Feral Jundi

Monday, July 16, 2012

Leadership: Curing CEO-itis And Gaining Fingerspitzengefühl

Filed under: Industry Talk,Jundism,Leadership — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:44 AM

This is a great article. Professor Michael Roberto gave the heads up about this article and I instantly thought this would be some good stuff for leaders of all levels to check out. It is also some good advice for how management/leaders can gain Fingerspitzengefühl or a ‘finger tip feel’ for what is going on within their company or unit. Below is a quick background on the German term and I think it fits well with what is talked about in the article.

Fingerspitzengefühl is a German term, literally meaning “finger tips feeling” and meaning intuitive flair or instinct, which has been appropriated by the English language as a loanword. In German, it describes a great situational awareness, and the ability to respond most appropriately and tactfully. It can be applied well to diplomats, bearers of bad news, or to describe a superior ability respond to an escalated situation.
The word is enjoying a second life in the English language in military terminology, where it is used for the stated ability of some military commanders, such as Field-Marshal Erwin Rommel, to maintain with great accuracy in attention to detail an ever-changing operational and tactical situation by maintaining a mental map of the battlefield. In this sense the term is synonymous with the English expression of “keeping one’s finger on the pulse”. The mental image given is of a military commander who is in such intimate communication with the battlefield that it is as though he has a fingertip on each critical point, expressed in the 18th and 19th centuries as “having a feel for combat”. -from Wikipedia

I also agree entirely with Professor Roberto’s commentary on the article. That these are some concepts that leaders should be practicing in their formative years so that it becomes ingrained into their psyche and leadership style. Perhaps one day a reader here, that has taken these concepts to heart, will apply them to their command as a CEO of a company? Here is Roberto’s quote:

 I think it’s a terrific list.  Moreover, I think it applies to managers at all levels of an organization, not just at the CEO position.   Front-line managers should also cultivate an objective sounding board, encourage dissent, and surround themselves with talented subordinates.   In fact, if people engage in these practices early in their managerial career, they may be less likely to catch CEO disease if and when they rise to the top.

What also came to mind as I read through this thing is that the CEO of G4S, Nick Buckles, was probably the victim of some of this CEO-itis, or basically was lacking in any kind of finger tip feel for what was going on with their London Olympics security contract. The end result has been disastrous for him and the company, and it is still ongoing.

So here are the main concepts, and I will add some points to them that are relevant to this industry. Also note how many of these tie into the concepts listed under Jundism.

#1 Surround yourself with highly capable lieutenants.

This one is commonsense and you always want to bring folks into your decision making team that are smart and capable. But you also want honest folks who will give you the straight scoop. You do not want a team of ‘yes men’ who will never say no or fear giving their advice or opinion. You do not want clones of yourself either just because then you get situations within a team that leads to confirmation bias or group think. So pick your lieutenants wisely, and that goes from the shift leader looking for an assistant shift leader, all the way up to CEO’s of companies looking for a management team.

#2 Encourage dissent, discourage sycophants.

This one is great, and ties in well with #1 . You want folks who will be honest with you and genuinely care about the success of the company or the mission. You do not want yes men or folks willing to step all over others in order to get to a position– that has your ear. The CEO should ‘trust, but verify’ the quality of their management team. They should actively seek feedback and treat that as gold.

Those who are willing to dissent should be heard, and leaders should have respect for those individuals that actually came forward with an issue. A leader should interpret that as someone who cares enough about the company to actually step forward with a way to make it better.(the courage to do what is right) A leader should not look at that as a threat, or be driven by ego to the point where only they come up with the ‘good ideas’. Good ideas or warnings about issues in the company can come from anywhere and anyone, and it is up to the leaders to make sure they are listening and keeping open to that.

This definitely applies to shift leaders and small unit leaders. You should encourage folks to come forward with better ideas, and actually act on those ideas. (People will support what they help to create), so let them help to create a great team so they can feel  part of the process.

#3 Regularly admit and fix your mistakes.

No one likes dishonesty and no one likes folks that do not admit to when they screw up. Take ownership of your mistakes and then fix them–and learn from them. (Continuously improve)  yourself and the company, and don’t sweep this stuff under the carpet.

As a shift leader or project manager, this rule is very important. If you want folks to come up to you and admit some crucial error, then you as the leader must (lead by example) and show by your actions what that means. This process will allow for honesty to surface, which then leads to getting a better feel for what is going on with your contract or the company.

I imagine with this G4S deal, folks were not willing to admit to mistakes at some point along the line. Because if the CEO of the company only found out about the condition of a poorly run high profile contract like this, only days before the media found out and blew it up, then that says to me that some folks were not keeping upper management in the loop. Or upper management was told, but no one wanted to pass it on. Probably so that their leader(s) they were sucking up to would get the impression that all is well and they are ‘on top of it’. pffffft. In the end, not saying something about it or acknowledging that there was a problem, has led to an even bigger problem.

#4  Treat every employee with respect.

This is a no-brainer as well, but CEO’s all the way down to Project Managers seem to screw this one up. Especially in this industry. Our group is filled with Type A personalities who sometimes think it is appropriate to demand the same respect they got when they were in the military or police or wherever. Actions speak louder than words, and in this industry, it is not about what you used to be, but what you are right now.

Private industry also requires a different type of leadership than what was required in the military or police. When PM’s or others fail to shift gears and recognize this new reality, they quickly learn the errors of their ways. Especially when contractors make the mass exodus from a contract because they were poorly treated or disrespected. Remember, at will contracts go both ways, and contractors will just leave. There is no law requiring folks to sit there and take that kind of abuse.

The other one that project managers especially screw up is ‘leadership by email’. If you are thousands of miles away and sending out emails to folks on contracts, and you have not paid special attention as to what is said in those emails, then PM’s can do massive damage.  They can be insensitive to the particulars of those who are fulfilling the contract in some war zone, they can sound gruff and out of touch, they can actually offend by saying the wrong things, etc. It all leads to the one thing, and that is having respect for those that you are leading out there. If you cannot show that respect in person in that war zone, then at the very least you should work hard to show respect in your emails as you sit in the comfort of your office.

Besides, those emails are permanent records of communications.  If a disgruntled contractor had received a horrible letter filled with disrespectful items, then that thing could be used in future actions against that sender or the company. Or if a leader wrote an email while they were drunk or during a really stressful time period in their life, then like a bullet leaving a gun, that email is effectively doing damage. It does it’s damage well after it was sent and could passed around all over the place. Subordinates will show others these emails, and have proof of how little the company cares or how horrible a leader is. So sending nasty-grams like that are incredibly damaging to a program and the culture of a company.  Don’t do it, and always watch what you say when you communicate with subordinates.

Treat them with the same respect as if you were face to face with them, and use positive reinforcement versus the negative. And don’t lie or keep folks in the dark, because that can be damaging as well. Especially if folks find out through other means that a leader has purposely done those things.

#5 Find an objective sounding board outside the office.

This last one is a good one. Find someone or a group that will keep you grounded. On contracts, it could be a loved one or a friend(s) you talk with via skype. Or if the job is at home, then maybe you have a group you can connect with that is outside of your gig.

Or, if you are on a contract, then find someone there that you can confide in and talk openly. In the military they call this a battle buddy, and not only are they important for watching your back in a war zone, but they are very helpful for when you need to vent about stuff on the contract and mission. Especially if you are a shift leader or PM, all the way up to CEO.

It is extremely helpful to be able to just talk freely and not worry about command presence or being the guy in charge. To have someone that you can just be a normal joe around and use them as a sounding board is great. Leaders are human too, and you definitely cannot be an island. With that said, I imagine Nick Buckles is venting in private with his ‘sounding board’, and especially after the monumental stress of responding to this crisis every day.

You also need a sounding board at the CEO level, just so you don’t get into the idea that you are superior or the company is untouchable or will never fail. One of the comments in the article over at where this was originally published said that CEO’s need someone whispering in their ear, much like the Roman whispering slave during Roman Triumphs. These guys followed behind generals telling them how immortal they were, as a part of the ceremony. (The words that the slave is said to have used are not known, but suggestions include “Respice te, hominem te memento” (“Look behind you, remember you are only a man”) and “Memento mori” (“Remember that you are mortal”-wikipedia).

Pretty cool and let me know what you think? If you are a CEO or former CEO, or if you have had experience at any level of leadership in a organization, I would love to hear your thoughts on this stuff.  –Matt

 

Nick Buckles, CEO of G4S.

 

Finding a Cure for “CEO-itis”
By JOANN S. LUBLIN
July 12, 2012
Warning: You could be at risk of contracting “CEO-itis.”
An affliction of arrogance that plagues many people picked for powerful posts, its symptoms include a tendency toward isolation, belief that you’re smarter than others, preference for loyalists, aversion to changing course even in the face of failure –and love of royal treatment.
It appears to occur when promising managers reach the corner office or other C-suite spots. Once infected, once-successful executives often underperform and put themselves at great risk of early exits, experts say.
In June, John Figueroa quit after 17 months as chief executive of Omnicare Inc. “He believed he accomplished the goals established by the board,” the nursing-home pharmacy operator announced.
But Mr. Figueroa also acted imperiously, ignored suggestions from colleagues, and made extensive personal use of the corporate aircraft, according to people familiar with the situation.
In short, the CEO title went to his head, one informed individual says. McKesson Corp., Mr. Figueroa’s prior employer, had recommended him as a collaborative team player, another person remembers. Omnicare declined to comment.

(more…)

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Leadership: Fast Company– Design, Teamwork And Leadership Lessons From General Stanley McChrystal

Filed under: Industry Talk,Kaizen,Leadership — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 9:34 PM

This is an excellent video presentation on McChrystal’s ideas on organizations and leadership (‘It Takes A Network’), as applied to businesses today. He really dives into the complexities of today’s wars and market place, and talks about his lessons learned at JSOC and with special operations. Of course our industry should pay attention, because we are the ultimate combination of business and war.

One theme that you see with many books on special operations/leadership is how much of an impact Operation Eagle Claw had on the spec ops community. That failure was a hard lesson to swallow, and the leaders of that community at the time had to really dig into what went wrong and how to fix it. This is a starting point with McChrystal’s talk, and it sets the tone perfectly.

McChrystal also delves into the second reshaping of the JSOC organizational structure, and that is modern terrorism and 9/11.  That the problem was very complex, and that there were so many pieces (agencies, units, foreign partners, etc.) to put together in order to be effective, and that they were fighting networks.  The traditional top down management structure was not working, and could not effectively use or control all of these pieces. It couldn’t keep up either, and that is not a good position to be in.

So what happened was a rethinking on how to make this machine called JSOC into a network that could compete with terrorist/enemy networks. Nothing new if you have been following the blog or reading McChrystal’s stuff. Very cool, and watch the video if you want a better picture of what I am talking about.

As to today’s PMSC’s and their organizational structures? Good question, and I have never really dived into that.  It would make for a fantastic thesis or chapter in someone’s book, and authors/researchers might have already touched this issue. Who knows, and maybe some of the readers can present some examples?

With my limited exposure to companies and their organizational structures, most follow a traditional top down approach.  Although what is interesting is that corporate usually has no idea what is going on at the ground level with contracts, and they are highly dependent on the Project Manager to find that out with the leadership out in the field. PM’s are the ones that should be keeping a track of that leadership out in the field as well–but sadly, many companies operate with the PM at the home country office and they lead through emails or video conferencing. They might visit out in the field now and then, but that costs money in the eyes of corporate, so it is one of those deals where some PMs do it more than others based on what corporate will allow.

So companies do put a lot of trust into those leaders out in the field. If anything, companies forget about those leaders or could care less about properly supporting them or listening to their concerns. These leaders out in the field have to interpret emails and policies and directives, while at the same time making sure the troops and the client they are providing a service too is happy.  These guys are where the rubber meets the road with contracts, and they have a lot of impact.

These mid-level field managers might have several site managers under them. Under those site managers, there might be a day shift, mids, and night shift supervisors.  They might have team leaders in charge of PSD details, and PSD teams might be permanently assembled or piecemeal depending on how the organization and man power is set up.  Rotations of folks coming in and out of that country/war zone has an impact on how things are done as well. There are so many organizational models and types of operations that contractors create, that it would be very interesting to try to tap into that and see what works and what doesn’t. Even PMSC’s from Europe and elsewhere bring their own brand of organization structure to the table, and it is fascinating to see that stuff in action.

Companies also lack the proper policies and incentives to grow leaders into those positions. This is a big problem out there, and it is something I have covered before. You will see managers in the field, hand pick whomever they want, and PM’s usually just go with that choice–partly because they really don’t have any guidance or support from corporate. Which is great if that manager knows how to do that, but absolutely sucks when they create really poor teams of leaders that the rest of us have to put up with.

With that said, the really poor teams of leaders are usually defined by guys that are extremely loyal to that manager, and pose no threat to that manager’s position.  Much like how dictators operate. It is how you get teams of yes men that do not question that manager, and it is also how you get group think scenarios.  PM’s would be very wise to pay attention to how and why mid-level managers pick the folks they pick.  Was it based on merit, experience and good leadership skills, or were they chosen based on ‘what’?

Also, if the company has poorly set up the pay and incentives with the idea of hanging on to good people, then growing leaders is damn near impossible. Or if they do not offer a way to advance in the organization that is fair and makes sense, then folks will have no interest in participating in that. We default back to how mid-level managers assemble crap teams, because either they are more concerned with loyalty or they just don’t have a lot to choose from–because the company really doesn’t care about ‘growing leaders’ or seeking good leaders during recruitment.

So why am I adding this to McChrystal’s deal on organizational structures and networks?  Hopefully companies will look at Crosslead and other ideas on how best to manage their folks and organize their companies for success. In a way, incidents that are extremely embarrassing to the industry and companies, are like mini-Operation Eagle Claws, and all companies should be striving to learn from their mistakes/embarrassments and continuously improve (Kaizen). Perhaps there is a better way of structuring your organization, and maybe you can do things that will create the necessary leaders to manage that? –Matt

 

 

Design, Teamwork, And Leadership Lessons From Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Must Watch
By Austin Carr
05-02-2012
McChrystal shared the lessons he learned as leader of the Joint Special Operations Command and talked about how they translate to business at Fast Company’s recent Innovation Uncensored conference.
For five years, retired General Stanley McChrystal led the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, the branch of the military charged with special operations planning that was responsible for the death of Osama bin Laden one year ago. The successful raid on bin Laden’s compound took place after McChrystal’s tenure, but the crucial lessons he learned during his years commanding JSOC have applications in all industries.

(more…)

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Leadership: Stanley McChrystal Speaks At Stanford–Leadership Is A Choice

Filed under: Leadership,Video — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 9:40 PM

“Leadership is not a talent or a gift. It’s a choice. It’s not complex, but it’s very hard.”, General Stanley McChrystal explains to a packed auditorium of 600 at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. McChrystal shares his perspective on leadership and influence discussing the importance of understanding culture, leading by example, building trust, and creating a common goal within a team.

Excellent. I love posting this stuff, and sound leadership concepts is of great importance to this industry. So sit back and check out this outstanding 51 minute video of a talk McChrystal did at Stanford.  For those who are overseas that are not able to watch youtube videos like this because of restrictions or bandwidth issues, I am sorry you are not able to view this stuff. But this post will be here when you get home, so definitely check it out along with the other videos I have posted when you can. –Matt


Sunday, October 30, 2011

Jundism: The Milgram Experiment And The Importance Of Leadership And Questioning Authority

Filed under: Jundism,Leadership,Video — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 7:57 PM

I highly suggest watching this entire show on Discovery Channel called ‘Curiosity: How Evil Are You?‘ The show basically conducts the original Stanley Milgram Experiment with modern day participants.

The results are shocking. The experiment showed that today’s society is equally as susceptible as those participants in the original experiment 50 years ago.

Milgram wanted to answer the question on how humans could violate their consciousness and moral code in the name of ‘following orders’. Here is a quote from wikipedia about the experiment:

“Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?” In other words, “Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?” Milgram’s testing suggested that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.

So here is the really motivating part about this experiment that I wanted to share and get out there. In the show towards the end, they modified the experiment to have two teachers, with one of the teachers being an actor. That actor would refuse administering the shock as it got higher, and the experiment was to see if their fellow teacher who thought this was real, would refuse with them. That they would not follow orders, and follow the path of someone that chose not to shock the learner.

In the show, the non-actor ‘real’ teacher did refuse, and that is very significant to this post.

Jundism is about being the guy that does question authority or leads by example. To be a positive influence within your team, and not fall within the trap of group think. Within a group setting, everyone might have the same doubts about a certain task or person, but until someone comes forward and acts on those doubts, everyone will just go along. It is my hope that you the reader will recognize how important this is. Just watch the experiments if you don’t believe me.

In the video below, this woman was a real participant and practitioner of Jundism, who actually said no right off the get go. She did not go along with the experiment because she actually thought about it. She had the courage to do what is right and go with her guts and moral code.

But she was also very rare, and the show identified how very few people actually said no to giving shocks to the learner. Let alone giving the ‘killing’ or life threatening shock to a learner. It is quite the thing to watch all of these normal everyday people, actually go through the act of harming an innocent person, all because someone said to do it.

What I want to leave the reader with is that if you can fight peer pressure, fight the urge to just go along with the group, and actually question authority or the group, then you could potentially save lives or serious heartache within your company. And it doesn’t have to be serious stuff, and it could be just leadership by example for everyday things like ‘training, fitness, decision making, ideas, innovations, leadership, etc.’. But it could also be leadership by example in ‘integrity’ situations, or deals where a line could be crossed by individuals, and no one else is stepping up to say ‘hey, this is not right’.

There are many facets of a contract and mission where you have the opportunity to show how it is done correctly.  If you are the guy that does things right, then you will have a good chance at bringing other folks with you on that path. –Matt

 

The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.

 

 

 

Monday, October 10, 2011

Leadership: Rooting Out Toxic Leaders–The Army’s 360 Degree Evaluations

Filed under: Jundism,Leadership,Military News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 3:21 PM

A recent survey of more than 22,630 soldiers from the rank of E-5 through O-6 and Army civilians showed that roughly one in five sees his superior as “toxic and unethical,” while 27 percent said they believe their organization allows the frank and free flow of ideas.

Very interesting. I have talked about evaluations in the past as a valuable tool for companies to track how policy and leadership interact out in the field. It is a metric, and it is something that most companies of various industries use to great effect–if they are done properly, and used properly….

So I can see where the Army is going with this, and I would be very interested to see the impact of this program. And I also think any leader that truly cares about doing a good job, will actually take a great interest in this kind of feedback from their subordinates. I know I would. It would be really cool if they applied this to NCO’s as well?

This also addresses the reality of what today’s forces are composed of. Millennials make up a large component of today’s military, and these guys like feedback. They want to know if they are screwing up or if there is something they can improve upon, and they seek feedback. Part of the reason for this is that technology has kind of molded this generation into a group that appreciates feedback more.

A guy posts a picture of his kit on an online forum or Facebook, and he will get multiple guys giving input about that equipment. You will see all sorts of replies addressing the pro’s and con’s of that individual’s gear. That is just one example, and technology makes it very easy to ask the group what they think.

You see very simple examples of this all over the place. Open source software is stuff built by the crowd, and critiqued by the crowd. It absolutely must have feedback in order to work. And this feedback loop is what a lot of people come to rely upon. Google lives for that feedback, or if you go onto Amazon.com, you see numerous folks giving feedback about all sorts books and products. All of this is very valuable to those who desire to build a better product or buy the best product. ‘Get feedback’ is also a jundism.

But I will hold judgement on this program until it has been applied and tested. The benefits could be many, just as long as it is not abused. Imagine a higher retention rate of troops, all because they have more respect for their management? That they actually feel that their feedback has value, and those in their command actually listen. Or imagine the residual effect of good leaders, and how that rubs off on the subordinates. You would be amazed at how much damage a bad leader can cause with their ‘poor example’.

On the other hand, an evaluation system like this should not be abused to the point where officers feel they cannot do what they gotta do to accomplish the mission. In war, ordering men and women to risk their lives, or to kill people is a reality. Hopefully an evaluation system like this does not weaken an officer’s ability to give those orders or to do the hard things. So we will see if this program actually adds value.

Another point I wanted to make with this is that if a leader is surrounded by yes men, or is plagued by group think with his immediate group of supervisors, then how would they ever know if they are being effective?  If everyone agrees with him all of the time, or that everyone thinks alike, then how will that management team ever know if they are doing well?  Or how will they sniff out problems, if all they care about is the input of one another?  Boyd would call this a ‘closed system’, and closed systems are bad.

By reaching out or by giving your subordinates the means to communicate their thoughts and ideas, you are turning your closed system into an open system.  Thus turning it into a system that can reach ‘equilibrium’. Or in the terms of the military or private industry, every one in the unit feels like they are actually part of a team.  Problems will not build to a point where things blow up and get ugly. That everyone’s ideas matter, and that they too can help build a better team, a better idea, a better business. Stuff like this is essential for unit cohesion, and that is why I refer to this as ‘feedback gold’. –Matt

 

Rooting out toxic leaders
By Michelle Tan
Sunday Oct 9, 2011
Soldiers will now be asked — and expected — to rate their bosses.
Effective Oct. 1, officers will be required to assert that they have completed a 360-degree evaluation — where the officer is graded by his subordinates, peers, subordinates and superiors — within the past three years.
Requiring officers to complete 360-degree evaluations should encourage them to grow and, at the same time, weed out potential toxic habits among officers, officials said.
A recent survey of more than 22,630 soldiers from the rank of E-5 through O-6 and Army civilians showed that roughly one in five sees his superior as “toxic and unethical,” while 27 percent said they believe their organization allows the frank and free flow of ideas.
The survey, conducted by the Center for Army Leadership, also stated that rooting out toxic leadership from the ranks requires “accurate and consistent assessment, input from subordinates, and a focus beyond what gets done in the short-term.”
Gen. Martin Dempsey, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said when he was the Army chief of staff that senior leaders must “change the culture of the Army to embrace 360s” and develop a culture where leaders want to know how they’re viewed by their peers and subordinates.
The 360-degree evaluation now required of officers is called the Army 360 Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback. This addition to the Officer Evaluation Record is among a list of changes the Army is making to the officer evaluation policy. The changes apply to OERs with a “thru date” of Nov. 1 and later.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said he believes “multidimensional feedback is an important component to holistic leader development.”

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress