posted Feb 8, 2012 10:25 AM by Jacqueline Lara
[
updated Feb 8, 2012 10:27 AM
]
In business leadership circles ‘rank and yank’ is making a comeback. According to the Wall Street Journal, about 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies use a form of this system that ranks employee performance by levels, usually 1, 2, 3, although they often give it a more pleasant name such as talent assessment system or performance procedure. Other monikers are forced ranking or simply employee ranking. Former GE CEO Jack Welch championed ‘rank and yank’ in the mid 1980s as a way to jettison underperformers and leave only high achievers. It’s difficult for an employee to argue with metrics. Many contend that forced ranking is Draconian, demoralizes employees by turning them into a number and not a person. Some say it promotes backstabbing and can be used to promote favoritism. In an age when all of our kids receive trophies just for showing up to a game, a reality check on one’s performance is welcomed. It lets us know where we stand and what we need to improve.
Unfortunately, many companies use forced ranking solely as a way to get rid of their lowest performing workers especially in times of financial crisis. The system has all the markings of a legal maneuver rather than a way to improve an individual’s performance.
I am a proponent of ranking employees, but there needs to be some critical add-ons. I would like to see more companies employ ranking in a way that was implemented by a CEO friend who used it successfully at his company. His system is both ethical and fair. First, rankings should be done quarterly not annually. This fixes several problems. How many managers remember what an employee did six months ago? Also, some unscrupulous workers, especially those in sales, will underperform all year then put on a hard press during Q-4 in order to keep their jobs and ensure their year-end bonus. People and companies need continuous measurement and improvement.
Second, managers must think of employee rankings as a way to improve a company’s overall performance and not solely as a reason to toss people out of their jobs. Management must make an honest effort to coach those in the bottom level and show them how they can move up in rank. Too many managers let bad performers continue in their jobs, flailing and underachieving, just so they don’t have to confront them. As my friend notes: “This is very cruel to employees. You’re not doing them any favors by letting them stay in a job in which they can’t succeed. If a person can’t move up even after a good faith effort to coach them, then they need to be let go to find a job that is more suitable – one in which they can succeed and feel good about themselves.”
Bottom line: managers should look at employee ranking as a way to improve an individual’s professional growth and contribution to the company and not for any other reason.
The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering |
posted Jan 31, 2012 8:13 AM by Jacqueline Lara
[
updated Jan 31, 2012 8:22 AM
]
My friends know that I’m not a fan of reality TV shows so when my pal Alan told me to watch a new one called Lizard Lick Towing, I knew there had to be a reason. And there was.
The show features a repo/tow truck operator named Ron working out of Lizard Lick, North Carolina about 20 miles from Raleigh. He is aided by his wife Amy and a bulked-up friend named Bobby who has his back when times get tough. Let me cut to the chase: the show is so heavily scripted as to not have one iota of reality or truth. For example, in one episode an unhappy customer tears up the office after his vehicle is repossessed. Amy summons the police who, according to a yard surveillance camera, roll up to the office and just as quickly reverse out of the yard gate when she phones 911 again and rescinds her request for help after the unruly customer agrees to calm down. This breach of police procedure (a 911 calls always, always results in a knock on the door) has so enraged viewers who thought that the show was portraying real life that many have produced youtube videos pointing out why and how the show is fraudulent. These viewers are outraged at the obvious flim-flam.
Intellectuals among us offer a loud ‘tsk’ and say ‘of course it’s a phony. All of these so called reality shows are make believe.’ And, indeed, they are. Some are more set up than others but none of them, not a single one, portrays actual goings on accurately. Even benign cooking shows like Chopped and Iron Chef are scripted. I understand that this is entertainment, but many people believe these shows are real and that’s the problem. I won’t add my voice to those who list how detrimental these shows can be to viewers and those in the shows themselves. Others have done it so well pointing out that the shows have been directly or indirectly been the cause of suicides most recently the husband of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Taylor Armstrong, who killed himself almost on cue after the couple’s crumbling marriage was a plotline of the show. “This show has literally pushed us to the limit,” he had told People.
To me, the problems stem from reality show producers who have traded their ethics for cash. Whatever social value of such shows may once have existed has long past disappeared. It’s all about money and nothing else. Reality shows are extremely cheap to produce. All you need are some cameras, non-professional actors (read: low pay) and a modicum of a script. You don’t need sets or even wardrobe. You push these folks to their emotional stretching point, humiliation and confrontation help, and record what happens. It’s a simple recipe, and there’s little financial risk for producers. If a show doesn’t catch on, start another. Soon we’ll be seeing two new entries: Fat Chef and Doomsday Preppers.
I am not making these up.
I was one of the first to say that once these shows got out of hand, when someone was killed or injured, they would end. I was wrong. Almost a half dozen people have died directly because of these shows and many more viewers have been mentally or emotionally hurt because they believe these shows depict real life. These programs distort our moral compass, make us more aggressive, reinforce stereotypes, skew our expectations.. the list goes on.
All of us have a responsibility to understand how our jobs can affect others. Unfortunately, we’re also excellent at denying facts and throwing the responsibility to those who produce or consume our product. Hiding by free speech and legal disclaimers help assuage guilt.
Reality TV producers have a right to their livelihoods but not at the expense of others. They are no different than those who produce cigarettes, weapons or prescription medicines. With production comes responsibility and reality TV producers are hiding behind their cameras while people are suffering. Producers need to think about their actions more closely and realize the consequences. Lives depend on it.
The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering.
|
posted Jan 24, 2012 7:50 AM by Jacqueline Lara
Paula Deen’s admission that she suffers from Type 2 Diabetes should shock no one. Considering that her TV show features such delectables as Paula’s Brunch Burger which consists of a fried egg and bacon atop a burger served between glazed doughnuts instead of a bun, I’m surprised that she’s still alive. To me, however, Deen’s story also is about business and brand ethics and her breach of these tenets. Responses from viewers, reviewers, other chefs, and even her own TV colleagues, are all over the map. Some, like Anthony Bourdain call her the “worst, most dangerous person in America.” Others defend Deen. “She feels like she cooks for ‘real people,’ and for better or worse, that is how many people in this country choose to eat,” writes Virginia Willis, a food writer in Atlanta, Georgia.
People are angry with Deen on so many levels that it’s difficult to parse. Some chide her for keeping her diabetes a secret while promoting a cooking style that contributes to that illness. Others say she acted unethically by keeping her illness hidden while cutting a deal with an insulin maker. Still others say that she blatantly uses her celebrity status to promote poor diets in the name of wealth, (she makes about $10 million annually) and doesn’t care about any fallout. Another group of detractors are livid about her backpedaling strategy only now claiming that she has always preached moderation in eating her artery-clogging recipes.
Paula Deen has a powerful brand. She has a bully pulpit and a large audience who trust and believe in her. At the very least, she entices people on a regular basis to eat unhealthily. Even those who don’t particularly care for her demeanor, cuisine or flip attitude toward unhealthy food, were tempted by her congenial and friendly persona that celebrated excess. She snubbed her nose at organic foodies and encouraged butter and fat laden foods with an anti-intellectual and anti-science attitude of ‘what do nutritionists know?’
What many celebrities like Deen fail to understand is that they have pull with people and that means they also have a responsibility to act ethically, honestly and in the best interests of those who admire them.
I realize that this places a large – and some might say unfair -- onus on those in the limelight. I believe, however, that it comes with the job. It’s a de facto burden and those with followers should take it seriously. Is it realistic to think that all celebrities will be perfect role models? No, we’re all human and we make mistakes in judgment. Also, there are those celebs who claim that they owe their audiences nothing but a great performance. Their off-stage life is their own concern. This may be true for those stars who keep a low personal profile, but for those celebs who are out there every day, pushing a persona, a lifestyle, a brand, and a way of living like Paula Deen, they have an ethical responsibility to send a healthy, honest and positive message about how to live. (Take note, Charlie Sheen.)
Celebrities are selling products -- themselves. Like it or not Paula, your loyal fans –as misguided as they may be - believe what you say and do. You have done damage, and now it’s your job to fix it. The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering. |
posted Jan 24, 2012 7:13 AM by Jacqueline Lara
Those who work in social media (Uh, oh. That includes me.) are not as ethical as those who work in other areas, according to a recent survey by the Ethics Resource Center. The 2011 National Business Ethics Survey, a biannual study done since 1994, analyzed responses from 4,800 workers currently employed at least 20 hours per week by their primary employer. The Center found: “A surprising and worrisome divide exists within the workplace between employees who spend substantial time on social networks and those who do not. Active social networkers [workers who spent more than 30 percent of the workday on social media tasks] report far more negative experiences in their workplaces. As a group, they are much more likely to experience pressure to compromise ethics standards and to experience retaliation for reporting misconduct than co-workers who are less involved with social networking.”
The report noted that by 32 percentage points, active social networkers are much more likely to feel pressure [to act unethically] than less active networkers and non-networkers. They also report that 56 percent of active networkers who reported misconduct say they experienced retaliation as a result compared to 18 percent of less active social networkers and non-networkers.
Even more disturbing is this: “Active social networkers show a higher tolerance for certain activities that could be considered questionable. For example, among active social networkers, half feel it is acceptable to keep copies of confidential work documents in case they need them in their next job, compared to only 15 percent of their colleagues.”
So what’s the deal with social networkers? Why do they act less reputably than others?
The report doesn’t say why, but I know the reasons.
First, the pressure to produce material for the content abyss which is the internet is never ending. Producing quality content takes time and most social networkers are not given that time. It is similar to some traditional journalists who have begun cutting corners on professional standards to feed the insatiable 24-hour news cycle. Sadly, their employers would much rather have copy in on time than copy that is high quality and ethical.
Second, the world of social media is replete with what I call “personal nonsense media.” Case in point: Facebook. It’s overloaded with photos of people’s meals, their review of walking a block-and-a-half and ‘ humble bragging.’ In other words, the universe of social media has become banal with very few standouts worth my time and yours. Amid this morass, the content standard bar drops lower and many social media reflects that level. Content writers don’t feel the necessity to offer well-done content in a media that tends to equally value useless material.
Third, when social media workers do call attention to ethical lapses their employers retaliate against them which sends the tacit message: “You’re taking this too seriously. Forget it and move on.” Worker internalize this as: “If you don’t take my material seriously, boss, than why should I? It doesn’t really matter what I produce.”
I don’t see this changing any time soon. Instead of becoming more discerning we are changing our business and personal lives to accommodate more media including that which offers little intellectual nourishment. And, content provider companies are feeling more pressure to churn out internet fodder even if it’s of lower quality. This belief filters down to workers and around it goes.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I fear that we’re seeing Gresham’s Law applied to social media. Economist Sir Thomas Gresham - although he may not have been the first person to do so – postulated: “When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation.” It’s commonly put as: “bad money drives out good,” and it appears that bad social media is driving out good social media as long as we continue to value the poor quality.
The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering. |
posted Jan 10, 2012 6:41 AM by Jacqueline Lara
[
updated Jan 10, 2012 6:42 AM
]
How does a company that dominates an industry go from global leader to the first throes of bankruptcy? Actually, it was pretty easy for Kodak. All their leaders had to do was not pay attention to the rest of the world but instead focus on themselves. Goodbye... And here’s the kicker: Kodak produced the world’s first digital camera, (how many of you knew that?) but intentionally failed to focus on exploiting this now ubiquitous product because it would mean short-term discomfort. The news last week that Kodak was in the process of filing for bankruptcy wasn’t a shock to anyone who has been following the company for the past ten years. What took many people aback, though, was how blatantly the company’s leadership let down shareholders and employees. Kodak was one of the world’s first global companies – you couldn’t go anywhere in the world without seeing the iconic yellow and red signs – and a behemoth of American industry. It invented the world’s first easy-to-use camera, the Brownie, in 1900 which moved picture-taking out of the hands of professionals and gave it to anyone who could press a button. In 1929, it offered the first film with accompanying sound. In 1935, Kodak introduced Kodachrome, the first commercially successful film for amateurs. In 1963, the company brought out the Instamatic camera the first product line that offered easy picture-taking at a low price. The company’s demise began in 1975 when it invented the first digital camera but failed to take the lead in exploiting it because it would cannibalize its film business. Why didn’t they see that the future of snapshots didn’t include silver-halide film when everyone else did? Of course they saw it, but ignored the evidence because it would hurt their short and medium-term profits and take them in a foreign direction, a path without chemicals, which had been their comfort zone since 1888. Going digital would have meant scrapping their chemical expertise, which was world class, and enter the realm of computers, the internet and bits and bytes. They could have made the move because the company attracted the best engineering, marketing and sales people in the world. Some people now describe them as the Apple of Google of their time. Kodak attempted a small foray into digital photography with an attempt at building a website for people to upload and share photos in 1997 but it was too little and too late. Besides, anyone could do it. Instead, they saw their film business die and just watched the funeral pyre burn in slow motion. Indeed, they continued to make ridiculous choices when in 2005 their CEO Antonio Perez from Hewlett-Packard decided to enter the printer business, a commodity business in which margins are slim and in which they had little expertise. Why enter a business if you can’t bring something new to the table? If you haven’t yet figured out the lesson, here it is: Leadership means giving up short-term gains for long-term survival. It’s not an easy decision for CEOs as the stock price may degrade during the transition period and that often means lower pay and bonuses. On the other hand, being a leader means making choices that are best for the company and not its executives. The other takeaway is to accept change, company-shattering change, even if it makes you uncomfortable. How many leaders are willing to do these things?
The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering |
posted Jan 3, 2012 8:39 AM by Jacqueline Lara
I’ve been waiting almost a year to write this blog because I was holding off for a specific event to occur.
Now, it’s happened. You may recall that in February, two of Jeopardy!’s best players squared off against a computer named Watson developed by IBM. In a two-game, combined match tournament, Watson soundly beat both human contestants only stumbling a few times missing answers of very short clues. Watson was so fast with the signaling device that even when champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter new the questions, they weren’t fast enough.
At the time, there were all kinds of dire predictions about computers taking over sophisticated human functions. I didn’t fret too much about it because there were no real life applications – until now.
Recently, IBM and Wellpoint, the largest health plan company in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, announced that the two companies would use Watson’s ability to analyze huge amounts of data to help suggest treatment options and diagnosis to doctors. I’m not concerned that health care professionals will be using computers to help with diagnosis – this has been going on for years - but my concern is that a tool as powerful as Watson may eventually be relied on more and more by health care workers instead of combining their own knowledge with gut instinct, compassion and ethical considerations. This impetus to ‘computer efficiency’ would not necessarily come from doctors but from insurance carriers whose goal it is to lower health care costs sometimes to the detriment of patients’ well being.
IBM and Wellpoint have made it clear that Watson will not replace doctors and I believe them- for now - but there is no doubt that medical decision making is moving away from doctors and being put in the hands of insurance companies. Doctors rail against this every day. Anyone whose physician has had to fight for reimbursement for what the insurance carrier deemed an unneeded test has experienced this issue. Ditto for drugs that a doctor’s training believes is the right one for particular a patient but whose payment was denied by the insurance carrier.
Computers cannot learn ethics nor can they apply ethical tenets to patient. No matter how fast and accurate Watson produces a diagnosis decision tree, it lacks the human capacity to be caring and ethical. Certainly, computers can be programmed to obey laws but being ethical requires wisdom, experience and commonsense which computers lack.
My concern is that if Watson is successful in lowering medical costs, even if it’s done at the expense of patients’ health, it will become part of everyday medicine. From there, it is only a short jump to non-medical companies. What if an internet-based company, with few employees. were to have Watson make its decisions? What happens to their ethical concerns?
What if large companies were to use Watson to plot strategic moves – without an ethical component?
This all seemed far-fetched to me when I watched Watson trounce its human opponents almost a year ago. Now it’s not so futuristic.
The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering. |
posted Dec 22, 2011 7:22 AM by Jacqueline Lara
During an interview with the late Bill McGowan (for whom the McGowan Foundation is named) I asked him to respond to charges from MCI skeptics that he had filled his board of directors with cronies and ‘yes men.’ “Why would I want ‘yes men,’” he said, with a smile. “Sometimes I want people to tell me ‘no.’”
McGowan and other successful business leader understood that for companies to be effective, their leaders must know what’s going on in their company and that requires subordinates to tell them the truth –good and bad. This may be a leader’s most difficult interpersonal task but the stakes are too high – the company’s survival - not to be addressed.
Sim Sitkin, leadership professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, recently said: “I think the most fundamental reason that leaders fall from grace is that they lose a sense of themselves. They may get too caught up in the trappings of getting attention, being treated as special and maybe begin to believe their own press. The more important your role, the more inclined people are to tell you what they think you want to hear, rather than the truth.”
Companies’ track record on this is poor. According to a survey by the Corporate Executive Board, “Nearly half of executive teams lack information they need to manage effectively because employees withhold vital input out of fear the information will reflect poorly on them.” On the positive side, the survey of 30,000 employees noted: “…companies that break down two key barriers to honest feedback can deliver peer-beating shareholder returns by a substantial margin.”
What can CEOs and other leaders do to promote employees to speak truth to power? The Corporate Executive Board suggests two areas of improvement.
First, employees must perceive that managers want two-way dialogues. This pays dividends. “The survey found that companies rated by their employees in the top quartile in terms of openness of communication have delivered total shareholder returns (1998–2008) of 7.9% compared with 2.1% at other companies.”
Second, the survey showed, not surprisingly, that the fear of retaliation correlated with the willingness to speak up. This offers payback, too. “As with openness of communication, we found that companies that excel on this dimension also had materially lower levels of observed fraud and misconduct.”
These ideas must go further.
Employees must actually see it happen. They must witness for themselves or hear about an employee who tells the boss something he or she didn’t want to hear and not be punished. Even more important, they must see that the teller’s career wasn’t damaged or tainted by relaying the truth.
This is a subtle distinction because while whistleblowers are generally protected by law from being fired, any employee who speaks truth to power is often marginalized or thought of as a ‘negative Nellie’ and not a team player. Leaders must make sure these people are treated as valued employees.
In addition, employees must believe that leaders actually will consider their comments, that the boss actually hears what’s being said and will think about it. Some leaders have reputations of being stubborn, not willing to accept ideas outside of their belief system. Why would an employee tell the boss the truth under these conditions? Again, Sitkin notes: “As a leader, you need to actively create an environment where [employees will tell you the truth], because otherwise it's too easy to spend your time effectively looking in the mirror rather than through the glass to see the world and to see what's needed.”
Without honest ideas, opinions and input, leaders become isolated, out of touch and their companies die of their own weight.
The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering. |
posted Dec 19, 2011 7:45 AM by Jacqueline Lara
[
updated Dec 19, 2011 7:47 AM
]
You can tell great leaders by the apologies they offer. Johnson & Johnson is no stranger when it comes to saying ‘sorry.’ Witness the famous Extra-Strength Tylenol poisoning of 1982 when tablets were laced with potassium cyanide and placed back on shelves. Seven people died, through no fault of J&J, yet they took responsibility and removed all of the product from stores, ate the losses, did more than any company was legally obligated to do and received kudos for their behavior since then. (For you business history buffs, this was the start of ubiquitous tamper-proof packaging.) This may be the best corporate apology ever. This time, J&J has apologized for a shortage since 2009 of their popular OB Tampons. The shortage has been so acute that women were buying them on eBay for $100 a box, and offered passionate pleas on YouTube for more abundance. The reason for the product scarcity has remained unclear. The company said there was a ‘supply disruption,’ but some folks wonder if there was a quality control issue or manufacturing glitch. The tampons began appearing again in the spring but the Ultra version was still scarce until recently.
Now for the apology. Click here.
J&J is saying it’s sorry in a video which is cheesy, over-the-top and hysterical. Even if you don’t use the product, watch the video and be sure to put in your name at the beginning. I can’t give anything more away without ruining the fun. I defy you to keep a straight face especially when… well, the tattoo… my gosh, how do they do that?
Just like the Tylenol incident which has become a standard case study in B-Schools (I included it in my own book Say It and Live It.) this event will be studied as well because it goes against the conventional wisdom that says to never use humor in a apology. The danger of the joke fall flat can be devastating to a company’s reputation and brand. This time, however, humor works perfectly. Why? For one thing, nobody died. Second, it’s personalized in a way that seems downright magical. Third, the company makes fun of the shortfall in a way that is not mean spirited but jests, ever so slightly, at the personal affection and loyalty women feel for this product. J&J has found the perfect mix of ‘we’re truly sorry,’ and ‘gee, we didn’t realize how much you cared.’ They show that they appreciate the ardor women have for the product but also make a bit of fun at how overzealous this love can be. They’re also making light of romance novel and cheesy nighttime drama stereotypes. It’s a balance that is nearly impossible to pull off, but they did. The topper is that they offer a free coupon for the product at the video’s end. Nothing says sorry like free. I’m not saying that all apologies should be humorous, but they should be effective. If you can use humor, so much the better. Reed Hastings, et. al. take note. The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering. |
posted Dec 19, 2011 7:18 AM by Jacqueline Lara
In the movie American Psycho actor Christian Bale plays an up-and-coming corporate vice president who barbarically kills people in his off hours. Unbeknownst to his colleagues, this unremorseful psychopath exhibits the oft rewarded business traits of aggressiveness, ruthlessness and aloofness while in the corporate suite. He may be callous but he gets the job done especially when it comes to business card selection.
While the Patrick Bateman character is fiction, it may not be far from the truth, according to recent research into the psychology of CEOs who are responsible for bringing down the world’s financial system. One researcher, Clive Boddy, Professor of Marketing at Nottingham Business School in England, has been studying what he and others call Corporate Psychopaths well before the current global meltdown. They have found significant evidence that many of these business leaders may well be psychopaths whose behavior mimics serial killers and other social deviants but without the blood and gore.
He writes in the Journal of Business Ethics “In watching these events [the global financial meltdown] unfold it often appears that the senior directors involved walk away with a clean conscience and huge amounts of money. Further, they seem to be unaffected by the corporate collapses they have created. They present themselves as glibly unbothered by the chaos around them, unconcerned about those who have lost their jobs, savings, and investments, and as lacking any regrets about what they have done. They cheerfully lie about their involvement in events are very persuasive in blaming others for what has happened and have no doubts about their own continued worth and value… Many of these people display several of the characteristics of psychopaths and some of them are undoubtedly true psychopaths.” The thought of having these monsters running global companies is chilling but I bet that many readers have seen these kinds of people in action in their own companies. Before we get too far ahead, though, let’s define a psychopath. They are the 1 percent of people who have no conscience or empathy and don’t care for anyone but themselves. Some are violent and end up in prison, while others live among us often functioning at a high level. (I didn’t make up the 1 percent; it’s an accepted number in medical/criminal literature.) What causes the dysfunction is not entirely known, but the most current research suggests abnormal brain connectivity and chemistry in the areas of the amygdala and orbital/ventrolateral frontal cortex. These people are cold, calculating, self-absorbed and believe that social norms don’t apply to them. Researchers suggest that these folks are able to rise to the top of companies without being found out because of the chaotic nature of modern corporate structures - especially rapid position-hopping - which makes their behavior almost invisible. They are not in one job long enough for co-workers and superiors to see their problems. In addition, their charm, charisma, and extroverted behavior not only appears normal but ideally suited for today’s global, competitive world. Boddy also notes that in modern companies it’s relatively easier than in past years to claim success for a project even if you had little to do with it because of all the movement and team participation. “Success could thus be claimed by those with the loudest voice, the most influence and the best political skills. Corporate psychopaths have these skills in abundance and use them with ruthless and calculated efficiency,” he writes. Work in this area of psychology continues, and if nothing else it answers the question that many of us have pondered while watching financial leaders walk out of hearing rooms after explaining what happened. “How can they live with themselves?”
The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering.
|
posted Nov 29, 2011 7:10 AM by Jacqueline Lara
[
updated Nov 29, 2011 7:12 AM
]
Sprint CEO Dan Hesse is the company's
most effective salesperson When Netflix CEO Reed Hastings decided to change his company’s DVD and streaming offerings, he didn’t realize the pushback he would receive from investors, analysts and consumers. Among Hastings’ missteps was his failure to get buy-in from these constituents in addition to his management team. What Hastings apparently forgot is that being a CEO means being a salesperson -- selling a vision, ideas and a management style to those around you. I like the way Electronic Arts Chief Executive John Riccitiello described it in this Sunday’s New York Times.
He noted that being a leader means ‘painting a picture’ for everyone in a clear, genuine and consistent manner. “When you’re working on a business and it’s small, you’re a clear part of the equation yourself. When you get the scale, though, you’re mostly painting a picture for a lot of people for whom you’re just a concept, as opposed to a friend. So, you’ve got to find a way to be incredibly consistent, so when other people repeat the same thing it conjures up the same picture, the same vision for everyone else.”
When we look at the world’s most successful leaders they are not necessarily the smartest, most creative or dogged, but they are great communicators. Witness President Ronald Reagan. Even those who did not care for his politics admitted that he knew how to communicate his vision for America clearly, consistently and succinctly. This was his greatest strength. Steve Jobs was another example of a person who could communicate his vision to Apple employees who would follow him anywhere. Ditto GE's Jack Welch and Statbucks' Howard Schultz. Some of the most compelling commercials feature a company’s CEO looking into the camera and explaining why you should buy his products or services. Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca starred in one of the most successful TV ad campaigns ever. And, when a firm's sales team is trying to nail down the ‘big deal,’ the CEO is often brought in as the closer because clients appreciate negotiating with the company's top salesperson. Successful CEOs already know that they are salespeople but up-and-coming leaders need to prepare themselves for this role before they reach the top slot. If you don’t have the qualities inherent in a good salesperson, learn them or forget about being an effective leader. The William G. McGowan Charitable Fund provides grants in three program areas including Health care and Medical Research; Education, and Community Programs for Those Most Vulnerable. It gives priority to programs that have demonstrated success, measurable outcomes, have a plan for sustainability, and aim to end cycles of poverty and suffering. |
|
