Tag Archives: Leadership

Dear Occupy Wall Street Protesters: When Did I Become the Bad Guy?

Posted on by
6

 

It seems that as a pro-capitalism, successful business leader that I am somehow partially to blame for what ails the protesters who’ve joined the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. I am the enemy. I am the bad guy.

While I’ve tried desperately to comprehend both their demands and their end game, I have to admit that I am at a loss. One day someone who seems to be an OWS muckety muck (they don’t have any true leaders as of this writing) is claiming that all of capitalism must go; though the next day the protesters are joined by union leaders (whose members are employed by companies that benefit from capitalism) and the message is that corporate greed must go. (Is there anything more amorphous than “corporate greed?”)

It would be nice, actually, if they only had these two viewpoints; but the truth is that for every smelly twenty-something you see holding a sign (or an iPhone), there is a different take on what it is they are trying to “solve” with these protests.

I put the word solve in quotes because I’m not sure they want to solve anything. They really just seem mad that they don’t have all the same luxuries as the successful people in our society (the bad guys). Most of them just seem to want those of us who’ve worked for what we have to give it all back to “society” so that we can all be equally miserable doing without.

When Did I Become the Bad Guy?

By most protesters’ definition, I am a bad guy. I have my own business and I make a good living. My children have cool gadgets and we live in a nice house; in a nice neighborhood. I am really very satisfied with my life. A life, I might add, that did not happen by accident. So I need to know: When did I become the bad guy?

As an eight-year-old in 1971, I began selling candy door-to-door in Glendale, Arizona. I’m not sure how much I made, but it was probably somewhere around $10 per week. (We were poor when I was growing up, so if I wanted to buy anything, I had to earn the money to buy it.)

Is this when I became the bad guy?

From around 1973 through 1977, I ran paper routes (sometimes one route in the morning and one in the afternoon) and sold magazines, newspaper subscriptions and seeds door-to-door. I used my money to buy sports cards, comic books, bicycle parts and candy.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

Throughout my high school years (77-81), I worked at fast food joints, a minor league ballpark and an amusement park. (I doubt there was ever 20 consecutive days that I was out of a job.) I used the money I earned in high school to buy a motorcycle, then a car, fill those with gas, buy beer (yes, illegally) and eat at Jack-in-the-Box or McDonald’s on occasion.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

From 1981 until 1985, I served in the US Marine Corps; mostly on the island of Guam. I was a Russian Linguist in the Corps and I worked what some civilians would think was not only a weird schedule, but probably inhumane. It was called a “2-2-2 and 80.” With this schedule, you worked two day shifts (8AM-4PM); two mid shifts (12AM-8AM); and two eve shifts (4PM-12AM); then you had 80 consecutive hours off. You only had eight hours between your second day shift and your first mid shift; likewise after your second mid shift. I used the money the Marines paid me to buy beer, a computer, stereo equipment, a car and some pretty cool Christmas presents for my family every year.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

After the Marine Corps, I enrolled at Arizona State University where I took a full class load while I worked fulltime to pay my bills. (During my time at ASU – among other equally glamorous jobs – I drove a taxi, worked as a security guard and even sold manure.) As my money got tighter, I took fewer classes and worked more jobs. I studied business, though because I eventually ran out of room on my credit cards, I left ASU deeply in debt and a few credits short of a bachelor’s degree. Ready to just join the workforce and not worry about college, I accepted a job as the manager of an aircraft parts warehouse and worked very hard to do my part to help this Mom & Pop operation become successful.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

A couple of years later, in 1991, my soon-to-be wife and I moved to Chicago so that I could begin work for a beer distributorship as a salesman. Once I arrived, I made sure that I always worked harder and smarter than any of my coworkers. As a result, I was promoted to a territory sales manager position and given a nice raise.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

After I got married in 1993, I decided to go back to school and finish my degree at Governor’s State University. I endeavored to finish my education by working during the day and going to school at night (and on some Saturdays). About a month before my first son was born in July 1994, I finally earned my bachelor’s degree.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

By the time I left this beer distributorship in mid-1997, I had worked my way up to Vice President of Sales earning $73,103 in 1996 (when you included all my bonuses). Even though I now had two sons at home, I was working more than sixty hours each week to better myself.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

From mid-97 until mid-2001, I owned a tiny minority stake in an equally tiny beer distributorship in Missouri. As the managing partner of this wholesale operation, I often arrived at work before 5 AM to load the beer trucks. Once I finished my morning paperwork, I would go out into the field to meet with retailers and convince them to carry my product (which was not easy since the previous distributor had gone bankrupt and left the market without my brands for more than eight months). I was a business owner in name only (because the banks really owned the business) and some nights I worked past midnight. Over the four years that I ran the operation, we were able to dramatically grow our sales (easy to do when you start at the bottom) because of hard work and a lot of perspiration. We sold the brands we distributed in May 2001 to a couple of competing wholesalers, and I reentered the corporate world.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

From 2001 through 2009 I moved my way up through various companies by always outworking my counterparts. I not only worked harder, but I also studied (as I had been doing since 1991) all the industry information and business success literature I could get my hands on. I was a voracious reader of the likes of Tom Peters and Stephen Covey. I am convinced that my success over that period was due to the hours I dedicated towards working hard and studying equally hard. In 2009 I reported to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

Is this when I became the bad guy?

In 2009 – during the worst recession of my lifetime – I left the safety of the corporate world and started my own business: part consulting and part developing products to make others more successful. Over the last two years I’ve routinely worked more than twelve hours a day, including most weekends; and my travel schedule, while not as grueling today as it was in 2009, still earns me 1st Class upgrades on nearly every flight. I feel like I’m finally bringing in enough money to help my sons (I have three of them now) get a better head start than I got; to help them to not run out of money while going to college; and to help them choose a career that’s fun for them, rather than taking the route I took and always having to work to pay the bills. My business is doing so well that I expect to start hiring fulltime workers in 2012 (provided the economic and tax situations make that a feasible decision). I have no debt (other than a house I’ve been trying to sell in Atlanta) and we’re putting away a good amount for our retirement.

If I hadn’t become the bad guy before now, then clearly it was my decision to chase the American Dream (and my ability to catch it) that made me the bad guy to the Wall Street protesters. Just so I can get this straight: It’s okay to chase the American Dream, but if you happen to catch it, be prepared to be asked to give it all back to those who weren’t willing to sacrifice as much as you were…

…

I wish I had some great wisdom to bestow on those protesters who think I’m the bad guy. I wish there were words to ease the minds of those who are (in effect) protesting the fact that my “greed” will someday create jobs for them – jobs that will allow them to chase the American Dream if they so desire.

Unfortunately for the protestors, the words they need to hear will not ease their minds. They should have heard these words years ago from parents who should have taught them about hard work and dedication to a job well done.

The words I have for the Occupy Wall Street crowd is simply this: Stop bellyaching; retract your outstretched paw looking for a handout; go home and shower; and (as I did my entire life) seek out any job you can get. Once you’re in that job, work harder and smarter than everyone else and good things should happen for you.

And if they don’t, then you start over.

Secretary Duncan Should Wear a Dunce Cap

Posted on by
2

 

Lessons on Leadership and Humanity from Arne Duncan

 

As we wrote last month in our post about local school administrators: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, become administrators.” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is the administrator of all administrators.

 

On Tuesday, Secretary Duncan was in Denver proclaiming that American children should attend school more hours each day, six or seven days each week and eleven or twelve months each year. For those of you who didn’t attend enough school to understand what that means, that’s roughly equal to at least 85% more classroom time for every child between the ages of five and eighteen. (Did Duncan bother to do the math before he made these statements? It’s hard to believe that the former head of the mediocre Chicago Public Schools really intended to propose that we increase the amount of classroom time by 85%.)

 

As the parent of three school-age children, I can tell you that more education does not equal better education. But that, my friends, is an argument for another day. (And let’s not even try to find out who is going to pay for 85% more schooling.)


 

China and India and Bears, Oh My!

 

“You’re competing for jobs with kids from India and China. I think schools should be open six, seven days a week; eleven, twelve months a year,” Duncan told a bored group of middle-schoolers in Denver.

 

His statement begs three questions: 1) What jobs? 2) Is more K-12 education the key to landing these mysterious jobs? And 3) Is this what life is all about?  

 

What Jobs?

 

Exactly what jobs are our children competing for with kids from India and China? Thirty-five cents per hour sweatshop jobs in China, or the $10,000 per year programming jobs in India? Perhaps Duncan was referring to the outflow of call center jobs to Indian companies that pay upwards of $5,000 per year. We can’t be sure, but we are fairly certain that you can’t even get an uneducated American to work for those wages.

 

Is More K-12 Education the Key to Landing These Mysterious Jobs?

 

Let’s give Arne Duncan the benefit of the doubt for a moment and say that there are indeed American jobs that can be saved. Is more education the key to landing these jobs? Can Duncan provide any guarantees that subjecting our children to 85% more schooling before they turn eighteen will have any effect on their ability to perform these jobs?

 

As someone with a public education (from elementary school through college) and a pretty good day job, I can tell you that I have interacted with hundreds of people (foreign and domestic) with more education than me who couldn’t perform my job with twice the training I’ve had. What I bring to my company (and what millions of others across the globe bring to theirs) cannot be taught with more hours of primary education – you either get it or you don’t. What counts in my job are business acumen, deductive reasoning and a high I.Q. – these are likely not going to be part of Duncan’s super-sized curriculum.

 

Is This What Life is All About?

 

Assuming Duncan is 100% right about everything; I have to know if this is what life is all about. Are we meant to be cogs fighting for national supremacy? Should we all start wearing our country’s colors and chant anti-globalization slogans? Do we want our kids to become over-educated automatons? Do we care at all about their personal, social and/or spiritual growth?

 

Duncan’s poorly planned proposal leaves no room for afterschool activities like the Mock Trial Club (which could help make some kid a great attorney), the Fashion Club (which could help make some kid a top designer), or the Operation Smile Club (which could help make some kid a terrific human being). (Yes, these clubs and millions like them exist in our schools today. We found these three at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School right around the corner from Duncan’s D.C. office.)

 

Duncan’s plan leaves no room for summer vacations to the Grand Canyon, Gettysburg or even Disney World. It leaves no room for summer camps or overseas trips. In other words, Duncan’s Folly leaves no room for discovery or wonder or life; it only leaves room for books.

 

I really don’t care if my kids land great jobs or if children in India and China get those gigs; I just want my kids to be satisfied with who they become and the choices they make. Of course, I’m especially hopeful they’ll make a difference in this world.

 

Taking away their childhood and everything that makes America a great place to live is not the answer, and shoving their nose in a book for eleven months a year will not help them do anything meaningful.

 

 

The Nerds are Taking Over – What The Terminator can Teach Us About Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

 

Skynet is Here, and the Nerds are at the Controls

(Terminator fans can probably skip the next two paragraphs, as they’re just an explanation of the havoc we can expect in our not-too-distant future.)

Skynet, for the uninformed, is a computer-based defense system, created by nerds working for the U.S. military in the 1990s. Long story short, Skynet was put in control of all of the U.S. military’s weapons and given the task of protecting Americans from all threats. Skynet was such a powerful computer program that it “learned” at an exponential rate until it became self-aware.

Skynet, which was basically created to remove the possibility of human error in the event of an enemy attack, eventually turned on the very humans it was designed to protect (it deemed them a threat when they tried to shut it down), and it decided to terminate all humans to protect its own existence.

Can You Even Spell IT?

Welcome to 2009, where instead of Cyberdyne Systems’ Skynet program, we have our various corporate IT departments protecting us from ourselves. (IT, by the way, is short for Information Technology. An oxymoron really, since no one involved with technology is ever very forthcoming with any information.)

At my company this week, our self-aware IT department blocked our regional employees from accessing our own consumer-facing websites because they were “uncategorized.” Never mind that it is the IT department’s job to categorize these sites, or that these websites have been live and accessible for ten years.

This team also blocked employees in our corporate office from accessing our advertising agency’s demo site (where we login to view details of the current marketing programs and make changes to artwork, etc.). The violation here, you ask? Not sure, though the following menacing message appeared on everyone’s screen who attempted to access the website:

“This site is blocked by Corporate Policy.

Reason for restriction: Administrative Custom List Settings”

Aha! The three big threats to our internal network security are clearly computer worms, malicious viruses and “Administrative Custom List Settings.”

While I find this just a little bit humorous today, I was not laughing during the seven hours Thursday while I jumped through hoop after hoop to get the website lifted from the banned domains’ list.




Better Safe than Sorry

Of course, the nerd-driven event this week that clearly proved to be a sign that Skynet is upon us and is exponentially becoming self-aware, happened when one of our vendors (finally) disclosed that they had been “scrubbing” our customer email lists and destroying those that were equated with “domains that have suspicious registration and DNS configuration settings.” While I have no idea what that means in English, suffice it to say that this vendor, without direction from us, had been purging our records of valid customer email addresses because they didn’t like the way the email addresses smelled.

This vendor has potentially cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars all in the name of “data integrity.” The CEO of this company had the nerve to claim that it is better to be safe, than to be sorry.

Really? That’s what you’re going with here? No one asked you to protect us; and as it turns out, you were protecting us from nothing.

When we examined the recent email addresses they had purged (they kept a record of what they deleted in the past week), we found no malicious threats, no spammers and no breach to our data integrity. What we did discover were valid email addresses for real customers who were scheduled to be removed permanently from our database (like the hundreds or thousands before them).

The Tail Wagging the Dog

Prior to the anointment of the IT staff as Lord and Protector in the business world, we had the Admin Nazis. Those large women with cafeteria lady arms or the small, pale men who could stifle the joy of any young salesman’s first big sale with a simple and curt “paperwork’s not right; order’s rejected.”

I’m starting to miss the good old days where anyone in an administrative function believed the world revolved around them. When I was starting out in business, it was woe unto anyone on the operations side who tried to circumvent or curtail the self-important authority of an Admin Nazi. They could be very vindictive and selective in their enforcement of proper paperwork, you see.  

Back then we complained that the tail was wagging the dog; and we just lived with it because we could. As bad as the Admin Nazis were, they just made our lives suck; they didn’t actually control them.

If You’re Not Selling, then You’re Support

The only cure for the productivity-killing Admin Nazi was great leadership. Great leaders have a way of weighing inter-departmental priorities against the goal, and finding a solution that, although it doesn’t always please everyone, makes the most sense over both the short and long terms. They put administrators in their place by asking them to administrate and support the efforts of those who drive the real value for the company: those who touch our customers.

While great leadership was able to overcome the threat of the Admin Nazi in the past, it turns out that great leaders are often the ones who are allowing IT to build their version of Skynet at your company in the present. Because support for this over-protectionism comes from the top, trying to wrestle control from a nerd with network administrative rights is going to be a whole lot harder than getting Marge to accept a customer contract without the Ts crossed.

By the way, this is not the tail wagging the dog; this is the flea wagging the dog’s owner.

Your CEO is oblivious to what the real threats are or what they mean to your business, so she is forced to listen to the CIO’s version of reality. Chief Information Officers, it seems, are mostly frustrated former nerds with larger offices and tons of control.

Their power initially grew from a lack of knowledge and fear; although they gain more muscle every time some knucklehead in a cubicle downloads malware while registering for a free iPhone. Forget that the CIO’s team should have proactively ensured there were adequate protections against malicious computer code in the first place; it only takes a few hours of network outage for the CEO to give up a little more of her power to the CIO. It’s better to be safe than sorry, they’ll say.

I’ll Be Back

Cybernetic organisms aside, it’s time that leaders start asking tough questions of their CIOs and other IT department heads before we allow the nerds to give the computers all the control.

A simple “Why” can work wonders.

Every time anyone in IT appears to be protecting us from ourselves, the leader needs to ask “why?” And when IT answers the question, the leader needs to ask “and why is that important?”

Two questions is more accountability than most IT mangers can handle. They’ll either capitulate or their human-like skin will melt away, revealing their android inner self.

In case the IT manager insists on continuing with their course of action after the leader has asked the two “Why” questions, we recommend they follow up with something like “I’m not sure that’s in our best interest, can you put that request in-writing and give it to my administrative assistant Marge?”

(Marge, you see, misses her old role as an Admin Nazi.)

 

Catch Your Limit: Management Consultancy, Leadership Blog and Fish Cleaning Service

Posted on by
1

 

Great Leadership Blog Worthy of Special Mention – CatchYourLimit.com

As our regular readers know, we produce four semi-regular Blogwatch series covering Time Management, Sales Management, Management Training and Leadership Development. In these series we attempt to help you cut through the clutter and discover great writing and great advice.

While we think we do a pretty good job of culling the crud, we sometimes overlook great blogs. When we do, we’re excited when readers bring these wonderful sites to our attention.

One of our readers turned us on to a great Leadership Development website that had not been a part of our Blogwatch series, called CatchYourLimit.com. This site and its accompanying blog are the brainchild of an innovative leadership consulting company known as Catch Your Limit.

What makes Catch Your Limit so innovative is their approach to management and leadership consulting that moves away from the starched shirts and toward what really matters: coaching; accountability; consistency and cleaning fish. (Long story, you have to read their About Us page to understand.)




Based on what we learned about this innovative consultancy and their great blog, we hereby amend yesterday’s Leadership Development Blogwatch and add the following post:

Transparency is to Employee Engagement as Failure is to Innovation

Leaders will never gain the trust of their employees, especially in uncertain times without a significant level of transparency. As innovation needs experimentation and failure, employees need transparency from leadership for engagement to take place.

One of the difficulties many organizations are facing is transitioning from a “corporate memo” top down communication culture to having honest and candid conversations with their employees. The former creates an environment of rumors, gossip and anxiety while the latter allows employees to feel a certain level of security remaining engaged and productive.

Like improving the economy it’s easier said than done. It isn’t easy to tell people they may lose their job. It isn’t easy to discuss a negative financial outlook…

(To read the rest of this article and other great posts on CatchYourLimit.com, please follow this link.)

 

Leadership, Personal Relationships and Infidelity

Posted on by
Reply

 

Leadership, Personal Relationships and Infidelity

John Edwards, Elliott Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick and Jennifer Aniston’s mates. What do these men have in common? Hint: they are all alleged to have a problem keeping their pants on in the presence of women who are not their significant others.

After hearing about the John Edwards infidelity revelations a few months ago, a colleague asked “what’s the big deal?”

It was hard to contain my disbelief that someone whom I considered a fairly mature leader didn’t understand how an extramarital affair could affect one’s ability to the lead the United States as President.

“After all,” he added, “Kennedy, Clinton and countless other Presidents fooled around.”

“If Your Brother Jumped Off a Cliff…

… does that mean it’s okay for you to do it?” I found myself repeating my mother’s words of wisdom that I had grown to detest as a child. I couldn’t help myself, it was too easy.

Satisfied with my immature admonishment of my colleague, I settled into a more reasoned approach aimed at educating him on infidelity and its negative affect on leadership.

For presidential wanabees, incumbent state governors and city mayors, failures of the flesh are the kiss of death for a number of reasons. (It’s funny though, usually not for the most important reason.) That is, if a politician is anything but squeaky clean, he opens himself and his administration to extortionist efforts by his rivals, special interest groups and, worst of all for US Presidents, other nations.

Much of America simply loses faith today (not so much in Kennedy’s time) of a politician who is unfaithful. They see his or her inability to maintain wedding vows as a sign of deceit, not as a sign of diminished capacity to lead.

Leadership is About Judgment

We depend on our business and political leaders to show great judgment in the face of adverse conditions. Someone incapable of keeping their eyes on what’s truly important is also incapable of leading in the new millennium. This is not to say that there aren’t instances of unfaithful leaders who accomplished great things. Alleged adulterer Rudy Giuliani comes to mind. Of course, he stood no chance of gaining the Republican nomination as his alleged misdeeds were more recent (and public) than the allegations against John McCain.  

For every Giuliani there are thousands of Brads. Brad, not his real name, was a college buddy who had intelligence, good looks and great business acumen. Brad, however, has what he calls “an addiction” for adultery. Because he spends all of his free time chasing his next conquest, he often neglects his work and his family.

To make a long story short, Brad is now a forty-five year old, low-level manager for a small company on the verge of bankruptcy. He is married to his third wife (whom he met while fooling around on his second wife), and his adult kids hate him. He continues to fool around and this keeps him distracted at work. He often makes business decisions that help him feed his “habit” – joining a vendor at a strip club, for example, instead of going to bed early before an important meeting.

When you compare Brad to our other college friends, it’s sad. Brad’s salary is less than one-third the average of this group, and his prospects for promotion are non-existent. Conversely, the rest of his college buddies and I continue to enjoy great careers with plenty of positive movement. While many factors could account for this discrepancy, Brad is the lone (admitted) adulterer in the group.




Great Leadership is About Selflessness

Fooling around on your spouse is a selfish act. It demonstrates a belief that your needs are more important than the needs of others. Great leaders serve their subordinates, not the other way around. Because of this they develop a selfless nature that helps them make decisions without the added burden of an unhealthy ego.

Selfishness is more damaging in personal relationships, like that of Jennifer Aniston and (fill in a male celebrity’s name here), than it is in business. Of course, fewer people are hurt in a personal relationship.

Selfless people make great life mates and great leaders. Unfortunately, selfless people are often too humble to attract the attentions of Aniston or a Fortune 500 Board of Directors. They are so self-satisfied and accomplished that they almost never toot their own horns in a search for attention. (Hint: great leaders toot the horns of those around them.)

One Lie Begets Another

Lies are just like Lay’s Potato Chips, you can’t eat just one. Lies have a way of multiplying faster than Gremlins in a swimming pool. Just ask Kwame Kilpatrick.

Former Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick is alleged to have cheated on his wife and then reportedly lied under oath to cover it up. It’s never the infidelity; it’s always the cover up. Unfaithful actions lead to dishonest words.

We should expect more from our leaders. Leaders should be selfless. Too often, we’re discovering supposed leaders who spend hundreds of hours covering up a one-hour tryst. How impactful might they be if they concentrated on having sex with just their spouse?

Selfless people, on the other hand, have no reason to lie. Because they are not looking for the spotlight or working overtime to feed their own habits, they are never confronted with questions about their activities or character.

I Would Probably Lie, if I had a Better Memory

Whether the result of character or a simple lack of short term memory, I quit lying (for personal gain) at age eight. (My spouse would argue the latter.) It seemed that the payoffs were no longer positive after that age. Like all non-liars, I’ve seen my share of dishonest folks enjoying the spoils of their half-truths, knowing in my heart that I’d get mine in the end (and so would they).

Non-liars and faithful spouses aren’t envious of the adulterers and the damn liars who succeed in the short-term, although we are curious why everyone is always so surprised when the cheater is revealed. Seriously, it shows in their lack of true leadership.

 

Lehman Brothers, Leadership and Business Bankruptcy

Posted on by
1

 

Leadership and Business Bankruptcy

Bennigan’s, Mrs. Fields and Lehman Brothers. Not really three names you’d ever expect to see in the same sentence, but all three have one thing in common: they all declared bankruptcy in 2008 and substandard leadership is to blame.

Lehman Brothers is certainly the most shocking name on this list. A 158-year old company, Lehman Brothers should have been able to withstand anything. They withstood the Great Depression and two World Wars didn’t they? Economic conditions that would have sunk most companies had no long-term effects on the sturdy Lehman Brothers.

Then came the mortgage meltdown of 2008. Something as truly innocuous as a housing slump was able to cause the collapse of a company started before the Civil War.

How Does A 158-Year Old Company Declare Bankruptcy?

Well, it seems it’s not very hard to do. All you need is egocentric leadership making millions in the short-term without having any regard for the future or (as maybe the case for Lehman) leaders who are asleep at the wheel.

Henry Lehman, Emanuel Lehman and Mayer Lehman founded the company in Montgomery, Alabama in 1850 as a general store that would soon start trading in cotton. Lehman Brothers would eventually grow into one of the most respected and revered names in financial services in the world.

This past weekend, they announced that they could no longer survive and Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. Clearly CEO Richard Fuld, Jr., who had been with Lehman for nearly forty years, was the not the servant steward that companies need in their top office.


Whether ego or greed or simple inattention to the risks of the new economy, Fuld, his management team and Lehman’s Board of Directors failed Lehman’s shareholders (the real owners of the company) and destroyed one of the best names in global finance.

We would be remiss if we failed to provide you with the names of all of those responsible for the failure of this great institution. Henry, Emanuel and Mayer Lehman founded the company, and these men and women failed to provide true leadership and they, in effect, destroyed it:

Lehman Brothers Senior Management:

  • Richard S. Fuld, Jr. – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
  • Riccardo Banchetti – Co-Chief Executive Officer, Europe and the Middle East
  • Jasjit S. Bhattal – Chief Executive Officer, Asia-Pacific
  • Gerald A. Donini – Global Head of Equities
  • Eric Felder – Global Co-Head of Fixed Income
  • Scott J. Freidheim – Co-Chief Administrative Officer
  • Michael Gelband – Global Head of Capital Markets
  • David Goldfarb – Chief Strategy Officer
  • Alex Kirk – Global Head of Principal Investing
  • Hyung S. Lee – Global Co-Head of Fixed Income
  • Stephen M. Lessing – Head of Client Relationship Management
  • Ian T. Lowitt – Chief Financial Officer and Co-Chief Administrative Officer
  • Herbert H. McDade III – President and Chief Operating Officer
  • Hugh E. McGee III – Global Head of Investment Banking
  • Christian Meissner – Co-Chief Executive Officer, Europe and the Middle East
  • Thomas A. Russo – Vice Chairman/Chief Legal Officer
  • George H. Walker – Global Head of Investment Management

Lehman Brothers Board of Directors:

  • Richard S. Fuld, Jr.
  • Michael L. Ainslie
  • John F. Akers
  • Roger S. Berlind
  • Thomas H. Cruikshank
  • Marsha Johnson Evans
  • Sir Christopher Gent
  • Jerry A. Grundhofer
  • Roland A. Hernandez
  • Henry Kaufman
  • John D. Macomber

The sad fact for American business is that all of these senior managers made millions from Lehman shareholders, and they’ll surely land in new roles with other companies despite their record of poor leadership in the face of economic changes.

More disturbing is the fact that the members of the Board of Directors will probably escape unscathed in this mess. Their role and goal is to protect the shareholder. That’s simply not possible when you serve on multiple boards or continue to operate your own company while serving.

Nothing will change with these absentee boards until we take business failures more seriously – and that includes prison time for directors who so miserably fail to protect shareholders.

The Biggest Lehman Joke

I think the biggest joke bestowed on shareholders can be found on the Lehman website where you can view an ironic page entitled Sustainability (also take time to read the Mission Statement). Here’s a link to the Sustainability page that should work for the next few days. In case Lehman has already taken down this embarrassingly ironic page, here’s the verbiage:

Sustainability

We believe that Lehman Brothers has a role to play in delivering environmental and social solutions. Our vision is to build partnerships and value for our clients through environmental and social opportunities, be one of the most responsible investment banks, and contribute to superior returns for our shareholders.

Lehman Brothers Sustainability Principles

o        Transparency and accountability – We will report regularly on the implementation of these principles

o        Operations – We will aim to minimize negative environmental and social impacts of our operations

o        Employees – We will engage with employees on environmental and social issues impacting our operations and business and encourage the development of innovative solutions

o        Assessing risk – We will assess the environmental and social risks posed by our operations and business. We will engage with clients on critical issues (such as climate change, biodiversity loss and water scarcity)

o        Delivering opportunity – We will seek opportunities across our business that deliver commercial, environmental and social benefit

o        Market-based solutions – We believe that market-based solutions can deliver commercially feasible environmental and social benefit. We will apply our knowledge and understanding of financial markets to develop and implement innovative environmental and social market-based solutions

o        Investments – We will build our knowledge of how environmental and social issues impact business performance into advising clients, investing on clients’ behalf and deploying our own capital

o        Thought leadership – We will conduct research and analysis on key environmental and social issues and make the results publicly available. We will engage in public policy dialogues to contribute to the development of effective policies

o        Governance – These principles are approved and owned by our Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will oversee and receive regular reports on implementation and performance

Well, we’re glad Lehman Brothers cared about sustaining the environment and society, we just wish they could have SUSTAINED THE COMAPANY.

(That would be really funny if this business failure was not so tragic.)

 

The Wiki-Manager – Leadership Resources From Wikipedia.org

Posted on by
Reply

The Wiki-Leader

 

Often on this blog, TheManager will deliver links to other great leadership and management blogs who post relevant articles covering Leadership Development and Management Training. For this post, TheManager scoured the seemingly infinite resources at Wikipedia.org to provide you with some great leadership links – enjoy.

 

Leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leadership has a formal aspect (as in most political or business leadership) or an informal one (as in most friendships). Speaking of “leadership” …

 

Leadership development – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leadership development refers to any activity that enhances the quality of leadership within an individual or organization. These activities have ranged …

 

Situational leadership theory – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Situational leadership theories in organizational studies are a type of leadership theory, leadership style, and leadership model that presumes that …

 

Youth leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Youth leadership has been eleborated upon as a theory of youth development in which young people gain skills and knowledge necessary to lead civic …

 

Servant leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Servant leadership is an approach to leadership development, coined and defined by Robert Greenleaf and advanced by several authors such as Stephen Covey, …

 

Transformational leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transformational leadership is a leadership style where one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to …

 

Thought leader – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thought leadership is an increasingly vital driver of business success. Its aim is to engage people with companies through innovative ideas. …

 

Functional leadership model – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the functional leadership model, one conceives of leadership not as a person but rather as a set of behaviors that help a group perform their task or …

 

Design leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term design leadership has attracted attention in recent years in combination with the field of design management. In practice design managers within …

 

Anti-leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-Leadership is a term used in the Ideal leadership model to describe an excess or deficiency of leadership capital elements. …

 

Transactional leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transactional leaders accept the goals, structure and culture of the existing organization. They must do so because this type of leadership is ineffective …

 

Opinion leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion leadership is a concept that arose out of the theory of two-step flow of communication propounded by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz. …

 

Ideal leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inter-Disciplinary Leadership — or IDEAL Leadership — is a scientific leadership theory developed in 2001 by Larry Stout, a professor at the Stockholm …

 

Leadership Capital – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leadership Capital is the term given in the Ideal leadership model for the six competencies that constitute the leader’s ability to direct an organization …

 

Leadership conditions – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leadership Conditions are defined in the Ideal leadership model as the elements that give a leader the opportunity to lead. Basically, a person must be in …

 

The Myth of Leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Myth of Leadership is a business book written by former Brigham Young University lecturer Jeffrey Nielsen, who is a teacher of philosophy at Westminster …

 

Leadership accountability – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leadership accountability describes the personalization of protest and questioning concerning “up system” responsibility for political violence; corruption; …

 

Leadership management – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don’t have to follow the market or market leaders, but your direction must be consistent. This is the essence of leadership management. …

 

Modes of Leadership – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modes of Leadership were postulated in David Wilkinson’s 2006 book ‘The Ambiguity Advantage’. See below for a description of the modes and what a mode is. …

 

Obama and McCain Share a Lack of Leadership Experience

Posted on by
4

 

What is the value of experience?

 

With the November election growing ever closer, a liberal colleague of mine asked what I thought about experience as it applies to the White House. (For the sake of full disclosure, TheManager is a fiscally-conservative independent… aren’t all capitalists?)

 

My friend knows that at virtually all levels of management I argue specific job experience is mostly irrelevant; while maturity, general business acumen and leadership are always essential. When we speak about the top office, however, I commonly believe that some experience can be the difference between catastrophic success and catastrophic failure.

 

Experience Matters

 

Whenever you’re talking about the top office, whether the role is a Fortune 500 CEO or our Commander-in-Chief, experience can sometimes count nearly as much or more than other factors.

 

This is not to say that the only person capable of being the President of the United States is someone who has already been President, but it does propose that someone should have successfully run something (a corporation, a state, a federal government agency perhaps) before they ascend to the highest office in the land.

 

When a board seeks to move someone into the CEO’s office, they often look for a person with a solid track record at running a similar-sized company or a large business unit within their own company. The rare CEO with no real leadership experience is generally the entrepreneur who started the business in the first place. Of course, this entrepreneur generally knows their business better than anyone and has everything to lose if things go poorly. What does a CEO or the President of the United States personally have to lose if they fail? A stained legacy? A few million dollars? The health of the US economy?

 

Why is real world leadership experience important regardless of whether you are aspiring to be the President of the United States or the CEO of General Electric? It’s simple, really. Without either skin in the game (true accountability to your decisions) or prior experience in a high office, you never fully realize that what you do can have a negative impact on your world and, more importantly to me, my world. Without the experience of being in charge of something, you’ve never had to deal with the actual consequences of your group’s actions.

 

A great example of this is the current mess in Iraq. While I’m fairly certain George W. Bush didn’t expect us to still be heavily involved after all these years, the point is that we are, and it was through his actions that we got here. As the top officer of the company we call America, he is accountable for our company’s actions. Having placed us in this position, I suspect he would choose a different path next time – that’s called “learning from experience.”

 

What Does This Mean For Barack Obama?

 

As a US Senator with incredibly short tenure, Barack Obama has voted for or against various bills over the last three and a half years without the accountability that comes from holding the top office. In other words, he and his fellow legislators (McCain included) can argue a bill’s merits and decide whether or not to support it without the requirement that they care about the final and real effects of their decisions. This is not to say Obama doesn’t care, the fact is that as a legislator he is not required to care.

 

By their very nature, individual members of a legislative body are insulated from the full impact of their decisions. (And our founding fathers wouldn’t have it any other way – the concept of our bicameral legislature was, in part, created to allow elected officials to vote their conscience, not just the popular choice.) In some ways, legislative bodies are a lot like high school student councils. They act important and make rulings like “more skim milk in the lunchroom” without any real responsibility over the outcomes of their decision making.

 

When you hold the top office, as Harry S. Truman said, the buck stops here. It doesn’t matter if you’re the head of General Motors, Microsoft or the entire free world; when you’re on top, you are accountable. (See George W’s approval ratings if you doubt that he is accountable.)

 

Does Obama’s lack of previous accountability disqualify him for the presidency? Of course not. However, this inexperience coupled with his relatively short tenure as a legislator (Barack Obama also served as a state senator in Illinois for seven years prior to joining the US Senate in 2005), leaves us searching for some record that demonstrates accountability to his decisions.

 

I’m not being facetious, but electing Barack Obama feels like we’re making someone the CEO of Mattel who’s only leadership experience comes from being a regional manager for Toy R Us.

 

The 44th President of the United States must have the ability to make sound decisions and lead America through a very tough time. Obama may very well have this ability, we simply do not know.

 

Okay, So What About John McCain?

 

John McCain, of course, suffers from the same record of non-accountability that plagues Obama, though McCain has longer tenure in a national legislative role (25 years). John McCain has never run a state – as Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and more than a dozen other former US Presidents had – and he’s never run a successful company. We have no idea how McCain will lead or whether his decisions will be sound.

 

I know what you’re thinking: George W. Bush ran a state and see what he’s done to America? I won’t waste time debating the merits or demerits of our current Commander-in-Chief, other than to say most of the issues that led to the current economic downturn are outside of the scope of what we want our presidents to do – though we do expect them to fix it.

 

Just as Jimmy Carter is sometimes unjustly blamed for the energy crisis and stagflation during his term, and Bill Clinton is sometimes unjustly credited with the positive economic conditions enjoyed during his tenure, US Presidents (like NFL coaches) are often given too much credit or blame for the current situation.

 

This, interestingly, validates my point about the lack of accountability for legislative bodies. No one stood up in the 1970s and blamed individual members of congress for the economy, and no one is doing so today. They are simply not individually accountable for any of their votes (save for the few controversial pieces that cross their desks).

 

Success at the highest levels is a combination of leadership and experience. Even great leaders make mistakes, though what makes them great is that they learn from their mistakes, and they take responsibility for their actions and the actions of their entire team. Moreover, they understand how their decisions effect every stakeholder.

 

Prediction: Our Next US President Will Be Senator…

 

Good or bad, the consequences of which US Senator we elect in November will be felt for decades. The eventual winner, and maybe more importantly their cabinet, will play a critical role in determining how deep and how long the current recession lasts. (Is it officially a recession, yet?) Because we lack a candidate with true leadership experience, we are at the mercy of luck and their cabinet selections.

 

TheManager is hopeful that no matter who wins in November, that they remember something every successful business leader understands: for every action, there is a reaction – nothing happens in a vacuum. When we look at the successful US Presidents over the last 219 years, it’s clear they had an understanding of this concept.

 

Likewise, when we examine the record of those presidents with less than stellar success, we see numerous examples of decisions made and carried out with no full understanding of the consequences or the end game. Vietnam (LBJ), the Iraq War (GW Bush), wage and price controls (Nixon), the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (Hoover) – all of these are now seen as ill-conceived plans that cost America dearly. The question that plagues TheManager is: how much will the decisions of Obama or McCain cost us? No one knows and no one will know for many years. Since this will be the first time one of them has held a top job, we can only guess what that means for America.