Who would have ever thought that complaints and issues would ever be a good thing?  If you are able to establish a good rapport, or trust, with your teams, they will be more likely to provide open and honest feedback.  As managers, we sometimes are blinded by what we want to see, and don’t see the opportunities that need improvement.  You need to depend on those who see first hand the processes and organization that you have set up to evaluate what is working and what is not.  Because we take pride in our teams, departments and processes, it is extremely easy to shoot down negativity and issues that you feel have little legitimacy.  But without honest feedback, how are you to ever fix, or improve your department.

When I first started in leadership I had an employee that consistently was complaining about processes, and other staff.  I thought that she was just being negative and looking for things to complain about, but looking back many of the issues that she brought up were legitimate, I just didn’t want to see it.  I wanted to think that the changes I instituted were working, and I had many that told me that they were.  It wasn’t till much later that I was able to realize this and make the necessary changes.   Feedback on processes and recommended changes mean more work for the manager and the department, and honestly I believe this was one of the reasons I was reluctant to listen. 

Today I realize that feedback is imperative to growth and development, and regardless of if it is negative or positive you must listen to your team.  Your team knows exactly what works for the team and what doesn’t.  We should be thankful for those who are willing to provide us with constructive criticism, even if our pride has to take a hit.  As managers, it is our job to not only listen and welcome feedback, but to also take action on the gift of communication that our team has given us.  One thing that I am proud that our organization has done is we have opened up weekly manager huddles to staff.  This allows staff access to our “top secret” meetings, allowing staff to have input in process developments, and the opportunity to express their opinions.  Based on the information provided in this article, the day my office isn’t filled with employees, is the day I will begin to worry.

Changing Others Through Changing Ourselves

Changing people is near impossible, but we always have control of our own attitudes and actions.  The Advanced Change Theory (ACT) suggests that in order to see real change in your team you must first change yourself.  In order to see change, we must do something differently, and typically sitting back and attempting to change others doesn’t work.  As the manager of the team, it’s your responsibility to make the change for yourself, which ultimately will change the outcome for your team.  You cannot force people to have “better attitudes” but you can surrender your own personal control and force yourself to act differently to see a different result in others.  You can encourage people to change, you can explain why it is necessary, but ultimately it is up to the individual to change.

Like the article “Sounds of Silence,” stated, ACT also encourages leaders to encourage others to share open, honest opinions.  Treat your team as equals in making department changes and they will feel that their opinions are valued.  If your team feels valued they will be more open to making constructive recommendations in the future, which ultimately will lead to better outcomes for you team and create a double-loop learning culture.

Additionally, the ACT emergent system requires individuals to move away from their own self interests and into what is for the better good.  This concept was also introduced in the book Beyond Bullsh*t by Samuel A Culbert.  The concepts of purposeful behavior is consistent with the “straight-talk” concept that Culbert spoke about in which the communicator’s doesn’t have their own self-interest in mind, but unlike bullsh*t, people who are in a “straight-talk” relationship are also concerned with the interests of others and the organization.  “Straight-talk” includes power sharing, which is not only moral and ethical, but it is ultimately what’s best for the organization as a whole.  Ultimately, the manager is unable to force anyone to believe in these theories, but if the manager takes action to empower themselves and make changes to the only person they can control, themselves, they will be able to see changes for their team, and their company as well.

George Zimmer, Chairman of the Men’s Wearhouse had a very different, and in visionary idea for the direction of his company.  Like Zimmer, I believe that your company is only as good as your front line employees.  In order to ensure that your front line is delivering, you have to make sure you have the right people in the right positions and you have to treat your employees well.  Zimmer believed that your top priority is your employee.  If you neglect your employees, your employees will in turn neglect your customers.  Additionally, employee satisfaction directly relates to retention.  Employee satisfaction is not just making your employees happy, but you must also challenge people, and have an option for them to move up within the company.  Turnover is not only costly, but it s hard on employee morale.  Although I believe that the idea of all this is great, but where is the proof?  It is extremely challenging to quantify your true customer and employee satisfaction, so how do we know this is really the cause to the Men’s Wearhouse’s success?

I like the vision that Zimmer had for creating a servant leadership model between his managers and their employees.  Your manager’s customers truly are your employee’s, but I don’t understand how the company’s philosophy on training fits into this model.  I understand how mentoring is an imperative part of training, but if there is no time for training does this also include mentoring?  Also, outside training is sometimes what is needed in order to have a new insight on old processes.  By using outside sources and ideas, it can initiate a new way of thinking, and by only having a one direction training it can lead to nothing but dead ends. 

Although I might not understand the organization of Zimmer’s training program, I do appreciate his perspective on promotion within the organization.  As an employee, I feel that the potential to move up within the company is a strong incentive to performing well.  Also, a huge part of having a good employee is recruitment.  I truly believe that it is better to hire an employee who has the right attitude, personality and demeanor, than it is to hire an employee is has years of experience.  It is easier to train on processes and procedures, than it is to train someone personality traits.  I much rather work with someone who is willing to learn and work together for our company’s goal, than to have an employee who is extremely knowledgeable in our field.  Also, I think it is a great idea to encourage outside work team activities.  Many of the team concepts are similar to the team environment that you find in your team sports.  If people can figure out how to work together on the softball field or the bowling lane, you can figure our how to work together within the company.  Sports do provide the ground work to support team work concepts which not are not only fun, but it enforces people to work together. 

Finally, I understand that you should treat your employees well, but I wonder if the Men’s Wearhouse is still having retreats in exclusive resorts given the current economy. But out of this entire article, I do believe that Zimmer truly has his employee’s best interest in mind.  He lives the philosophy that if you treat your employees well, they will treat your customers well, “I guarantee it!”

George Zimmer, Chairman of the Men’s Wearhouse had a very different, and in visionary idea for the direction of his company.  Like Zimmer, I believe that your company is only as good as your front line employees.  In order to ensure that your front line is delivering, you have to make sure you have the right people in the right positions and you have to treat your employees well.  Zimmer believed that your top priority is your employee.  If you neglect your employees, your employees will in turn neglect your customers.  Additionally, employee satisfaction directly relates to retention.  Employee satisfaction is not just making your employees happy, but you must also challenge people, and have an option for them to move up within the company.  Turnover is not only costly, but it s hard on employee morale.  Although I believe that the idea of all this is great, but where is the proof?  It is extremely challenging to quantify your true customer and employee satisfaction, so how do we know this is really the cause to the Men’s Wearhouse’s success?

I like the vision that Zimmer had for creating a servant leadership model between his managers and their employees.  Your manager’s customers truly are your employee’s, but I don’t understand how the company’s philosophy on training fits into this model.  I understand how mentoring is an imperative part of training, but if there is no time for training does this also include mentoring?  Also, outside training is sometimes what is needed in order to have a new insight on old processes.  By using outside sources and ideas, it can initiate a new way of thinking, and by only having a one direction training it can lead to nothing but dead ends. 

Although I might not understand the organization of Zimmer’s training program, I do appreciate his perspective on promotion within the organization.  As an employee, I feel that the potential to move up within the company is a strong incentive to performing well.  Also, a huge part of having a good employee is recruitment.  I truly believe that it is better to hire an employee who has the right attitude, personality and demeanor, than it is to hire an employee is has years of experience.  It is easier to train on processes and procedures, than it is to train someone personality traits.  I much rather work with someone who is willing to learn and work together for our company’s goal, than to have an employee who is extremely knowledgeable in our field.  Also, I think it is a great idea to encourage outside work team activities.  Many of the team concepts are similar to the team environment that you find in your team sports.  If people can figure out how to work together on the softball field or the bowling lane, you can figure our how to work together within the company.  Sports do provide the ground work to support team work concepts which not are not only fun, but it enforces people to work together. 

Finally, I understand that you should treat your employees well, but I wonder if the Men’s Wearhouse is still having retreats in exclusive resorts given the current economy. But out of this entire article, I do believe that Zimmer truly has his employee’s best interest in mind.  He lives the philosophy that if you treat your employees well, they will treat your customers well, “I guarantee it!”

Although this story is about a tire company that struggles with job satisfaction amongst line foremen, I think there are many people in different types of businesses who could relate to the troubles that this company saw.  Turnover is extremely costly due to the amount of resources that go into recruitment, training a new employee, and finding coverage for work while in-between employees so it makes sense to make sure you find the perfect match the first time around.  I believe one way to ensure success in retention is to be very open with what exactly the job entails.  Especially, in today’s job market I think many people forget that the interview process is a two-way street.  It is a chance for the company to find the right fit for the position, but the candidate must also be up front with what their expectations are.  In an interview, I am always skeptical about candidate that doesn’t have any questions for the interviewees.  I want people to interview us too.  This is their chance to find out what they are getting themselves into.  Based on the employee survey, I doubt that Treadway had let their candidates know what the issues their current line foremen where facing.  Some people like to step into a position with little guidance, but others will drown in this situation.  If Treadway was already spending an extreme amount of time interviewing and testing their candidates, their was enough time to also provide the candidates with their foremen’s current struggles so they could have an employee who was ready to take them on. 

Additionally, the working conditions that these middle management teams faced would be difficult for almost anyone.  One of the foreman stated “we don’t have any authority anymore and yet still have all the responsibility.”  They were expected to make processes more efficient and ensure that everyone was doing their job, but if someone wasn’t they didn’t have the authority to do anything about it.  Also, twelve hour shifts are extremely difficult, and tiring.  Like hospitals typically have employees work twelve hour days to allow for the best twenty-four hour coverage, Treadway did the same, but it is much more difficult to try to cover a twelve hour shift without asking people to work under extreme overtime conditions.  The foremen were also expected to do all this with minimum training.  Many of them had college degrees, but who honestly learned how to be a leader and manage people in a classroom.  Treadway did institute a mentoring/training program for the formen, but like most companies today, they decided it should be cut in order to meet financial goals.  The managers stated that they didn’t have time to hand hold the foremen through their introductory period, but then they must have time to deal with poor retention.

In this article by Mr. Leven showed that he truly did care for the company he worked for, as well as the people that were apart of the company.  In our current economic status, it is easy to just think of yourself, and we continually hear about many executives that have been. Although our tax dollars have bailed out numerous of companies in the past months, there are still companies that have chosen to offer large incentives to their executives, although the company is not in a strong economic state.  If Mr. Leven was running one of the many banks, or car companies that have been bailed out, he would have never allowed himself, or his team, to financially benefit when so many jobs have been lost already. 

The company I work for was hit hard financially, like many others.  When our books remained in the red, we were asked to stretch our funds as far as we could.  We stopped filling positions when people left, cut back on expenses, and ultimately we lost a few jobs.  When the leadership team was asked to give back before any more jobs were lost, many were proud to help.  We took a 10% decrease, and donated a week’s vacation back to the company.  With these efforts we were able to save jobs and hours.  Additionally, rather than cutting anymore positions, many of our hourly departments were cut back to 35 hours a week.  Since then, we have come out of the red, and we have given back many hours and positions.  I am not anticipating that the leadership team will be given back their 10% any time soon, but I would be ashamed of our organization if we did prior to giving back to the employees.  Why is it that so many executives don’t feel the same way? 

New Wine, Old Bottles

According to this article by Stephen Covey, you can teach an old dog new tricks, it just takes a lot of time and effort.  The idea of shifting the leadership paradigm from benevolent authoritarianism to servant leadership sounds great in theory, but it is actually very difficult to but into practice.  I liked how this article gave specific examples of leaders that have been able to become servant leaders, but I am not sure that I agree with complete servant leadership.  In the example given, the president refused to give any positive or negative feedback to the assistant, rather he just stated to ask when he needed help.  Not every employee would excel in such an environment.  If the employee never felt the need to ask, yet was failing miserably, the employee would be let go unsuspectingly.  Although it is the employee’s responsibility to continue to grow and learn in their positions, but I still believe that it is the leader’s job to guide them. 

Although leaders are to help train and coach their employees to excel in their roles, hand holding doesn’t provide any results either.  I have always heard that the best indicator to how well your department is running is to take a day off and see what happens.  If you have trained and showed your team why the processes are in place, they are able to make the right decisions on their own.  In school, and in the workplace, I find it easier to know processes if I understand why they are in place.  It is the leader’s job to make sure that their team is given all the resources and information to do their job; it is sometimes easier said than done.  But a good leader is able to look past their controlling tendencies, and let people show the team why they were hired in the first place. 

The Layoff

Like the case study stated, “Why aren’t layoffs taught in business school” or terminations for that matter?  Many organizations have classes for new leaders, but terminating or laying of an employee are rarely discussed.  These are real life situations that almost every leader will have to face, but they hold such negative connotation that it is not a popular topic.  It is times like this that your human resources business partner can be a life saver.  I can’t imagine there is a leader out there that enjoys letting an employee go.

The author was right in thinking that in making this choice, he will never be thanked for any he choice he makes.  Whether he laid employees off, or he cut back everyone’s salaries, employees won’t appreciate either.  In today’s economy, I think almost every company has faced a similar situation recently.  There isn’t an easy answer for Astrigo, but I believe it would have been a big mistake for him to make a rash decision.  If you want to make the cuts as easy as possible, then a lay off is much cleaner than cutting salaries, but this isn’t a decision for the better good of the people of the company.   Although a salary decrease is fair across the board, it also has its implications.  Employees that are at the top in their field may be more inclined to go elsewhere if they were offered more money, and it also makes recruitment more difficult.  But I do personally believe this is the best choice for the company’s morale stance, and for the company’s employees.  When I first took a decrease, it was shocking and painful, but now it is just my salary.  Like a promotion, the financial change becomes the norm after a couple of months.  It is a tough call, but if you place pride on the importance of your employees then you really need to do what is best for them, which may not be what’s financially best for the company. 

How a Marine Lost His Command in Race to Baghdad

In this article, Christopher Cooper reported the end of Marine Col. Joe D. Dowdy’s military career.   Like many leaders Col. Dowdy truly cared about his team, and his team noticed.  His team felt has if he treated them as equals, and he even refused privileges that a man in his position was given, if his team was not offered the same privileged.  Col. Dowdy was one leader that did not suffer from “dean’s disease,” he has a personal humility about him that his team respected.  Although his team highly respected his decisions and demeanor, it appears that his superiors did not.   

Col. Dowdy was blindsided, like many leaders throughout successful and unsuccessful organizations, when he was asked to step down from his position.  During a performance evaluation, Col. Dowdy was instructed how he had failed during his last mission, although the emission had been completed.  Do to the facts that were released it doesn’t seem that the entire story was told as I don’t truly see a legitimate reason for his untimely departure.  Col. Dowdy put the safety of his team first, but in doing so he did not follow the exact orders he was given.  He deterred form the original order, in order to protect his team.  Like leaders in organizations’ faced with a layoff, he chose not sacrifice the team at the request of his superiors.   If Co. Dowdy were asked to help find an answer for Astrigo’s layoff dilemma, he would have chosen his team before he made a profit for himself or the company.  I believe if he was given the choice to layoff employees, or take a significant pay cut for himself, he would choose the later of the two.

Like Col. Dowdy found that that there isn’t a book out there that explains how to “liberate and occupy a country,” there also isn’t a book out there that tells leaders what to do when faced with a potential layoff.  These types of decisions are based on the scenario, and the people involved.  What may have been the right decision for one team may not be right for another.  Decisions like these require a leader intuition which cannot be learned through experience, but it is decided by what type of leader you are, and what your gut tells you is right.

For Lt. Withers, Act of Mercy Has Unexpected Sequel

This was such a great and touching story.  John Withers had everything to lose by helping a couple of refugees.  Mr. Withers wanted to do everything right in order to ensure that he was able to finish school and do what he wanted for his life, but his intuition told him to take a chance on a couple of young men who were fighting for a chance at life.  John Withers showed his compassionate side before Pee Wee and Salomon ever made their way into his life, by helping illiterate solders write home.  He was a special character who valued his superiors and his position.  Mr. Withers had given two young men who had lost everything, a chance at life, even though it could have cost him his career.  

You can read and study how to be a good leader, but it takes a special kind of person to interpret when to follow all the rules.  Sometimes in leadership rules and policies should be followed precisely, but there are times when it is best for the team to bend the rules a little.  It sometimes takes a little leader intuition to know when this is appropriate.  For John Withers, he saw taking in Pee Wee and Salomon as the right thing to do for his team, and it changed all of them for the rest of their lives.  These types of stories are seen all over the leadership spectrum, just maybe not as extreme as this story.  Hopefully at some point everyone has a leader that believes in them and takes a chance on them.  I will be ever grateful for the leader that took a chance on me, and gave me the opportunity to create a career path.

According to this article by Arthur Bedeian, Dean’s Disease is the effect that educational leaders experience when they have been put in a position of power, such as a dean.  This phenomenon is not just exclusive to deans, but can also be seen throughout many offices of power.  This phenomenon has found that such a tremendous placement of power changes the managerial outlook that these professionals process.  In such positions of power, professionals such as deans, tend believe that there ideas and thought processes are better than anyone else, and only surround themselves with those who share those same beliefs, or those who at least pretend to share those beliefs.  Those in this type of position of power have become disassociated with those who hold a position of lesser power, and these leaders have a difficult time relating to those beneath them, thus not understanding the needs of those they speak for. 

According to Bedeian, the Dean’s Disease occurs do to three main reasons.  First, Dean’s Disease occurs because the leader discovers the power they have in controlling the resources around them.  This power is apparent to their subordinates, thus causing an increase of flattery and agreeance amongst the team.  People who report to the “dean” want the dean to look highly upon them, and they ensure that tasks that the dean views as important are completed to the dean’s liking.  Staff has also been known in circumstances like this to support and agree on decisions that the dean agrees on.  This characteristic in staff is seen in many different professions and levels of power, but power like this is unbeneficial to leader as they don’t have anyone who is willing to tell them the truth, like in “group-think.” The second reason Dean’s Disease occurs is because of all the support people may give to someone in such a high position, the dean begins to believe the hype and their ego over inflates.  By believing that one’s opinion is always the best solution, it is difficult to outreach and listen to the voice of others, which is imperative in making difficult and complex decisions.  The third reason that Dean’s Disease occurs is the “dean” loses their sense of morality within their position.  What the dean may do in their work life may not follow the decisions that they would make in their personal life.  One that has been consumed by the Dean’s Disease feels they are above the rules and regulations that they expect their subordinates to follow.  Because of this feeling of entitlement, the leader is unable to make just and fair decisions.

A true leader, whether a dean or CEO, possess power because their team has a high level of admiration and respect for them.  When this level of respect is gained, the leader is able to receive constructive criticism and full support from their team. Regardless of the position that one holds, it is difficult to gain the respect of your team if your team does not feel that the boss is able to do the job, or has at least spent the time to get to know what the job entails.  I think everyone at some point in their careers is able to recall a manger, supervisor, or director that they lacked respect for because they did not feel that their leader was able, or willing to understand what their job entails. 

In order for a “dean,” or any other highly regarded position to stay on course they must establish safeguards by staying true to their values and encourage their team to bring new ideas and suggestions to the table.  They must maintain open relationships with the team, and make the team feel comfortable with coming to the leader.  Whether it is attending birthday breakfasts, picnics, all staff meetings, or just conversing with the team on the floor, it is important the “dean” be visible and approachable.  The leader should also be open to new ideas other than theirs by listening to team individually and collectively.  The team should be able to provide the “dean” with honest feedback, and only the “dean” can create this type of atmosphere.  Also, the “dean” needs to ensure that their institution, or company has as set of values that everyone, including themselves, is reasonable to understand and follow.  Additionally, look to see if these values are consistent with the goals and values of the organization.  These goals should have the input of all those involved, no matter what position of power they hold, if any.   Basically, in order to avoid the Dean’s Disease, leaders should provide their team with the same respect that they expect from their team.  The company’s or institution’s values should represent and embody the entire organization, and it is the dean’s job to ensure that happens.

Diamonds in the Data Mine

In this article the author, Gary Loveman, showed how Harrah’s takes customer service to the next level.  Almost every company, or organization, states that customer service is an integral part of their company.  They say that the customer is always right, and emphasize how every decision is made with the customer of in mind.  According to the article, Harrah’s was one of the first casinos to use their team to draw in customers, rather than fancy architecture and shows.  The company focused on getting to know what their customers want, and delivering a premier service.  By not focusing all their attention on the high rollers, rather the older people who like slots, they were truly able to monopolize their customer service efforts.  It is easy to focus on the high dollars that come into our businesses, but truly there is more money in the regular, loyal customer. 

Many company’s nation wide spend a good portion of their funds on evaluating customer satisfaction, but do the companies truly act on their results?  We have all received surveys in the mail, on a receipt and now online asking about the service that we have received, but what happens with that information?  For one company that I worked for in the past, the information that customers gave us was only used to reward employees for a job well done or to give correction action when the service was perceive to be poor.  This company spent a large sum of funds on a fancy survey that provided us information that could be separated by service type, age, or even payments, yet this information was never used to determine how we could serve the customer better.  According to Loveman, Harrah’s saw this information as the gateway to figure out what their customer’s really wanted.  This concept sounds like it would be a given, but there are so little organizations that drill this deep into their customers. 

As a consumer, such a personal touch as Harrah’s strived for is something that would have hooked me in.  I also, like the idea of incentives based on a team effort.  I have seen many times when a customer complains about a service they receive and it is easier for the employee to blame it on another department, but if the customer service incentive is based on an entire organization, one might not be so quick to blame another team as it doesn’t help the overall score.  As a manger, I find that it is easier to manage a team that works together for a common goal, whether it is an achievement or a financial incentive.  I love to see people pull together as a team to get to that end result, and if you have happy customers it also makes that much easier to do your job. 

Gary Loveman and Harrah’s Entertainment

This article shows how a risky decision by the then CEO, Satre, lead to a wonderful development for the Harrah’s corporation.  Although Satre knew Gary Loveman through consulting with Harrah’s, Satre really went out on a limb to hire Loveman as the company’s COO.  I would like to know what it was that really made Satre believe that Loveman was the one for the job, although he had no experience in the casino industry, or in managing such a large company.  To see someone from the outside of the casino industry brought in is definitely not the way things are generally done in the casino business.  When an outside candidate is brought into a leadership position I believe it is always hard on staff when they believe that only those who have been with the company should be promoted.  This idea must have been even more unpopular when the candidate also lacks any specific experience to the company’s business.  Although this decision may not have been the most popular decision, it sometimes takes an outside perspective in order to really change things around.

One of the leadership characteristics that I admired about Loveman was his eagerness to not over manage and allow those departments that were running well to continue to do things the way they were, and not to micromanage.  Loveman also made himself available to all staff, not just the mangers.  Like we learned in the article about “Dean’s Disease,” it is sometimes easy for individuals in high power positions to ignore the ideas and opinions of those beneath them.  Loveman chose to not only hear out the opinions of the management team, but also to be open to the ideas of the staff as well.  Even once Loveman was promoted to CEO, he still tried to avoid the “Dean’s Disease” by reminding himself that it was not all about him.  Additionally, I like Loveman’s academic perspective on management.  The saying “those who can’t do, teach” was not true in this case.  Loveman’s approach to testing everything prior to implementation was very scientific.  He wanted proof that something was going to work prior to utilizing money and resources on the project.

Although Loveman’s leadership techniques were impressive, I am not certain how result driven his decisions to eliminate staff members were.  From an outside perspective, it seems that the terminations that Loveman made were a little excessive.  Also, the way in which Loveman immediately replaced these positions with candidates who were like him, in that they came from academic institutions and did not have any casino experience prior to being placed in their roles seemed a little specious.   These decisions look as if Loveman may have been making decisions based on personal relationships.  However, this method did turn out to be successful in hiring Loveman, so maybe this truly was the right decision for the organization.

In this critique, the author found that the book Good to Great has its flaws like many other research studies across the academic and professional world.  With any article, or book based on research done, it is imperative to look into who did the research, why they did it, and how it was conducted.  For almost every research paper out there, if you look hard enough you are able to find some kind of bias, or skewing of data.  Like we learned in Statistics, you can move the data around to make the results support almost anything. 

Like Customer Satisfaction surveys, Consumer Pick Reports, or Employee Satisfaction surveys, the results are objective.  It is difficult to go into any organization and say if you follow these simple steps, your organization will be successful and profitable.  Although these 11 companies all had used the five principals that Good to Great believed would led to greatness, how did each company execute the principal?  For example, almost every organization will tell you that they strive to get the right people on the right positions, but how does each company determine what is right?  Is there a standardized test that matches each candidate to the right job?  At the company I work for, we use a vendor that supplies us with a test that is given to candidates to determine personality traits based on how they rank a series of priorities.  The hiring leader for the position also takes the test as they believe a perfect candidate would answer.  Because of the ambiguity of this test, it is not the only deciding factor in determining employee hiring, it is the intuition of the interview panel.  Just because a company says they focus on the right fit, doesn’t mean that the manger making that decision actually knows what the right fit is.

One thing I enjoyed about this article was the author’s initiative to say this is how it could have been better.  They didn’t disagree that the principals could lead to greatness, but there was no solid proof to prove the greatness theory.  Greatness, like many other Leadership ratings is difficult to quantify, but sometimes chasing after the numbers is a way to lead teams to focus on what they feel is great.

Evidence-Based Management

First of all, I enjoyed this reading because it tied many of the concepts that we have talked about thus far together, like Southwest’s Herb Keller, forced ranking, and Six Sigma.

Through the medical field’s transition into the EMR world, there has been talk about the computer making the decisions for a physician.  The computer knows the patient’s age sex, weight height, diagnosis, allergies, current medications, and vital signs, which are all imputed into the EMR system.  The system has the capabilities to us an if/then type system to determine the proper care for the patient.  This way of practice could decrease the amount of medical errors that are made by prescribing medications or treatments that are not cohesive with the patient’s current condition.  But if we were to practice medicine in such a matter, why would we even send our physician’s to medical school?  Why not just send in IT personnel to treat the patient?  Every patient is different, like every employee and team is different.  There may be a certain amount of guidelines that lead the manager, or the physician, in their decisions, but critical thinking can’t be hard wired. 

When I first started in leadership, I was like a deer in headlights.  I had no idea what I should be doing.   My undergraduate degree and the little work experience I had, did not prepare me for that role.  So, I did the first thing I learned in college, find research and evidence to guide the way.  I had just started my master’s program, and had access to the UNR library, so searched every work related topic each night to prevent myself from looking foolish during the next day’s meetings.  This was not something I ever told anyone, because I felt this was all stuff I should know, or they wouldn’t have put me in this role in the first place.  As each year passed, I relied less on my research and more on my experience. 

What I see after this article is that you really need both experience and research to make you the best you can be.  You can study all the researched concepts, but without the experience to know how to implement them, they really don’t mean much.  Every team is different, even if two teams are within the same organization.  Experience is important, but to be at the top of your game you need to see what others are doing, and perform your own research to determine what path is right for you and your team. 

Chapter 9 Extra Reading – In-depth: IRAQ

As many leadership teams receive criticisms over decisions that have been made and resulted in undesirable outcomes, President Bush and his team of U.S. intelligence-gathering experts were no different.  Within our workplace teams, it is important to have a strong reliable team to help make decisions, and guide new processes.  The US intelligence team is no different.  If the US intelligence team did use “group think” as described, it would be difficult to make decision that would’ve minimized conflict because the team would not have been given the freedom to critically analyze the problem, and evaluate the alternatives.  By using this method, like any leadership team, the team is unable to come to the best decision because the team is more concerned with having the right answer, than thinking independently.  Additionally, many of the criticisms were centered on the lack of research, or statistics.  Like in “Evidence Based Management” and “Good to Great, or Just Good,” we are able to see the importance of solid evidence in which we know is evidence based and lacks ambiguity.

I think almost every consumer has either benefited, or been the victim of commission. Management’s intentions are to excite and motivate staff about what the company views important, but many times it ends up being more detrimental to the organizational goals. Like Pfeffer, I have been the victim of commission when purchasing a car, but I also see commission’s ugly head at work everyday.

I currently work at a hospital where we are expected to collect a certain amount each month from patient’s that are paying their cost share for their medical procedures. Each day a posting comes out with how much each employee collected the previous day, and recognition is given to the high collectors. Additionally, if the team and the individual meet their financial goal for the month, there is a financial incentive based on how much they exceeded their goal by. Although the intention for recognizing high collecting individuals is to encourage collections, employees continuously argue over whose payment is whose. If one person looked over the account and determined what the patient’s cost share was, but another asked the patient for the payment and collected. The two employees argue over who will get the credit since the payment can only be posted to one employee. This causes animosity amongst the group, and discourages a team approach. Additionally, staff who are placed in the back office to file, fax and answer phones rarely have the potential to collect, and they feel the recognition and financial incentives are unfair. Much like Nordstrom’s, team member’s are reluctant to do the jobs that need to be done but lack reward, such as stocking the shelves, because they are missing the opportunity to collect their financial incentive.

With so many team members having a piece in the patient’s experience it is difficult to reward on the individual level. Although we do recognize teams, employees seem to get caught up in the individual reward, thus deconstructing the team. Employees use time to go back over their accounts to ensure that their payments were posted to them, and arguing with their supervisor when they feel someone else has taken their payment. This time could have been used to in a more productive manner by concentrating on what really matters, the patient.

Compensation and Performance

It seems that Steve Kaufman had quite a few mistakes to learn from at Arrow Electronics. I liked that Steve felt that one of his main responsibilities was to get the right people in the right roles, and HR was a large part of running the company. For a manager, providing employee’s feedback and direction should be the main priority, but sometimes leaders are bogged down with so many miniscule tasks that it is sometimes difficult to ensure that the employee’s development is put first.

As a manager, I personally do not look forward to performance evaluation time. The process is time extensive, and takes a lot of paperwork. The company that I work for does not use performance evaluations to justify salary increases for employees, with the exception of leaders. Every employee receives an annual increase based on the market in our area. Like Kaufman saw across the company in different states, each manger has a different way to do evaluations, although we are given a template to follow. Some leaders feel that no one deserves a 4, on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest. They feel that there is always room for improvement. Since your performance evaluations stay with you if you change departments, or leaders, you could have a great evaluation one year, and an average evaluation the next, similar to what Kaufman found at Arrow. Our company gives us criteria to determine what equates to each rating, but the criteria is still objective. What I may consider a 2 is going to be very different from what another manager considers a 2. Also, scores could vary year by year even with the same manger, if that manger is still learning. When I first started in management I rated everyone well, because I was not comfortable having difficult conversations, and I wanted to be well liked by my team. It wasn’t until after I had some experience managing that I was able to deliver these difficult conversations. Like Kaufman’s managers, I had to learn from my own mistakes.

Additionally, like Arrow electronics saw with their managers, our company has many performance evaluations that look stellar, yet the employee’s performance is less than ideal. It is difficult to tell someone that they are not performing as well as they think. Also, leaders want to be liked by their employees, and it is easy for an employee to blame a disappointing evaluation on their leader. Like the teachers in Pfeffer’s article, mangers are given financial incentives for good employee ratings, and if an employee blames you for their performance evaluation, they may rate the manger low as well.

Unlike Kaufman, my organization does not require that we have a specific distribution of the performance evaluation scores. I believe that if you have a team member that would be rated a 1, there should be some sort of coaching done with that employee prior to their evaluation. If the employee is unwilling, or incapable, of meeting the expectation, then the employee probably is not a right fit for the department. It is the manger’s responsibility to mange these employees, and if you use Kaufman’s method that would mean that each team had a number of employees that should be managed on, or out. This process may solve the problem of over inflating the performance evaluation, but it only creates another problem.

Strategies of Effective New Product Team Leaders

Although the study conducted by Jassawalla and Sashittal was only a small sample of new product team leaders, the same principals are relevant to leaders in many other leadership roles. In my current position, I do not produce a product, but the work that my teams produce is more effective using the same principals that the effective new product team leaders used. Like NPD, communication of expectations is a necessity, as well as communication within our team, and with the other teams we interact with. If our department was to make decisions without input from other departments the system would fail. For example, recently the admitting department for our hospital was concerned about obtaining consent forms on patients that are directly admitted to the nursing unit. If the patient went directly up to the unit, bypassing admitting, nursing may start treating the patient prior to admitting obtaining a signature for consent. Admitting had decided that they would start sending the consent forms to the floor with a note asking to have the patient give consent. Admitting had not connected with the nursing prior to starting this process. When the nursing units received the consents, they assumed that admitting was asking them to admit the patient, and perform all registration functions on the unit. This upset many clinical staff members, and HR complaints started coming in. If admitting would have worked on the new procedure with the nursing teams, they could have come to a resolution to the consent issue that worked for both teams, and ensured the new process ran smoothly.

Another effective leader skill that helps our departments which is also consistent with the study is providing the team with autonomy to make decisions and offer support for those decisions. For example, our organization does not currently have a proper system for estimating patient co-insurances. The admitting team had requested access to the insurance contractual rates so they could provide the patient with a proper estimate of their financial responsibility for scheduled procedures. The contracting department was hesitant to disclose this protected information. Without this tool the admitting teams were not able to make financial decisions, and they would have to go to their supervisor. This did not work well for the patient if the department supervisor was unavailable, as the admitting team did not have the tools, or the autonomy, to make any financial planning decisions. Due to patient dissatisfaction of this process, the contracting department provided the admitting teams with the contractual information, and allowed them to make financial decisions when the patient was unable to pay. The teams were need able to provide financial information to the patient, and given the autonomy to make financial decisions for the patient.

Additionally, another effective leader skill that helps our departments that is consistent with the study is focusing on human interaction. Team development is imperative in every department. There are very few departments that would be able to succeed if the team is unable to work with, and trust their co-workers. We currently do not have the funds to do team building retreats, but we do partake in team building activities. One of my favorite ways to connect a team is to play games. One game that I find effective in developing intuition about your co-workers, and customers, is the game “Apples to Apples.” The game is focused on reading people and figuring out what appeases them. It allows the team to get to know each other, and it forces the team to pay attention to peoples personalities. Like these listed, the concepts that this study found to make effective new product team leaders can be applied for many other leaders are well.

According to this article the SAS Institute sounds like a great place to work! In every position I have been in, I have truly appreciated the leader that sat down with me and saw what I did on a daily basis, or care enough to learn how my job works. Jim Goodnight saw this insight and developed the company from the ground up, with some help.

I appreciate how much of his business was directed by the customer and the employees. By listening to what your customer wants, you are able to truly create a customer driven product. At the company I work for, we currently use a customer satisfaction tool that measures our company’s success through a survey received in the mail. The problem with this method is many people complete the survey because they are either highly satisfied or dissatisfied, and many of the people that feel our service was mediocre, toss the survey aside. Thus how accurate is this pricey survey? Goodnight felt that customer service was difficult to quantify, and he didn’t spend a lot of time trying to measure it, rather he measured the financial outcomes. I feel that this is a great idea, if the reason companies measure customer satisfaction is because it leads to returning, happy customers, then why not just measure your renewal rate and financial outcomes, two very measurable outcomes?

Additionally, I completely agree with Goodnight’s philosophy on the way he treated those who worked for the company. If motivation is intrinsic, people have to believe in the company and their leader in order to want to do better. When a manager truly cares about the people in there department, treats them with respect and values their opinion, that is a golden combination for employee satisfaction. People want to be around happy, positive people and many times the tone of the office is dependant on the leader. As a manager, I believe the worst employees are those who don’t want to have a positive attitude, or refuse to help out their fellow co-worker. These types of attitudes can bring down an entire department, but if you make work a great place like Goodnight did, people will be rushing through the door for an opportunity to work in your department.

Many of the approaches that Goodnight took had the customer, or the employee, in consideration. This is a team environment that I attempt to create in my teams as a manger. With a positive attitude, and a caring approach to people I hope that one day I will be able to provide my teams with the same work environment that Goodnight did.

Nordstrom: Dissension in the Ranks

When I first picked up this article I was expecting to hear about the great work that Nordstrom does at customer satisfaction. My family and I have been Nordstrom shoppers because the value of the products and the exceptional sales staff. I never expected Nordstrom to be a topic for work place lawsuits. However, I am a little skeptical of the accusations placed on the company.

I believe that it is the company’s responsibility to let potential candidates know the expectations of the company, but I also feel that the employee also has a responsibility to recognize if the expectations placed exceed what they are capable of. I am uncertain as to what those employees that complained about the working conditions would propose to change. I agree that hourly employees should be paid their rage for each hour that worked; including staff meetings, and that this time should not be considered selling time. But I would expect to be placed in a certain department, or during certain times, based on my performance. You put your employees were they are best fitted. I believe that the employee needs to take ownership of the work they produce and where that places them within the company. Additionally, if I was to apply for a position at Nordstrom’s I would expect that my salary would be at least partially based on commission. Most employees have a set of expectations set, and if the employee, or potential candidate, feels that the expectations are out of reach, then maybe they should consider a different place of employment.

There are many employees and unions that would disagree, but, employment is a two way street. An interview is for both parties to decide if they are a right fit within the company. If either party feels that the other party is not holding up their side of the bargain, then they should look elsewhere.