century leader, I thought that I would take a look at one important leadership lesson pertaining to him.    Doris Kearns Goodwin spoke to Harvard Business Review several years ago about her research on Lincoln.  She talked specifically about how he made the decision regarding the Emancipation Proclamation:

For example, for months Lincoln let his cabinet debate about if and when slavery should be abolished. Finally, though, he made up his mind to issue his historic Emancipation Proclamation to free the slaves. He brought the cabinet together and told them he no longer needed their thoughts on the main issue—but that he would listen to their suggestions about how best to implement his decision and its timing. So even though some members still did not support Lincoln’s decision, they felt they’d been heard. And they had been. When one cabinet member suggested that Lincoln wait for a victory on the field to issue the proclamation, Lincoln took his advice.

I take two key lessons away from this example.  First, Lincoln appears to have led a decision-making process that most advisers felt was fair, i.e. he not only gave them voice, but made them feel that their views had been considered genuinely and thoughtfully.   Second, Lincoln still gave them room to have input after he had made the final decision.  However, he didn't give them an opportunity to undo the decision or revisit the choice.  Instead, he brought them back into a dialogue about how to best implement his decision.  It turns out that they had a good suggestion regarding the relationship between his political move and a battlefield victory in the late stages of the Civil War.   Many leaders could use the time of announcing a decision to pivot the conversation with their team, away from WHETHER to do something to the issue of HOW to do it.  In that way, you can give them voice once again, and you can make others truly own the implementation process.  

Read More

Lessons from the Columbia Accident

10 years ago tomorrow (February 1st, 2003), the Columbia shuttle accident occurred.  After the tragedy occurred, my colleagues and I embarked upon a lengthy research project culminating in the creation of an award-winning multi-media case study, a book chapter, a Harvard Business Review article, and other materials.  What lessons did we derive from this tragedy?

1.   NASA had a culture in which many people did not feel safe speaking up.  As a result, people downplayed their concerns about the foam strike, rather than sharing them openly.   Leaders did not do enough to cultivate dialogue and dissent.  They tended to be very passive, assuming that bad news would surface on its own.  It rarely does.  Leaders need to draw out the bad news, as it does not usually rise to the top.  

2.  Framing the shuttle program, from the very beginning in the 1970s, as a routine, operational endeavor turned out to have long-lasting detrimental effects.   The shuttle program should have been framed as an experimental initiative.  Promising dozens of flights per year, naming the vehicle a "shuttle" and describing space travel as "routinized" pushed the organization away from its roots during Mercury and Apollo as a laboratory of exploration.   The adoption of the production/routine mindset contributed to an obsession with schedules and deadlines, the creation of rigid organizational processes and protocols, and an insufficient emphasis on the imperfect state of knowledge in the organization. In short, it meant that the organization did not have a sufficient learning orientation. 

3.  Managers at NASA exhibited what Rebecca Wohlstetter has described as a "stubborn attachment to existing beliefs."  They had become convinced that foam strikes could not damage the shuttle.   The confirmation bias exacerbated the problem.   They tended to look for data that confirmed this pre-existing belief, and they discounted signs that contradicted the conventional wisdom about foam. 

Read More

Asking Better Questions

Shane Snow wrote a good column recently on the importance of asking good questions.  He argues that asking good questions serves as a crucial leadership capability that people should develop.   Snow makes some good recommendations, such as trying to not ask leading questions, reframing questions later in a conversation when you haven't received a complete response, and replaying what you have heard to insure that you have a solid understanding.  

I would make a few additional points.  A good leader also asks questions that explore a topic a bit deeper, even when they appear to have a consensus in a meeting.  A good leader uses those questions to accomplish two things:  1.  Test what-if scenarios, and 2.  Test for understanding and alignment.   With regard to the first point, leaders want to make sure that they uncover any hidden risks.  They might ask: "What if some of our assumptions prove to be untrue?"  "What if our competitor responds in an unexpected way?"   With regard to the second point, a leader needs to make sure that a team is truly on the same page, and that everyone shares a solid understanding of a decision rationale, as well as each person's role and responsibilities during implementation.  Asking good questions can help reveal whether people are truly on the same page before moving forward with execution of a plan of action. 

Read More