More Leadership Lessons from the Airline Industry – Delta Stubs Their Toe (Again)

More Leadership Lessons from Delta Airlines

In a recent post, we admonished Delta Airlines for the ill-conceived, confusing Delta Breezeway enacted in late 2007. It seemed that even months after its introduction, most Delta gate agents and Delta frequent fliers still had no idea how to use them.

We are proud to say that between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Delta gate agents suddenly began using the Delta Breezeway consistently across the seven different airports we used. (This is a record, to be sure, as any Delta gate outside of Atlanta or Cincinnati employed a different set of rules when using the Breezeway for the first ten months following its inception.)

Congratulations Delta for finally making sense of something so simple – of course, we still believe you could have rolled this out more intelligently; employing proper project management principles coupled with better education and training.

Delta Airlines – Not Sweating the Small Stuff

The debacle that was the Delta Breezeway reveals a lackadaisical attitude in the Delta boardroom for truly serving the customer. Delta simply doesn’t sweat the small stuff. In any normal leadership situation the ability to not sweat the small stuff is an admirable quality. Given the razor thin margins of the airline industry, it’s almost required that you sweat everything – especially the small stuff that impacts your customers.

Southwest Airlines (SWA) gets it. The SWA leadership has always been known as a group that plans everything from boarsding a plane to their overall business health. SWA gets it; and they generally get it right the first time.

As a disclaimer, it’s important to note that none of the AskTheManager editors enjoys flying on Southwest. Their cattle call style of assigning seats and loading planes might make logistical sense – and families with kids seem to be okay with it – but it is terrible for business fliers who travel for a living. That said, SWA is the healthiest airline in America and deserves to be studied by those who are struggling. (Hint for the other airlines: look at SWA’s leadership, and how the company tests and measures before they implement wholesale changes.)




You Cannot Test Ideas in the Boardroom

Southwest’s style of loading planes, as we wrote, has been a nuisance for business travelers – especially those who like to lounge before they fly. We must know we will have the aisle seat in the exit row and we don’t want to have to fight for it.

In the airline industry, unloading and loading planes quickly – faster than your rivals – earns you a competitive advantage. SWA gets this. They’ve made a conscience choice to forego most business travelers in return for better margins. That is their choice.

It’s old news, but Southwest experimented with assigned seating for about a year only to decide to slightly modify their 36-year old cattle drive in favor of a more orderly numbered seating system. (To read more about this decision, here’s a news story from September 2007.) No assigned seats, but with less of a cattle call. The leadership lesson for Delta is not that they should switch to a numbered system for assigning seats, rather that they should alter the way they enact changes at their struggling airline.

Last month – just days after Delta completed its merger with Northwest and proclaimed that there would be no immediate changes – Delta made an enormous change to the way everyone, including frequent fliers, gains access to premium seats (exit rows, most aisle seats and coach seats near the front of the aircraft). They adopted, without warning or testing, a system that we’ve been told was in place at Northwest. They wanted everyone to pay extra for those seats.

While we’re are certainly not opposed to Delta raising revenue in creative ways, we were absolutely shocked to learn that as frequent fliers we didn’t even have access to those seats until check-in. You see, Delta wanted to sell those seats at a premium to regular fliers, so they blocked frequent fliers from gaining access to those seats.

They clearly tested this concept only in the boardroom, and it passed with flying colors.

Oops, Time to Reverse another Bad Delta Decision

To their credit, Delta only made their coveted Platinum and Gold members suffer for a few weeks before they reversed this idiotic and untested change. We can only imagine the emails that flooded Delta.com complaining of this policy (we know of a few sent by us that were not pleasant).

The moral of this story for all businesses is to follow the Southwest example. Even when the world was telling them for decades that their system for assigning seats should be altered, they resisted the temptation to enact wholesale changes and tested (for months, in controlled situations at just a few select locations) a new system before determining a course of action.

This is why Southwest has fared better than Delta and the other large airlines. The Delta leadership could learn a thing or two from Southwest.  

Detroit’s Automakers: Why They Deserved The Money

Why Detroit Deserved Their Bailout…

(We understand we’re a little late to the party, but we were on hiatus during the whole Auto Bailout mess, and we felt we would be remiss if we didn’t provide our two cents.)

While there is no doubt that the Detroit automakers sowed many of the seeds of their own destruction, these seeds were sown decades ago in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s; and the blame for the current financial health of the Big 3 should not be laid solely at the feet of today’s business and union leadership teams.

Interestingly, American automakers are in this predicament because, over the years, they accomplished their jobs; and they accomplished them with integrity to the mission at hand.

The union employees and their stewards and representatives served the needs of the workers – current and future. The executive leadership served the needs of the companies’ shareholders. This was their job, and it was this strategy that built and maintained an industry in America that was unmatched.

And while we can argue that Chrysler, General Motors and Ford were shortsighted in their planning, research and development – because none of the three introduced the Prius for example; or because they were too dependent on large SUVs and trucks for the bulk of their revenues – anyone doing so would prove that they do not fully understand the American economic system. These companies served the interests of their shareholders and their employees, and that was their job.


To deny that the American automotive industry hasn’t changed – they they haven’t begun producing fuel-efficient vehicles, that they weren’t proactive in reducing dealership ranks, or that they don’t equally serve their communities and their shareholders – would be shortsighted.

Automakers Still More Than $100 Billion Short of AIG

When we compare Detroit to Wall Street, the requested bailout amounts aren’t the only vast differences between the two. While the American auto industry could have done more to lessen the effects of the current recession, it was the leaders of the Wall Street firms that are receiving the greatest bailout amounts that caused the very economic crisis we are faced with today – the same economic crisis that caused the current recession that nudged the American auto industry on the brink of failure in the first place. You can’t blame Detroit’s issues on the Big 3 without including likes of AIG, Lehman and others.

While Detroit’s product and cost woes were primarily caused by business and union leaders long since gone; the Wall Street crisis was the brainchild of the same management teams in charge today. Automakers did not make risky bets with shareholder money or over-leverage their firms to maximize their own bonuses – that was the exclusive domain of Wall Street.

In the end, we are free market thinkers at AskTheManager.com, but we are also fair. Fair is fair, and we cannot use tax dollars to assist those who caused the crisis without also using a few bucks to help those caught up in it.

 

Donovan McNabb is no Albert Einstein… or is He?

 

Leadership Lessons from Donovan McNabb

After five quarters of football on Sunday, November 16, 2008, the Philadelphia Eagles and the Cincinnati Bengals played to a 13-13 tie. This tie was the first the NFL had seen in six years – ties, it seems, are rare in the NFL.

After the game, Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was quoted as saying that he wasn’t aware that ties could occur in the NFL. He assumed, incorrectly, that the teams would continue to play until someone scored.

Since making these statements, McNabb has unfairly become the poster child for dumb jocks all across America. From where we stand there are only four people on Donovan’s side: Radio hosts Mike Golic, Mike Greenberg, and Colin Cowherd; and Steelers’ QB Ben Roethlisberger. Fans, especially in Philly, are loudly claiming that McNabb is either the worst quarterback in the NFL or an idiot, or both.

We argue that Donovan McNabb is neither. In fact, by not understanding this seemingly simple rule, we argue that McNabb could be one of the best leaders in the NFL today.


Leaders Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff

NFL quarterbacks are required to remember scores of plays, receiver patterns, defensive schemes, and blocking patterns. We find it easy to forgive Donovan for  being a little unclear on the nits and nats of the NFL rulebook. In our opinion, that’s the coaches’ job.

True leaders, guys like Lincoln, Reagan, Iacocca and Buffet, don’t get involved in every detail of the business. They understand that they are only one person and that the collective intelligence of their leadership team will help them make the right decisions.

McNabb is no Einstein

While probably the greatest athlete-quarterback of the last ten years, McNabb will never be confused with the study-crazy QBs of this generation: Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. He is no Albert Einstein, for sure.

Interestingly, Albert Einstein and Donovan McNabb are more similar than you might think. Analogous to McNabb’s current situation, it seems that a colleague once asked Einstein for his phone number. Albert Einstein surprised this person by picking up the nearest phone book and reciting the number from the White Pages.

Einstein, you see, refused to fill his head with information that was easily obtainable from other sources. Genius, we might exclaim. Why don’t we exclaim the same about McNabb? It seems odd to us that any quarterback would fill his head with the rules about tie games in the NFL when they happen so seldom.

They have so much more to think about.

 

Goldman “Leaders” Choose Poverty over Incarceration

Goldman Leaders Forgo 2008 Bonuses

In a recent email from one of our readers, we were asked to weigh in on the Goldman Sachs Group’s leadership decision to request no bonuses for the current calendar year.

What are your thoughts on the following article?  How does this reflect leadership during these troubled times? – Tye Mills

(To read the article Tye mentions, follow this link.)

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, and six other top executives asked the board’s compensation committee to skip them during bonus time this year.

Pardon us if we don’t cheer.

While it is certainly admirable that these executives would take a seemingly proactive step to helping right the ship at Goldman, this decision should have come from the board (not from the executives) and should have come much sooner than November 2008. (In the nature of full disclosure, the executives likely gave up their bonuses because Attorney General Andrew Cuomo warned them last month that the bonuses might break New York State law.)

We never begrudge any executive their compensation nor any corporation their profits. This is the way our system works; and our system has worked better than any other in the history of the world. The prosperity enjoyed from Joe Six-Pack to Joe the Plumber is in large part due to the spoils enjoyed by the executives of the Fortune 500.

Take away their incentive to make money and you take away our standard of living.

Further, the seeds of destruction at corporations like Goldman and Lehman that plunged the world into economic turmoil were not planted by large bonuses. Rather, it was inattentive executives and especially their boards of directors who drove us off this cliff – while laughing and smiling all the way to the bank.




But How Will They Feed Their Families?

TheManager will not get a bonus this year, either. Not because I petitioned the board, but because my bonus is set up to pay out only when the shareholders make money. In 2008, my company’s shareholders lost quite a bit.

The removal of truly performance-based bonus pay is where most executives and boards have failed the owners of their companies; and why many of these men and women should be in jail. Leveraging your shareholders for personal gain, as Lehman has been reported to have done, by ratios of 30:1 or worse is criminal. No owner (and that’s what stockholders are) would ever agree to assume risks of this magnitude.

Before you worry about poor Lloyd and his crew, they will still receive roughly $600,000 each in base salary this year. Additionally, we can only wish that they were able to save some of their bonus from last year. (Just as the wheels of the economy were coming off in 2007, the top three executives at Goldman Sachs made more than $57 million each.)

It’s No Longer a Free Market

Companies, and especially their highly paid executives, have argued that multi-million dollar bonuses were necessary to “to attract and retain top talent.”

Top talent? By top talent, I’m hopeful you don’t mean Dick Fuld of Lehman or even Lloyd Blankfein.

Before we break our arms patting old Lloyd on the back, let’s remember that Blankfein was the CEO when Goldman posted a 70 percent drop in profits last quarter. Additionally, Blankfein was the CEO when Goldman stock plunged 69 percent this year. Doesn’t sound like bonus time to me.

In a free market, Goldman is free to pay its executives whatever they can grab. However, the market is no longer free for Goldman, Morgan Stanley and many other firms. Goldman, you see, took 10 billion of your tax dollars in the recent bailout. This makes them, in our opinion, a quasi-governmental entity. At the very least, they should be heavily regulated until we get our $10 billion back – this includes their executive compensation plans.

Back to Tye’s Question

Tye asked, “How does this reflect leadership during these troubled times?”

Tye, if this were truly a leadership move and not a classic CYA*, I would be impressed. I am not.

I would have been impressed if the leadership of Goldman Sachs had taken the long view toward building wealth for their shareholders and clients instead of focusing on their multi-million dollar paydays.

Once Goldman became a publicly traded entity in 1999 they moved the risk from themselves (the partners) to the shareholders. Without the risk, they were like drunken coeds on South Padre Island waiting for their shot on Girls Gone Wild.

Leadership is about service and sacrifice. Giving up a bonus because you’re afraid to go to jail is self preservation. Self preservation is as far from leadership as $57 million is from $600,000.

To read some interesting notes about the current crisis and how we really got there, check out a great article published last week by Liar’s Poker author Michael Lewis. It brings some closure to the fall of Salomon Brothers and some great insights into today’s troubles. Lewis convincingly argues that Salomon’s move from a partnership to a publicly traded corporation led to the current collapse. To read Lewis’ article, follow this link.

*Editor’s Note: CYA is code for “cover your ass.”

Barack Obama – Enlightened Leader?

Leadership Lessons from the President-Elect

As someone who voted for John McCain, I have to admit that (so far) I’m impressed by one of the leadership moves proposed by President-elect Barack Obama. It looks like Obama may build his Cabinet with those who often disagree with him.

Throughout the campaign, Obama seemed like someone who would say and do anything to be President. (In this respect, he was not so unlike McCain.) Obama, it seemed, just wanted to be President so bad that he actually made me nervous.

In fact, the AskTheManager.com editors were so confused by his windblown opinions during the campaign that we ranked him third behind McCain and Sarah Palin in ability to lead. This latest move to embrace his rivals will surely vault him ahead of Palin. (To see the original rankings, follow this link.)

Though I will never agree with Obama’s socialist leanings – and I believe his proposed economic policies could potentially destroy the very things that made this country great – his apparent willingness to embrace adversaries in an effort to staff his Cabinet with the very best is impressive.

What Business Leaders Can Learn From Obama

Just elected CEO of the World, Barack Obama could take the path that many Fortune 500 leaders have taken. He could surround himself with his friends, reward his loyal and faithful followers, and staff his team with a plethora of yes-men and yes-women.

For the moment, it appears Obama will take a page directly from the greatest Republican President (and second greatest Leadership-President) of all time. Obama has hinted that he will follow Abraham Lincoln’s lead and choose the most qualified – not necessarily the most loyal – to fill his Cabinet posts. (To see our rankings of US Presidents as leaders, follow this link.)

Presidents and business leaders generally claim they want to surround themselves with strong-willed people possessing the courage to disagree with them – seldom do they follow through with this position. A great example is provided by the worst President of all time, Richard Nixon.




Though he claimed he hated yes-men, no one dared tell Nixon “no.” Because his Cabinet was filled with neutered-nothings, his merry band of sycophants stood idly by while his presidency imploded.

Secretary of State Hillary?

Obama, hinting to appointments for Hillary Clinton, Republicans, and others who have disagreed with him, might actually be serious. If he is, he will be in rare company.

Lincoln appointed political enemies to important posts, including one who went so far as to describe Lincoln as a “long-armed ape.” Tough words in 1860.

If Obama follows Lincoln’s lead and appoints those he feels are most qualified to hold significant posts, and if he encourages them to disagree with him on important issues, he may very well set an example that all CEOs should follow. (Call me naïve, but I believe Lincoln’s leadership style could have saved virtually all of the companies declaring bankruptcy this year.)

Every leader needs people around them to tell them when they have no clothes. True leaders forget their egos and reward subordinates who have dissenting viewpoints – we’re hopeful that’s why they hired them in the first place.

Time will tell if Obama has skin thick enough to want the truth from his Cabinet, though I like what I see so far.

In Leadership, Obama Bats .500

It couldn’t all be good news, could it?

While I’m certainly impressed by what everyone thinks Obama may do with his Cabinet, I’m somewhat less impressed by the leadership lesson he provides in abandoning his Senate seat tomorrow.

If challenged, Obama’s people would surely claim that the President-elect needs to prepare for his first term, and that the Senate will be fine without him.

Really?

Doesn’t the lame duck Congress need to tackle the greatest economic crisis the US has seen in more than 70 years? Isn’t this the precise reason the people of Illinois elected him to serve? At a time when the country is devoid of leadership, Barack Obama provides a terrible lesson to the nation’s leaders: when the going gets tough, some people quit.

Winners Never Quit and…

While it’s true that Senator Barack Obama will be replaced in the US Senate, his replacement most likely won’t take office until after Christmas; and he/she most certainly won’t take office next week when the Senate meets to discuss the economic bailouts.

Is it possible Obama doesn’t really want to bail out the auto industry and he’s afraid of angering his union base? Who knows – all I know is that he is quitting early and leaving the decision on who will be the next US Senator from Illinois in the hands of a scandal-ridden Governor with a 13% approval rating.

Lest you argue that Governor Blagojevich would appoint the next Illinois Senator no matter what; wouldn’t it make more sense for Obama to wait until January 19, help the country through the current crisis, and hope the Governor resigns or is impeached between now and then? (I can dream.)

No matter how you slice it, quitting early does not sound like leadership to me. Let’s hope Obama has a really good reason for walking away in the middle of this crisis.

 

Leadership Lessons From Circuit City – Ho Hum, Another Bankrupt Retailer

 

Circuit CityAnother One Bites the Dust

In what might be the least surprising business announcement of 2008, Circuit City filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Monday.

Wow, really? Color us shocked.

To be honest, we’re a little shocked it took this long. We’re also a little surprised that their creditors aren’t forcing them into Chapter 7 liquidation – though that may come sooner rather than later. (Lest we forget, fellow specialty retailer Linens ‘N Things initially filed under Chapter 11 and is now in Chapter 7.)

Like Linens ‘N Things, Circuit City cannot blame their bankruptcy on the credit crisis, housing downturn or the growth of online retailing. No. Circuit City can only blame themselves. Specifically, they can only blame their leadership.

Leadership is More Than Directing Traffic

The Circuit City executives deserve to join Lehman’s Richard Fuld in the business Hall of Shame. Like Fuld, Circuit City leaders made misstep after misstep that effectively condemned their company. However, unlike Fuld, Circuit City’s leadership failed to take enough risks; deciding instead to ride out a doomed strategy for the past several years while their competition ate away at their market share.

What is Circuit City? At what do they excel? What is their niche? Can you identify one thing they do better than anyone else? The short answer: No. Circuit City is a vacuum; they are the epitome of nothingness; they lack an identity.

You must be the Best “Something”

Who’s the best online bookseller? Which hotel company provides the best customer service? Which rental car company is the undisputed king? Where can you go to get the best sushi in Las Vegas? (It’s important to note that 3 of these 4 command a premium for their products.)




The answers to these questions are not relevant to this discussion, though being the best and/or carving out a niche is critical in business – good economy or bad. Circuit City had no such niche. They were not the best at anything. They were known for nothing.

Of chains offering electronics, Wal-Mart is the low cost provider and Best Buy provides the largest selection and the most knowledgeable salespeople. Circuit City has long been known for poor service, poor selection and product shortages of loss leaders. This is not the niche you want to carve out for yourself. (Did Circuit City executives ever understand their goal?)

Circuit City chose to compete with Wal-Mart and Best Buy by duplicating pieces of these companies’ strategies – something they could never hope to do well – and they never bothered to create a unique business model that would provide something of value to consumers and provide them their piece of the pie.

While there is certainly room for additional bricks and mortar electronics retailers, Circuit City executives never understood what it took to be the best at something… anything.

That’s Not Fair – They Never Saw This Coming

If your argument is that the credit crisis is really what took Circuit City down you’re sadly mistaken. Perhaps you’re unaware that Circuit City executives burned through more than half a billion dollars in the last four years.

What about creating an aggressive online strategy? Doesn’t it seem like $500+ million would have been enough to develop a competitive online business model? With that kind of cash in 2004, true leaders would have developed a sustainable business. Instead, Circuit City chose to watch the cash reserves decline quarter-after-quarter until they were forced in bankruptcy. Were they negligent, incompetent or just suffering from analysis paralysis?

The End is Near

Don’t be fooled by their reorganization plans, Circuit City is down for the count and not getting up. Lousy leadership is lousy leadership, and court protections will change nothing.

While Chapter 11 might provide a short-term reprieve and allow them to stock their stores for Black Friday 2008, they’ll not be around for Black Friday 2009. (Heck, they probably won’t make it to Good Friday.)

….

(Just in case you were wondering, the answers to our questions about who are the best ___________ are Amazon, Ritz Carlton, Hertz and Nobu.)

 

The 25 Most Annoying Business Phrases

The 25 Most Annoying Business Phrases Managers Use

From the overused to the clichéd, we are inundated on a daily basis with annoying and ridiculous business phrases from the lips of well-meaning managers.

Why so many of us, present company included, rely on the latest catch phrases or tired business jargon to relay a particular message is unclear. Whether lazy, blocked or we really think it makes us sound important, we too often reach for the prepackaged word grouping instead of constructing an original sentence.

Tired of the constant use and misuse of worthless wordings, we decided to assemble a list of formulaic business phrases still in (over)use today. Of course, simply compiling a list of the worst or most annoying business phrases was too easy – narrowing that list to just twenty-five proved to be the hard part.

To add a little complexity to this project, we decided to author a single speech using all twenty-five of the most annoying business phrases. That speech, which you are encouraged to deliver at your company’s holiday party this year, is located at the bottom of this article.

After countless hours of debate, here is our list of the 25 Most Annoying Business Phrases Managers Use. For those wishing to sound more like true leaders, we included very simple replacement expressions for each.


  1. Think Outside of the Box – We cringe even writing this one. Inarguably the very worst, most annoying business phrase of all time, Think Outside of the Box has become such an overused cliché that Taco Bell coined their own version for a national ad campaign: Think Outside the Bun. Once the likes of Taco Bell, Sears, General Motors or 7-11 latch onto a popular phrase and add it to their lexicon, that phrase has officially become a caricature of its former self. The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Think Creatively.
  2. Give 110% – Our problems with this phrase are both the impossibility of giving 110% and the sheer belief that somehow, if you could actually give 110%, that this would be good enough. Why stop at 110%? What are you, a slacker? We know Nigel Tufnel would give 111%, anyway. The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Do Your Best.
  3. Hit the Ground Running – Meant to energize a team to start work on a project immediately, this overused idiom generally has the opposite effect. Usually the person telling their team to “hit the ground running” is some do-nothing who only hits the ground running when five o’clock rolls around. The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Get Started Immediately.
  4. The 30,000-Foot View – Though not the only use or misuse of this phrase, “the 30,000-foot view” is often uttered by pompous managers who believe they see the big picture that the rest of us are somehow missing. We get it, okay, you want us to believe you’re considering every outcome of a particular decision. The origins of this phrase, which is meant to describe the view from a commercial airplane (flying at 30,000 feet), have become so misunderstood that we often hear our colleagues refer to everything from the 5,000-foot view to the 100,000-foot view – clearly different views. The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: The Big Picture (we know this is also clichéd, but at least everyone will understand the meaning).
  5. FYI – The overused acronym meaning For Your Information, has become such an annoyance to hear uttered (writing FYI is sometimes useful) that one of our editors believes FYI actually means Fornicate You, Idiot. (Of course, he replaces “fornicate” with a common expletive.) He claims that it becomes a little more palatable to hear someone say “FYI” when you think of it in his context. Like putting the words “in bed” after your read the saying from a fortune cookie, this immature habit of his works well and is quite funny. The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: nothing (uttering “FYI” adds no value and does not need to be replaced – just stop saying it).
  6. Blocking and Tackling – Whenever someone in your business skips the basics and fails, managers will often say “it’s just blocking and tackling” to signify that the simplest of tasks were not completed. Of all the overused sports analogies applied to business, this is the most annoying because it implies that blocking and tackling are easy tasks. In football blocking and tackling are the most important tasks, and not necessarily the easiest. Without blocking, the offense cannot score. Without tackling, the defense cannot stop the offense. Since we don’t actually block or tackle at work, let’s drop this silly misuse. The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Primary Tasks or Basic Tasks.
  7. 800-Pound Gorilla – Used in business to mean some entity so dominating or uncontrollable (because of their power or size) that others must show respect/consideration, the term “800-pound gorilla” is so overused we feel like throwing poop. Given that the average gorilla weighs about 400 pounds (and usually likes to throw poop at zoo visitors), you can imagine the damage that an 800-pound gorilla would cause. Annoying because it is unnecessary, this phrase is so often misused (like 30,000-foot view) that we once heard “200-pound gorilla” and “1,000-pound gorilla” uttered in the same meeting – ugh! The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Industry Leader.
  8. Throw Under the Bus – Often correctly used to describe acts of betrayal in the workplace that provide a minor advantage to the one doing the throwing: “he really threw him under the bus,” this relatively new business phrase has quickly become an annoyance by its watered-down overuse. The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Sacrifice.
  9. Rightsizing – This politically correct term for “cutting expenses” vaults into our top ten by virtue of a recent explosion in usage. The current economic climate has forced businesses to make tough decisions, and these decisions most often include expense reductions and layoffs. Managers who feel uneasy using real world terminology to describe their actions take the coward’s course and declare they are rightsizing their organizations. If it was truly “rightsizing” we were doing, then we’d be doing it during good times too, wouldn’t we? The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Downsizing (that’s if you’re afraid of the word “layoff”).
  10. Reaching Out – This phrase is probably most annoying because it seems no one calls or emails anymore, they just reach out – its usage has certainly exploded. The image of someone reaching out to us is more than a little creepy, and yet more and more of our colleagues tell us they are “reaching out” to us – we’d prefer they just email. The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Contact.
  11. Low-Hanging Fruit – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Easy.
  12. Incremental Improvement – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Improvement.
  13. My Two Cents – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: My Opinion.
  14. Solutions Provider – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Vendor.
  15. Bring Your “A” Game – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Arrive Prepared.
  16. Tear Down the Silos – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Remove Barriers.
  17. Paradigm Shift – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Fundamental Change.
  18. Take it to the Next Level – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Improve.
  19. Light a Fire Under Him/Her – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Motivate.
  20. Client Engagement – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Meeting.
  21. Take it Offline – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Discuss it Later.
  22. At This Point in Time – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Now, Currently or Today.
  23. Give You a Heads Up – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Provide Notice.
  24. Synergy – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Collaboration.
  25. Action Item – The AskTheManager replacement phrase leaders should use: Task.

As promised, here is a speech you can deliver at your holiday party this year that will surely make you sound like either the most intelligent or most pompous person in the room. Intelligence is in the ear of the receiver.

I’m reaching out to you today to thank you for helping us make 2008 a solid year for our business. Despite the economic turmoil we face at this point in time, your dedication to synergy and out of the box thinking has allowed us to make incremental improvement in our rightsizing efforts. FYI, In order for us to take it to the next level, we need everyone to hit the ground running on their ‘09 action items and give 110%. As I take a 30,000-foot view of our industry, I see competitive solutions providers who must light a fire under their teams, tear down their silos and make significant paradigm shifts if they expect to catch us, the 800-Pound Gorilla. To these companies I say, “let me give you a heads up, you’d better bring your ‘A’ game if you want to beat us.” We are the industry’s best because we are superior in every way. We are better at blocking and tackling, we are better at gathering the low hanging fruit and we are better at exceeding expectations during client engagements. If we have disagreements, we take it offline – we never throw each other under the bus. If you want my two cents, I would rather work with this group than with the finest people on earth.

Now sit back and bask in the applause.

It’s the Leadership, Stupid – Why the Economy is in the Toilet…

It’s the Leadership, Stupid

These past few months have seen the greatest turmoil in the worldwide credit and stock markets most of us have ever experienced. With depression-like drops in equities and recession-like layoffs, foreclosures and bankruptcies, nearly everyone has been too busy bailing water to blame the Captain… until now.

While much of the culpability for the current economic crisis will surely be laid at the feet of a lame duck president, government regulators, and greedy real estate speculators, the real origins of today’s woes are the misguided leaders of the once great companies that are at the center of this mess. Though we may lose sight of this during a tumultuous presidential race and our own personal issues, history will show that we are on the brink of an economic disaster driven by personal greed and virtually nothing else.

Of course, Richard Fuld (former CEO of bankrupt Lehman Brothers) and Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron (former CEOs of credit-crisis-causing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively) will undoubtedly argue that all of their moves were designed to help others (shareholders and homeowners). They’ll claim, as other White Collar criminals before them have argued, that they were not made aware of the risks associated with their mismanagement. In fact, if these men are able to avoid prison, they’ll surely be back at the helm of something, making millions because of their connections and not their leadership.

It’s Time for Change

If Barack Obama had one thing right in the presidential race, it’s that we need change in this country. Not necessarily political change (hasn’t Obama’s party been in control of Congress throughout this mess?), but Leadership change.

Boards of publicly traded companies too often choose the ineffective or ill-equipped to run their enterprises. When times are good, they allow their management teams to run amuck in their excesses. Perks are one thing – in fact, they’re vital to attracting and maintaining the right talent – but foolishly spending the shareholders’ return is something entirely different. Most boards, it seems, look the other way and do not demand accountability until it is too late.

It’s Time for Accountability in Leadership

The “perp walk” of Dick Fuld and his ilk that is sure to come will not be enough to satisfy the AskTheManager editors that we’re making the right changes for American business. While Fuld will most likely be held accountable in criminal proceedings, he is not alone in the culpability department at Lehman. Lehman Brothers did not fail because of one man’s inability to manage himself out of a paper bag. The Lehman board is every bit as culpable and should be help every bit as accountable as Dick Fuld.

Board seats are coveted, cherished, and often financially rewarding. You cannot simply “apply” to become a board member – you have to be invited. While many board members posses a terrific track record running some of the most successful companies in the world, too often board members are unqualified boobs who happen to have friends in the right places.




Given this, perhaps we can create a new saying in American business: Those who can, do. Those who can’t, serve as CEO. Those who can’t serve as CEO, sit on the board.

The Next Perp Walk

Civil remedies alone are not enough to properly shock board members into acting responsibly (or turning down board posts they’re not qualified to hold). It’s time for change in the way we treat board members in America. It’s time we introduced them to the criminal justice system.

Collecting a six figure paycheck for showing up to four meetings a year and allowing an unqualified CEO to pull the wool over your eyes is more than irresponsible – it’s reckless. In the past, reckless actions like we’ve seen from the Lehman board and others have only led to a short term decrease in share value. Today, they’re helping to fuel the greatest economic fire since the 1930s.

It’s time we put a few of these board members in jail. Only then could clear out some of the most ineffective boards of all time and staff them with shareholder advocates, committed to service and dedicated to driving leadership through their management teams.