Leadership and Stuffed Shrimp

I just finished reading an article by the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania in which they come to the conclusion that the shocking succession of corporate meltdowns signals a massive leadership failure across the financial services landscape. The article (Leadership Fails Wall Street by The Wharton School, 2008) continues to point out that it is their belief that executives at these troubled firms may have ignored or failed to see the level of risk their companies were taking in a crusade to enhance results and their own compensation. Risk taking, considered in many cases to be a strength of senior executives and hopefully is, becomes affected by their problem-solving and decision making skills. Some organizations have even created Decision Support Teams or Departments to provide research and resources prior to making a specific recommendation. The fact of the matter is that the executives got greedy and didn’t assess the situation as thoroughly as they should have. Why did some companies avoid entering or participating in the questionable practices that have caused the great “bailout”? It could just be that they did entertain a decision making process and were more thorough with their “what if” scenarios. It all boils down to greed and inappropriate business ethics. The personal compensation packages being offered by companies today may have played a role in the decision making process but it isn’t the single cause for this situation.

The next article that came across my computer was an article titled, Generational Interaction = Jumbo Shrimp by MyPartTimePro.com, 2008. I don’t necessarily agree with the rationale contained in this article but I do agree that the generations in the workplace today are not sharing their knowledge or expertise with anyone, let alone any one specific generation. We have a stalemate between the generations in terms of the workplace expectations of and for each. The baby boomer generation appears to be in the “no-decision” mode while the other generations are in a “let me make the decision mode” and nothing is getting done. Succession planning is at a standstill because to plan for such means that the “boomers” will have to eventually give up their turf and head out to pasture. They appear to not be willing to share the knowledge and expertise to make good decision makers out of the younger generation. The “no one taught us” or “we had to roll up our sleeves and get down and dirty to learn our trade” is the mantra of the “boomers”. We refuse to move the generations forward without making them “sweat and toil” like we did. The fact of the matter is that we have had some more ups and downs then they have had, but in reality, we have had it pretty easy and the “boomers” are sitting there pretty “fat and happy” for the most part. Now the financial downturn has caused the “boomers” to have second thoughts about retiring and hoping that the market corrects itself with the next few years.

I think we have a “stuffed shrimp” scenario. We are not willing to develop and mold our future leaders. Everyone is satisfied with status quo and no one wants to hand the torch off to their successor. Family businesses now have three generations in the fold with no sight of the elder generation leaving and turnover at the Executive Level appears to be slowing down. Unemployment is starting to rise again and hiring is on hold. This economic downturn is certainly contributing to the lack of movement in the business community. Business leaders must ask themselves the century old question; do the benefits outweigh the risks? If they do, try to take one step forward and show some initiative to change or we may never get out of this predicament.

Manager vs. Man-Eater

I am starting to read articles in which many people have expressed an opinion that due to the tougher economic times, many managers and employees are starting to compete against each other in the work environment in unhealthy ways.

“Survival of the Fittest” has always been nature’s way of adjusting to the changes in the environment. Competition can be healthy or it can be destructive and it is important that the owner or senior management team, including the HR professional, focuses on the depth in which the competition presents itself. From past experience, we know that becoming “leaner and meaner” does mean that advancement opportunities are reduced and the workload per employee usually increases causing more stress in the work environment. Do we need to add a more competitive spirit to the equation or not?

Competition is one method many managers believe that can help individuals achieve their “real” or “true” potential. I am all for helping people reach their potential since most people believe that our capacity today is less than 10%, but competition is good as long as we can see the reason for our effort. Winning a race is a goal…..improving performance should be a goal. Competition may get us to the finish line in much less time than we ever imagined. This is good because we are getting closer to our potential.

What I see in many companies is this atmosphere of “competition” with no real goal defined. This lack of vision or visualization of the determined outcome must be classified as a communication disconnect. What happens too many times is that inappropriate behavior in the workplace becomes more evident as the competitive level rises. This “survival of the fittest” mentality takes hold and all the appropriate behaviors go out the window, like feedback in a timely fashion, recognition for something well done, and other basic collaboration practices.

When will we realize that when workers feel threatened, they usually don’t improve their performance but become disgruntled and belligerent? The worker becomes disengaged, discontented, and leaves the company.

Isn’t it time to focus on how we can better understand the employee by focusing on their behavioral style and communicate the organization’s objectives to them in a manner that is consistent and realistic? People need to hear the truth, understand the strategy of the leaders, and assume responsibility for their actions relative to the plan. They then need to set goals and set out to achieve them while monitoring their progress along the way.