In 1952, two brothers, Pat and Bud Roche, opened a meat and produce market in Boston’s Roslindale neighborhood. Their business plan was simple: sell the highest-quality meat and produce while providing the highest-quality customer service.
Forty-six years later, Pat and Bud turned their company over to their children. In the intervening years, they had built their one meat shop into over a dozen full-size, upscale supermarkets in some of Boston’s toniest suburbs. Today, there are eighteen Roche Bros. and Sudbury Farms grocery stores, all still family-owned. The firm’s sales exceed a half-billion dollars a year.
The company has stuck to its original mission all this time. Roche Bros. is renowned throughout Boston’s Metro West and South Shore for the high quality of its meats and produce. It is legendary for its customer service.
Roche Bros. is an icon. Its customers actually brag about how well their store treats them. This may sound trite, but it is absolutely the case: you can’t buy such fiercely-loyal customers, not at any price.
Jane worked for this company as a manager for 16 years. I rely heavily on the lessons she taught me about the Roche brand of customer service for my two books (the second co-written by her). Our close friend Joe Curtin, Director of Recruitment, Training and Development, has taught me more invaluable lessons about spoiling one's customers rotten. Roche war stories pepper my customer service presentations to business owners and top executives nation-wide.
Roche Bros. was one of Coiné Language School’s first and biggest clients for workforce training; when Five-Star Customer Service hit bookstores, Roche’s invited me to give eight presentations to a hand-picked cadre of rising management stars. The student had become the master, I am proud to say.
Indeed, my second book, Spoil 'Em Rotten! is a parable that takes place in a grocery store. While that store is modeled more closely after Wegmans supermarkets, the two companies share an awful lot in common, including friendship between the families.
I will not tell you that Roche Bros. is a perfect company, a testament of all that is right with American Business today. It is not, and I would not insult you with the suggestion. I don’t think such a company exists in any event.
What I will tell you is, it amazes me whenever I find a company that can take $8/hour workers, including high school kids and recent immigrants, and teach them to give $500/hour service. Roche Bros. is one such company. If you want their reputation or a part of their success, your company should emulate their customer service practices and the spirit that underlies them.
How does Roche Bros – or any company – do it?
Culture. That touchy-feely, impossible-to-measure bane of self-described hard-nosed business “leaders.”
How do you create and maintain a culture of service? If Roche Bros. can do it with their legions of front-line workers, so can you. Either you’re hiring from the same shallow end of the talent pool as they are, or else you’re starting in an even better position than Roche Bros. is.
…Let me repeat that: if they can do it at their supermarket, why can’t you?
You can.
I’ll see you back here soon for the ten “Golden Principles” that lie at the heart of Roche Bros. unrivalled reputation for service excellence. Pay special attention to number 8.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
A Question of Character
Situation: The economy is in turmoil, your region is suffering more than most, your industry in particular is in danger of extinction, and your parent company is putting divisions up for sale just to stay in business.
Drastic times call for drastic action, and this is a “right now; today” problem. You have to lay off a significant portion of your staff, and that’s that. After the dust settles, you can start to sort out the strategic mistakes that ever brought you to this point in the first place.
Question: How do you go about those layoffs?
One local company’s answer (and I wish I were making this up): You assign a letter to each and every member of your staff, A, B, or C. You explain that the mystery of this “code” will all be cleared up in a few days. You rent conference rooms at an expensive seaside resort, one room each for the As, the Bs, and the Cs.
When your employees gather, you tell the As that their jobs will remain unchanged. Time to hit the snack table.
You explain to the Cs that, because there are layoffs occurring, their job duties will change, but good news: they survived the cut.
The Bs – all forty-odd of them, all together in their own conference room – the Bs have to go, you explain. On each chair is the severance paperwork.
I wish I were kidding. This really happened right here in Naples, not much more than a month ago.
The question isn’t “Do you lay folks off?” or even, sadly, “Do you lay them off right before Christmas?” While this may have been avoided, it’s too late for that.
The only question is, How do you deliver the news?
As I see it, this is a question of character. You, as the organization’s leader, are being tested – not strictly as a business person or a leader, but more fundamentally; you are being tested as a human being.
Each and every one of these 48-or-so people has bills. Each has pride. Many have families. Let’s assume most have been doing their best for your company, or you would have let them go individually long before.
Is this any way to treat other humans?
Layoffs are bad, but worse things can happen. A layoff isn’t cancer. You can’t compare losing your job in a recession to losing your arms in Iraq. And at least it’s a layoff, which means that it’s not you, it’s your company that is under-performing. There’s no disgrace in being laid off.
But still.
Being laid off hurts. Losing one’s job usually puts a person’s life into a tail-spin. Losing it during tough economic times means the person can have a very, very hard time finding new employment.
All I ask is that our leaders show a little sensitivity, a modicum of respect to people who, after all, are your colleagues. A leader is by definition the top dog, but he’s still one of the dogs, and his pack deserves his loyalty.
This is not the most egregious example of a so-called leader’s botching of a layoff. Far from it. I have heard of much worse, often from the people who had to live it.
But this particular case is very real to me. It happened just miles from my house. I don’t think I know any of the workers affected, but then again I may. They are my neighbors. My peers.
Leading isn’t just about making decisions and following through with action. An awful lot of leadership involves style. Lead with aplomb. Lead with panache.
Lead with character.
Otherwise, please: don’t lead. We’ll find someone to replace you, we promise.
Drastic times call for drastic action, and this is a “right now; today” problem. You have to lay off a significant portion of your staff, and that’s that. After the dust settles, you can start to sort out the strategic mistakes that ever brought you to this point in the first place.
Question: How do you go about those layoffs?
One local company’s answer (and I wish I were making this up): You assign a letter to each and every member of your staff, A, B, or C. You explain that the mystery of this “code” will all be cleared up in a few days. You rent conference rooms at an expensive seaside resort, one room each for the As, the Bs, and the Cs.
When your employees gather, you tell the As that their jobs will remain unchanged. Time to hit the snack table.
You explain to the Cs that, because there are layoffs occurring, their job duties will change, but good news: they survived the cut.
The Bs – all forty-odd of them, all together in their own conference room – the Bs have to go, you explain. On each chair is the severance paperwork.
I wish I were kidding. This really happened right here in Naples, not much more than a month ago.
The question isn’t “Do you lay folks off?” or even, sadly, “Do you lay them off right before Christmas?” While this may have been avoided, it’s too late for that.
The only question is, How do you deliver the news?
As I see it, this is a question of character. You, as the organization’s leader, are being tested – not strictly as a business person or a leader, but more fundamentally; you are being tested as a human being.
Each and every one of these 48-or-so people has bills. Each has pride. Many have families. Let’s assume most have been doing their best for your company, or you would have let them go individually long before.
Is this any way to treat other humans?
Layoffs are bad, but worse things can happen. A layoff isn’t cancer. You can’t compare losing your job in a recession to losing your arms in Iraq. And at least it’s a layoff, which means that it’s not you, it’s your company that is under-performing. There’s no disgrace in being laid off.
But still.
Being laid off hurts. Losing one’s job usually puts a person’s life into a tail-spin. Losing it during tough economic times means the person can have a very, very hard time finding new employment.
All I ask is that our leaders show a little sensitivity, a modicum of respect to people who, after all, are your colleagues. A leader is by definition the top dog, but he’s still one of the dogs, and his pack deserves his loyalty.
This is not the most egregious example of a so-called leader’s botching of a layoff. Far from it. I have heard of much worse, often from the people who had to live it.
But this particular case is very real to me. It happened just miles from my house. I don’t think I know any of the workers affected, but then again I may. They are my neighbors. My peers.
Leading isn’t just about making decisions and following through with action. An awful lot of leadership involves style. Lead with aplomb. Lead with panache.
Lead with character.
Otherwise, please: don’t lead. We’ll find someone to replace you, we promise.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Point of a Contract
It’s almost Christmas. Let’s wrap a bow on this discussion of ethics.
My original question was, How do you explain to someone that he’s unethical?
My smart-alecky reply: Why bother?
Now, here’s why. Most people – the 96% who aren’t somehow defective – know right from wrong. We don’t have to explain to these people when they’ve done something wrong because they already know. Our effort just gives them a chance to defend their immoral behavior. Why should we give them that opportunity?
As for the defective 4%, the sociopaths… you can’t talk someone out of having a pathological defect in their basic mental capacity, any more than you could talk someone out of having diabetes. Sociopaths are broken and, as of this writing, completely unfixable.
A sociopath is a person who does not feel right from wrong the way the rest of us does. Show them a grisly picture of children in agony, for instance, and they will not exhibit the physical signs the rest of us do of empathy: their stomachs don’t turn, their skin doesn’t tingle. Speaking of tingly skin, scientists can measure involuntary variations in the electrical charge in our skin – that isn’t something we can fake. Sociopaths find it easy to pass lie detector tests, because lying does not produce any internal discomfort, and so does not illicit this change of electrical charge.
I haven’t personally evaluated the folks below, so the following is just speculation, but here goes.
From what I’ve seen, I don’t think Martha Stewart understands why her insider trading was wrong. And I don’t think you could explain it to her. I don’t think she has the mental capacity to understand right from wrong the way you and I do.
From his public mea culpa (forced upon him by his board, which oddly did not fire him), it is clear to me that Bill Swanson does not have any idea that his plagiarism was wrong. Indeed, he seemed more angry about the fallout than he did remorseful about the act itself.
“What’s all the fuss about?” both of these characters seemed to be thinking.
So too with the local managers I dealt with so briefly over the past several weeks in the project I wrote about earlier.
Despite myself, I found our final conversation fascinating.
It went like this: I had worked out some details with their president that were not covered, one way or another, in the contract I signed with the three project managers.* When I met with them to clarify, their attitude was, “Tough luck, pal. You don’t have it in writing.”
Me: “To me, nothing is more important than my word.”
They agreed whole-heartedly. Was I missing something? I tried again.
Me: “When I look someone in the eye and shake hands, that’s all I need by way of commitment.”
Again, vigorous agreement. Somebody – okay, all of the somebodies – weren’t getting my point. I was talking about them, but they were too obtuse to get that.
Me: “Since we founded our first company in 2001, we’ve never had a contract with a client. With one tiny little exception, we’ve never been burned. A contract is meant to protect the parties involved. Do I need to protect myself from you?”
Apoplexy. I shut up and waited for the spokesman to satisfy my question, but instead he went on a harangue about my asking anyone he’s ever done business with… blah, blah, blah.
Me (cutting him short): “I’ve only known you three weeks. No one I know has ever heard of you before. Do I need to protect myself from you? Or are you going to honor your boss’s verbal commitment?”
Things sputtered to a close from there. I broke off our relationship, glad to be through with this crew. I went home and took a long, hot shower to wash the stink off.
So I repeat my original point: if an adult doesn’t understand that he’s being unethical… don’t bother to explain. Because he won’t get it anyway.
*Yes, you read it right: three project managers. I should have walked away the moment I found that out!
My original question was, How do you explain to someone that he’s unethical?
My smart-alecky reply: Why bother?
Now, here’s why. Most people – the 96% who aren’t somehow defective – know right from wrong. We don’t have to explain to these people when they’ve done something wrong because they already know. Our effort just gives them a chance to defend their immoral behavior. Why should we give them that opportunity?
As for the defective 4%, the sociopaths… you can’t talk someone out of having a pathological defect in their basic mental capacity, any more than you could talk someone out of having diabetes. Sociopaths are broken and, as of this writing, completely unfixable.
A sociopath is a person who does not feel right from wrong the way the rest of us does. Show them a grisly picture of children in agony, for instance, and they will not exhibit the physical signs the rest of us do of empathy: their stomachs don’t turn, their skin doesn’t tingle. Speaking of tingly skin, scientists can measure involuntary variations in the electrical charge in our skin – that isn’t something we can fake. Sociopaths find it easy to pass lie detector tests, because lying does not produce any internal discomfort, and so does not illicit this change of electrical charge.
I haven’t personally evaluated the folks below, so the following is just speculation, but here goes.
From what I’ve seen, I don’t think Martha Stewart understands why her insider trading was wrong. And I don’t think you could explain it to her. I don’t think she has the mental capacity to understand right from wrong the way you and I do.
From his public mea culpa (forced upon him by his board, which oddly did not fire him), it is clear to me that Bill Swanson does not have any idea that his plagiarism was wrong. Indeed, he seemed more angry about the fallout than he did remorseful about the act itself.
“What’s all the fuss about?” both of these characters seemed to be thinking.
So too with the local managers I dealt with so briefly over the past several weeks in the project I wrote about earlier.
Despite myself, I found our final conversation fascinating.
It went like this: I had worked out some details with their president that were not covered, one way or another, in the contract I signed with the three project managers.* When I met with them to clarify, their attitude was, “Tough luck, pal. You don’t have it in writing.”
Me: “To me, nothing is more important than my word.”
They agreed whole-heartedly. Was I missing something? I tried again.
Me: “When I look someone in the eye and shake hands, that’s all I need by way of commitment.”
Again, vigorous agreement. Somebody – okay, all of the somebodies – weren’t getting my point. I was talking about them, but they were too obtuse to get that.
Me: “Since we founded our first company in 2001, we’ve never had a contract with a client. With one tiny little exception, we’ve never been burned. A contract is meant to protect the parties involved. Do I need to protect myself from you?”
Apoplexy. I shut up and waited for the spokesman to satisfy my question, but instead he went on a harangue about my asking anyone he’s ever done business with… blah, blah, blah.
Me (cutting him short): “I’ve only known you three weeks. No one I know has ever heard of you before. Do I need to protect myself from you? Or are you going to honor your boss’s verbal commitment?”
Things sputtered to a close from there. I broke off our relationship, glad to be through with this crew. I went home and took a long, hot shower to wash the stink off.
So I repeat my original point: if an adult doesn’t understand that he’s being unethical… don’t bother to explain. Because he won’t get it anyway.
*Yes, you read it right: three project managers. I should have walked away the moment I found that out!
Monday, December 22, 2008
Defining "Ethics."
My definition of Ethics: doing the right thing when you are certain no one is watching.
It hurts me that we live in a time, and in a world, where it is necessary to clarify a word like "ethics." Yet here is part of my friend Jim Fisher's blog entry, responding to my own:
You have accused a business association of which you have been involved as being "unethical," while not explaining what you mean by ethics, as if "being ethical" is self-explanatory, which clearly it is not [bold added]. Ethics is a meeting of the mind with the mind of the one who would be ethical, nothing more, nothing less.
Is ethics conduct? Is it morality?
Of course, it is both along with set standards, standards that have become dodgy in our materialistic society; otherwise we wouldn't create such characters as Ponzi, Madoff and Abramoff, not to mention (Martha) Stewart and (Governor) Blagojevich, among others. They, I would imagine in their rationalizations, attempted to self-delude themselves into thinking what "is legal" is necessarily also "ethical," when seldom is the case in my experience.
Now, granted, I may have been lazy in one regard, by using the term "ethical" when I meant "moral." In school I learned of the sliding scale of terms, which includes:
* Habits (morally neutral)
* Folkways
* Mores
* Laws
* Ethics
* Morals (morally strongest/most compelling.)
The law, ethics, and morals are the three levels that most interest me, as a moralist.
The law says not to cheat on your taxes, or you may pay a fine or even go to jail. The reason to follow the law is external, then. Take away the punishment, you take away the law's compelling feature. If you change the law, the same behavior is no longer "bad," as in changing the federal speed limit from 55 to 70.
Our morals tell us not to cheat on our taxes, because it is wrong: we all benefit from society, and so we are all obligated to support it. When it comes to morals, whether or not we will get caught is completely immaterial. We will know we have cheated. The cheating debases us. (To his credit, Jim makes this point later in his blog entry).
The way we most usually employ the term "ethics" is to fill in the gap between the law and morals: in this case, if we hire a talented accountant who can find a loophole in the tax law that allows us to avoid paying taxes, we're ethical: we didn't cheat, though we certainly played hard and won.
This gets more confusing, as we discuss professional ethics in general terms and legal ethics, business ethics, and medical ethics in particular.
For instance, the rules of conduct proscribed for lawyers is somehow stronger than the law itself, we like to think, though somehow removed from the sticky question of morality.
Defense attorneys live this distinction. Legal ethics dictate that a defendant, no matter how guilty, deserves the best defense available. A lawyer who represents a heinous criminal and helps that criminal walk is legally ethical. Indeed, if he represents the criminal to other than the best of his ability, he is unethical.
Here is where I have to jump in and cry "enough!"
In my mind, ethics and morality are one. A person is either morally upright or morally suspect. Sorry, relativists, but that's how I see it.
Science tells us that about four percent of the population is somehow miswired, so that they do not have any visceral comprehending of right or wrong. We call these people sociopaths or, if they are also violently inclined, psychopaths.
Let's forget about them for the moment.
The rest of humanity, the other 96%, intuitively grasp right from wrong. Yes, our upbringing gets in the middle and can make the details very murky for us, which is unfortunate. But deep down, we get it. To hurt another is wrong. To do so for our own gain is wrong, and to do it indiscriminately is wrong, too.
To use one of Jim's examples, we can examine the legal nuances of Martha Stewart's petty insider-trading to determine her guilt if we want, but it isn't necessary. She took advantage. She cheated. That's wrong, and we all know it.
A few years back, Bill Swanson, Raytheon's CEO, published an extraordinary little booklet called Swanson's (un)Written Rules of Management." Raytheon gave away 100,000 copies free for the asking - they even paid shipping!
It's a great book; I still refer to it. For a time, I recommended it at every one of my talks as I traveled the country teaching leadership, culture, and service.
The only problem is, it isn't actually Bill Swanson's book. He plagiarized large parts of it.
Now, even though I myself am an author who could very well be adversely affected by plagiarism, still I look at plagiarism as a petty crime, akin to shoplifting. Comparing the benefit of Swanson's sharing his rules of success with the faux-pas of his quoting others and attributing it to himself... well, how bad is that, really?
But here's the thing. I wouldn't shoplift, either.
No, insider trading is not as reprehensible as murder. Plagiarism is not rape. And the verbal agreement I had with a local company which was so offhandedly dishonored... well, that is not kidnapping. We've got to keep these things in perspective.
But to suggest that right is not always right, wrong only sometimes wrong? That's silly - or, if taken as far as we have in our modern day, it is also dangerous. It hurts all of us.
Do the right thing because it pays. It does.
Do the right thing because it makes you feel good about yourself. It does.
Do the right thing because it is the right thing. That's all.
It hurts me that we live in a time, and in a world, where it is necessary to clarify a word like "ethics." Yet here is part of my friend Jim Fisher's blog entry, responding to my own:
You have accused a business association of which you have been involved as being "unethical," while not explaining what you mean by ethics, as if "being ethical" is self-explanatory, which clearly it is not [bold added]. Ethics is a meeting of the mind with the mind of the one who would be ethical, nothing more, nothing less.
Is ethics conduct? Is it morality?
Of course, it is both along with set standards, standards that have become dodgy in our materialistic society; otherwise we wouldn't create such characters as Ponzi, Madoff and Abramoff, not to mention (Martha) Stewart and (Governor) Blagojevich, among others. They, I would imagine in their rationalizations, attempted to self-delude themselves into thinking what "is legal" is necessarily also "ethical," when seldom is the case in my experience.
Now, granted, I may have been lazy in one regard, by using the term "ethical" when I meant "moral." In school I learned of the sliding scale of terms, which includes:
* Habits (morally neutral)
* Folkways
* Mores
* Laws
* Ethics
* Morals (morally strongest/most compelling.)
The law, ethics, and morals are the three levels that most interest me, as a moralist.
The law says not to cheat on your taxes, or you may pay a fine or even go to jail. The reason to follow the law is external, then. Take away the punishment, you take away the law's compelling feature. If you change the law, the same behavior is no longer "bad," as in changing the federal speed limit from 55 to 70.
Our morals tell us not to cheat on our taxes, because it is wrong: we all benefit from society, and so we are all obligated to support it. When it comes to morals, whether or not we will get caught is completely immaterial. We will know we have cheated. The cheating debases us. (To his credit, Jim makes this point later in his blog entry).
The way we most usually employ the term "ethics" is to fill in the gap between the law and morals: in this case, if we hire a talented accountant who can find a loophole in the tax law that allows us to avoid paying taxes, we're ethical: we didn't cheat, though we certainly played hard and won.
This gets more confusing, as we discuss professional ethics in general terms and legal ethics, business ethics, and medical ethics in particular.
For instance, the rules of conduct proscribed for lawyers is somehow stronger than the law itself, we like to think, though somehow removed from the sticky question of morality.
Defense attorneys live this distinction. Legal ethics dictate that a defendant, no matter how guilty, deserves the best defense available. A lawyer who represents a heinous criminal and helps that criminal walk is legally ethical. Indeed, if he represents the criminal to other than the best of his ability, he is unethical.
Here is where I have to jump in and cry "enough!"
In my mind, ethics and morality are one. A person is either morally upright or morally suspect. Sorry, relativists, but that's how I see it.
Science tells us that about four percent of the population is somehow miswired, so that they do not have any visceral comprehending of right or wrong. We call these people sociopaths or, if they are also violently inclined, psychopaths.
Let's forget about them for the moment.
The rest of humanity, the other 96%, intuitively grasp right from wrong. Yes, our upbringing gets in the middle and can make the details very murky for us, which is unfortunate. But deep down, we get it. To hurt another is wrong. To do so for our own gain is wrong, and to do it indiscriminately is wrong, too.
To use one of Jim's examples, we can examine the legal nuances of Martha Stewart's petty insider-trading to determine her guilt if we want, but it isn't necessary. She took advantage. She cheated. That's wrong, and we all know it.
A few years back, Bill Swanson, Raytheon's CEO, published an extraordinary little booklet called Swanson's (un)Written Rules of Management." Raytheon gave away 100,000 copies free for the asking - they even paid shipping!
It's a great book; I still refer to it. For a time, I recommended it at every one of my talks as I traveled the country teaching leadership, culture, and service.
The only problem is, it isn't actually Bill Swanson's book. He plagiarized large parts of it.
Now, even though I myself am an author who could very well be adversely affected by plagiarism, still I look at plagiarism as a petty crime, akin to shoplifting. Comparing the benefit of Swanson's sharing his rules of success with the faux-pas of his quoting others and attributing it to himself... well, how bad is that, really?
But here's the thing. I wouldn't shoplift, either.
No, insider trading is not as reprehensible as murder. Plagiarism is not rape. And the verbal agreement I had with a local company which was so offhandedly dishonored... well, that is not kidnapping. We've got to keep these things in perspective.
But to suggest that right is not always right, wrong only sometimes wrong? That's silly - or, if taken as far as we have in our modern day, it is also dangerous. It hurts all of us.
Do the right thing because it pays. It does.
Do the right thing because it makes you feel good about yourself. It does.
Do the right thing because it is the right thing. That's all.
Jim Fisher Responds
One of my mentors and a fellow founder of The Naples Institute, Dr. Jim Fisher, responds to one of my recent missives. See for yourself:
http://peripateticphilosopher.blogspot.com/ (see "Ethics & Savvy Capitalism!" Dec. 21, 2008)
In the first part of his entry, Jim brings up some issues I'll tackle next time I log in. Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy his personal experiences, fleshed out in the second half of his blog entry.
http://peripateticphilosopher.blogspot.com/ (see "Ethics & Savvy Capitalism!" Dec. 21, 2008)
In the first part of his entry, Jim brings up some issues I'll tackle next time I log in. Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy his personal experiences, fleshed out in the second half of his blog entry.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Truly Savvy Capitalist
The truly savvy capitalist rejects Primitive Capitalism for the more rewarding, more ethical Capitalism 2.0. He lives by the law of Enlightened Self-Interest: that doing the Right thing pays. The savvy capitalist acts honorably at all times - with staff, partners, customers, suppliers, and community. He is a better leader, and attracts only the best and the brightest to his organization. As a result, his company thrives.
Are you savvy? Or are you being left behind?
Are you savvy? Or are you being left behind?
You & Ethical Companies
Question: How do you explain to someone that he is unethical?
Answer: Why bother?
That is the situation I found myself in this week, as I extricated myself from a relationship with a local company. I had been brought on to lead a new venture focused on the area’s nonprofit community. Three weeks later, I leave with this thought: YUCK.
Really. I’m just glad to be moving on.
I took a long, hot shower after our final meeting, to wash away the dirty feeling of association with these people. Life is too short to waste your time with such a caliber of person.
A teacher to the core, I’m compelled to use this as a positive for you, my readers. So, here are some lessons to be learned from my experience:
1. A good person will never fit in an unethical organization.
If you find this describes you and your current employment situation, dust off your resume. You won’t feel good about yourself until you’ve left this company behind.
2. Intentions really do matter.
If you begin a business venture to make the world a better place with partners who are solely focused on profits… those aren’t the right partners to have.
You know my mantra by now: heck, it’s at the top of this blog: Doing the right thing pays – handsomely. Our language school, which we started to help poor people learn English and advance in their adopted society, was obscenely profitable. But that was never the intention; our profits were the by-product of our top-notch teaching method and customercentric approach.
3. A fish stinks from the head.
…So never complain. After all, it’s the boss’s fault. Who are you going to complain to?
This is my favorite leadership lesson. It puts a lot of pressure on a leader to know what his people are really like at work, when he’s not watching them. But you know what? If your organization is shedding quality people – employees and customers – there’s probably a very good reason for that. You should probably look into possible causes. Start with a good hard look in the mirror. Next, closely observe those reporting directly to you.
I began this philanthropic project after meetings with the company president. I don’t know, but he may be wondering why I haven’t contacted him to tell him why I left. Here’s why. There is no way a leader can have unethical people reporting to him if he believes in ethics himself. They’ll wash out.
By the same token, there is also no way a competent manager can have buffoonishly incompetent managers reporting to him for very long. Their errors will catch up with them, he’ll figure it out – hopefully within days, not years! – and they’ll be gone.
4. Quality leaders attract quality followers. The opposite is also true.
Final note: this particular company just went through a round of layoffs. If these are the people who survived the ax… yikes!
***
If you work for an operation that is poorly-managed or unethical, stop fooling yourself. I know it’s hard to give up a paycheck, especially in this uncertain time. We get comfortable – indeed, nothing is harder to escape than the comfort of a middle-class lifestyle. But you’ve got to make a move – do it carefully, protect your family from discomfort, but do it!
But you don’t need me telling you this. Check your gut. You know already if you fit your company or not. If you don’t… well, what are you going to do about it? When?
Answer: Why bother?
That is the situation I found myself in this week, as I extricated myself from a relationship with a local company. I had been brought on to lead a new venture focused on the area’s nonprofit community. Three weeks later, I leave with this thought: YUCK.
Really. I’m just glad to be moving on.
I took a long, hot shower after our final meeting, to wash away the dirty feeling of association with these people. Life is too short to waste your time with such a caliber of person.
A teacher to the core, I’m compelled to use this as a positive for you, my readers. So, here are some lessons to be learned from my experience:
1. A good person will never fit in an unethical organization.
If you find this describes you and your current employment situation, dust off your resume. You won’t feel good about yourself until you’ve left this company behind.
2. Intentions really do matter.
If you begin a business venture to make the world a better place with partners who are solely focused on profits… those aren’t the right partners to have.
You know my mantra by now: heck, it’s at the top of this blog: Doing the right thing pays – handsomely. Our language school, which we started to help poor people learn English and advance in their adopted society, was obscenely profitable. But that was never the intention; our profits were the by-product of our top-notch teaching method and customercentric approach.
3. A fish stinks from the head.
…So never complain. After all, it’s the boss’s fault. Who are you going to complain to?
This is my favorite leadership lesson. It puts a lot of pressure on a leader to know what his people are really like at work, when he’s not watching them. But you know what? If your organization is shedding quality people – employees and customers – there’s probably a very good reason for that. You should probably look into possible causes. Start with a good hard look in the mirror. Next, closely observe those reporting directly to you.
I began this philanthropic project after meetings with the company president. I don’t know, but he may be wondering why I haven’t contacted him to tell him why I left. Here’s why. There is no way a leader can have unethical people reporting to him if he believes in ethics himself. They’ll wash out.
By the same token, there is also no way a competent manager can have buffoonishly incompetent managers reporting to him for very long. Their errors will catch up with them, he’ll figure it out – hopefully within days, not years! – and they’ll be gone.
4. Quality leaders attract quality followers. The opposite is also true.
Final note: this particular company just went through a round of layoffs. If these are the people who survived the ax… yikes!
***
If you work for an operation that is poorly-managed or unethical, stop fooling yourself. I know it’s hard to give up a paycheck, especially in this uncertain time. We get comfortable – indeed, nothing is harder to escape than the comfort of a middle-class lifestyle. But you’ve got to make a move – do it carefully, protect your family from discomfort, but do it!
But you don’t need me telling you this. Check your gut. You know already if you fit your company or not. If you don’t… well, what are you going to do about it? When?
Friday, December 19, 2008
#1 Rule of Leadership
Are you ready for the #1 rule of leadership? Seriously, here it is. I won’t even make you buy a book to get it.
THE NUMBER ONE MAXIM OF LEADERSHIP:
1. Gather a team much better at what they do than you will ever be.
2. Inspire them to shine.
Recent experiences have me convinced I'm ready to start my long-awaited book on leadership. I've been researching this my entire life, and was born into the project already well underway my Dad. It's time.
THE NUMBER ONE MAXIM OF LEADERSHIP:
1. Gather a team much better at what they do than you will ever be.
2. Inspire them to shine.
Recent experiences have me convinced I'm ready to start my long-awaited book on leadership. I've been researching this my entire life, and was born into the project already well underway my Dad. It's time.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
CYA or Lead: Never Both.
You can either Cover Your Ass or Lead.
No one has ever accomplished both at once.
***
New post today on my other blog: http://www.adamsmithaward.blogspot.com/
No one has ever accomplished both at once.
***
New post today on my other blog: http://www.adamsmithaward.blogspot.com/
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Adam Smith Blog
We at The Naples Institute are unveiling a new prize this winter, The Adam Smith Award for Socially Conscious Businesses.
This year we're limiting the award to companies with headquarters in the region of Southwest Florida, which has 6 counties. Next year or the following, we'll enlarge our scope.
Check out my new Adam Smith blog: www.adamsmithaward.blogspot.com
This year we're limiting the award to companies with headquarters in the region of Southwest Florida, which has 6 counties. Next year or the following, we'll enlarge our scope.
Check out my new Adam Smith blog: www.adamsmithaward.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
