Tuesday, November 25, 2003
*
E is for:
Excuses
When things go wrong, be careful how you respond. To the astute observer, your actions and strategies give the clearest possible indication of your maturity as a manager.
Use this handy guide to determine your management age group.
Evasion: Your instinctive response is to run away and hide. Colleagues pretend to sympathise, but secretly find your antics amusing or simply pathetic. When finally cornered, you try to look innocent and deny all knowledge. Age group: toddler.
Buck-passing: You have begun to realise that problems cannot be avoided altogether. Your focus has shifted to trying to avoid or at least share the blame. Typical excuses include ‘My employees let me down’ and ‘That’s so-and-so’s area of responsibility.’ Age group: juvenile.
Diversion: Your need for social acceptance stops you sneaking on others, but you still find it hard to take criticism. The world confuses you, and your behaviour is erratic, lurching from stoic acceptance to fits of self-pity. You use a wide range of excuses, but often try to divert attention from an issue by getting worked up about something else, or claiming that circumstances have changed in an unpredictable way that's just not fair. Age group: teenager.
Introspection: You think you are mature (though you aren’t). Your responses seem deep and meaningful to you, banal to others. You try to look deep inside yourself for the underlying cause of the problem, while at the same time letting slip calculated glimpses of your inner turmoil. You put yourself forward for additional management training. Age group: adolescent.
Assertiveness: You are the alpha male, within your team if not the whole company. When you're confronted with evidence of your mistakes, typical responses include ‘So what?’, ‘It was inevitable’ and ‘What are you going to do about it?’ If necessary, you'll counterattack to assert your dominance, or leave the company to find another pack. Age group: young adult.
Realism: You’ve been around a while. You know you haven’t seen it all, but there isn’t much people can do to surprise you. You know you’re good at your job, but not perfect. The odd mistake is regrettable but inevitable, serious but not the end of the world. You learn from mistakes rather than trying to excuse them. Age group: adult.
Fatalism: You know you have peaked and hope at best to maintain your position in the pecking order a little longer. The consequences of your actions seem less and less significant. You see no need for excuses, merely accepting the blame and looking for mercy. Age group: pensioner.
[1] The demographics of the western world suggest a growing pensions crisis, as a shrinking percentage of adults must support a growing population of pensioners. Declining birth rates and increased longevity are largely to blame.
In management, the crisis is already upon us, though the demographics are somewhat different: huge numbers of children who show little sign of reaching maturity, and an alarmingly rapid progression from adulthood to senility.
E is for:
Excuses
When things go wrong, be careful how you respond. To the astute observer, your actions and strategies give the clearest possible indication of your maturity as a manager.
Use this handy guide to determine your management age group.
Evasion: Your instinctive response is to run away and hide. Colleagues pretend to sympathise, but secretly find your antics amusing or simply pathetic. When finally cornered, you try to look innocent and deny all knowledge. Age group: toddler.
Buck-passing: You have begun to realise that problems cannot be avoided altogether. Your focus has shifted to trying to avoid or at least share the blame. Typical excuses include ‘My employees let me down’ and ‘That’s so-and-so’s area of responsibility.’ Age group: juvenile.
Diversion: Your need for social acceptance stops you sneaking on others, but you still find it hard to take criticism. The world confuses you, and your behaviour is erratic, lurching from stoic acceptance to fits of self-pity. You use a wide range of excuses, but often try to divert attention from an issue by getting worked up about something else, or claiming that circumstances have changed in an unpredictable way that's just not fair. Age group: teenager.
Introspection: You think you are mature (though you aren’t). Your responses seem deep and meaningful to you, banal to others. You try to look deep inside yourself for the underlying cause of the problem, while at the same time letting slip calculated glimpses of your inner turmoil. You put yourself forward for additional management training. Age group: adolescent.
Assertiveness: You are the alpha male, within your team if not the whole company. When you're confronted with evidence of your mistakes, typical responses include ‘So what?’, ‘It was inevitable’ and ‘What are you going to do about it?’ If necessary, you'll counterattack to assert your dominance, or leave the company to find another pack. Age group: young adult.
Realism: You’ve been around a while. You know you haven’t seen it all, but there isn’t much people can do to surprise you. You know you’re good at your job, but not perfect. The odd mistake is regrettable but inevitable, serious but not the end of the world. You learn from mistakes rather than trying to excuse them. Age group: adult.
Fatalism: You know you have peaked and hope at best to maintain your position in the pecking order a little longer. The consequences of your actions seem less and less significant. You see no need for excuses, merely accepting the blame and looking for mercy. Age group: pensioner.
[1] The demographics of the western world suggest a growing pensions crisis, as a shrinking percentage of adults must support a growing population of pensioners. Declining birth rates and increased longevity are largely to blame.
In management, the crisis is already upon us, though the demographics are somewhat different: huge numbers of children who show little sign of reaching maturity, and an alarmingly rapid progression from adulthood to senility.
Monday, November 17, 2003
*
E is for:
Ethics
Over the past decade, the subject of ethics has managed to insinuate itself onto MBA course outlines and board meeting agendas everywhere.
What a waste of time.
On the plus side, the newly-created role of ethics officer is a boon to managers looking to dispose of dead wood.
Even the dimmest employees had begun to realise that being moved into human resources wasn’t a promotion.
But attempting to teach ethics to a group of money-obsessed young hopefuls is a non-starter.
And ethics in the boardroom can be as disruptive as politics or religion in the barroom.
The chairman must clamp down at the first sign that ethics is about to raise its ugly head. (In any case, directors have better things to do with their time.)
In truth, there are only three ethical positions, none of which needs any teaching or discussion:
1. You are good. Being ethical gives you a warm feeling and doesn’t cost much anyway. Fine.
2. You want to tick some boxes, or include a statement on corporate responsibility in your annual report. Delegate this chore. If your chosen flunkey starts wasting your time and expecting you to become involved in a meaningful discussion, buy him off. Let him run a one-day workshop, go to a seminar, or do whatever it takes to get him off your back. Meanwhile, carry on as normal.
3. You are evil. Go with it. You’ll enjoy yourself, and are unlikely to get into any trouble that a good lawyer or a well-timed episode of Alzheimer’s can’t cure. In time, you will probably end up on the board of [company name deleted at legal adviser’s request]. [1]
[1] “The things we admire in men – kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling – are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest – sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest – are the traits of success. The sale of souls to gain the whole world is completely voluntary and almost unanimous….” ‘Doc’ in Cannery Row (John Steinbeck).
E is for:
Ethics
Over the past decade, the subject of ethics has managed to insinuate itself onto MBA course outlines and board meeting agendas everywhere.
What a waste of time.
On the plus side, the newly-created role of ethics officer is a boon to managers looking to dispose of dead wood.
Even the dimmest employees had begun to realise that being moved into human resources wasn’t a promotion.
But attempting to teach ethics to a group of money-obsessed young hopefuls is a non-starter.
And ethics in the boardroom can be as disruptive as politics or religion in the barroom.
The chairman must clamp down at the first sign that ethics is about to raise its ugly head. (In any case, directors have better things to do with their time.)
In truth, there are only three ethical positions, none of which needs any teaching or discussion:
1. You are good. Being ethical gives you a warm feeling and doesn’t cost much anyway. Fine.
2. You want to tick some boxes, or include a statement on corporate responsibility in your annual report. Delegate this chore. If your chosen flunkey starts wasting your time and expecting you to become involved in a meaningful discussion, buy him off. Let him run a one-day workshop, go to a seminar, or do whatever it takes to get him off your back. Meanwhile, carry on as normal.
3. You are evil. Go with it. You’ll enjoy yourself, and are unlikely to get into any trouble that a good lawyer or a well-timed episode of Alzheimer’s can’t cure. In time, you will probably end up on the board of [company name deleted at legal adviser’s request]. [1]
[1] “The things we admire in men – kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling – are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest – sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest – are the traits of success. The sale of souls to gain the whole world is completely voluntary and almost unanimous….” ‘Doc’ in Cannery Row (John Steinbeck).
Sunday, November 09, 2003
*
D is for:
Discrimination
Society has turned against discrimination, and politicians are obliging by producing increasing volumes of legislation designed to protect individuals.
Most businesses, rightly, try to comply with the regulations.
Unfortunately, they are almost all missing the point. Discrimination is wrong. It is also all but inevitable.
Anyone with a healthy ego (and there are plenty of those in business) reckons that he is good at what he does.
And it’s a small step to assuming that people like himself will be too. People understand other people who are like them—of the same background, race, gender, religion, body shape or whatever.
They feel comfortable with them. They find them easy to work with. They usually like them.
To some extent, discrimination happens almost as a matter of circumstance. People who are ‘different’ don’t even come into the reckoning. [1]
In other cases, individuals find it impossible to avoid some form of discrimination, driven by experiences from the past that continue to exert a strong, if subconscious, influence.
It’s a fair bet that the urge to discriminate is genetically embedded in everyone on the planet. [2]
No amount of anti-discrimination legislation and right-thinking business procedure can overcome that, whether you try to follow the letter or even the spirit of the law. Unless you take time to think deeply and really understand your own prejudices, you will continue to discriminate.
You’ll be hurting your business, missing out on a huge pool of unseen talent and diverse, invigorating differences. And, in the unlikely event that it is a just world, one day you will be found out.
[1] Even apparently harmless activities, like recommending an old friend for a job, have a powerful discriminatory effect. Taken together, this modern version of the old boy network is giving people like you an unfair advantage. Recently, the chief executive of a major US company revealed that candidates to replace him had each been ‘interviewed’ at a day on the golf course with the rest of the board. It’s hard to imagine a process better designed to pick a replacement who came from the right background, rather than the one best equipped for the job.
[2] If modern theory is correct, genes influence us to protect not just ourselves but others who share the same genes – and the more similar someone is, the greater the shared genetic material is likely to be. As long as people like us procreate (and greater business success should do nothing to hurt their chances of bringing up numerous offspring), our own genes win.
D is for:
Discrimination
Society has turned against discrimination, and politicians are obliging by producing increasing volumes of legislation designed to protect individuals.
Most businesses, rightly, try to comply with the regulations.
Unfortunately, they are almost all missing the point. Discrimination is wrong. It is also all but inevitable.
Anyone with a healthy ego (and there are plenty of those in business) reckons that he is good at what he does.
And it’s a small step to assuming that people like himself will be too. People understand other people who are like them—of the same background, race, gender, religion, body shape or whatever.
They feel comfortable with them. They find them easy to work with. They usually like them.
To some extent, discrimination happens almost as a matter of circumstance. People who are ‘different’ don’t even come into the reckoning. [1]
In other cases, individuals find it impossible to avoid some form of discrimination, driven by experiences from the past that continue to exert a strong, if subconscious, influence.
It’s a fair bet that the urge to discriminate is genetically embedded in everyone on the planet. [2]
No amount of anti-discrimination legislation and right-thinking business procedure can overcome that, whether you try to follow the letter or even the spirit of the law. Unless you take time to think deeply and really understand your own prejudices, you will continue to discriminate.
You’ll be hurting your business, missing out on a huge pool of unseen talent and diverse, invigorating differences. And, in the unlikely event that it is a just world, one day you will be found out.
[1] Even apparently harmless activities, like recommending an old friend for a job, have a powerful discriminatory effect. Taken together, this modern version of the old boy network is giving people like you an unfair advantage. Recently, the chief executive of a major US company revealed that candidates to replace him had each been ‘interviewed’ at a day on the golf course with the rest of the board. It’s hard to imagine a process better designed to pick a replacement who came from the right background, rather than the one best equipped for the job.
[2] If modern theory is correct, genes influence us to protect not just ourselves but others who share the same genes – and the more similar someone is, the greater the shared genetic material is likely to be. As long as people like us procreate (and greater business success should do nothing to hurt their chances of bringing up numerous offspring), our own genes win.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
*
D is for:
Directors, non-executive
The official view is that independent directors are an essential element in corporate governance, and a necessary counterbalance to managers, who might otherwise focus on their own self-serving interests.
Non-executives are seen as having a particularly necessary role on the remuneration committee – ensuring that directors’ pay is reasonable.
They are also supposed to be key members of the audit committee, where it is fondly hoped that they will help uncover any deliberate falsifications.
At first sight, if you’ve met a few of the country’s rougher chief executives, this view of the non-exec's role is hard to argue with.
But it only takes a moment to spot the flaws in this thinking.
Good corporate governance really depends on the company secretary and the auditors, rather than the directors.
It’s almost impossible for non-executives to overrule the will of the executive directors. (If they can, the executives are either trying to pull something so flagrantly wrong that it should be apparent to everyone, or they're such a weak team that they need replacing anyway).
But non-executives have a far stronger interest in the happy, healthy and wealthy survival of the board than the executives themselves.
A manager can quietly move on to another company. A non-executive who kicks up a fuss could find himself blackballed from boardrooms across the country.
Investors should be looking for a board that follows three key principles:
· Non-executives should bring a specific strategic benefit to the company, with experience and expertise in areas where the executive team is weak.
· Non-executives should have as few other directorships as possible, and certainly not be enmeshed in cosy networks of cross-directorships (‘I’ll sit on yours, if you sit on mine’).
· The board should have a cut-down, even emasculated, remuneration committee, which, at most, makes recommendations that are then voted on by shareholders.
As an executive director, of course, you should be fully aware of all these principles – and aim for exactly the opposite.
D is for:
Directors, non-executive
The official view is that independent directors are an essential element in corporate governance, and a necessary counterbalance to managers, who might otherwise focus on their own self-serving interests.
Non-executives are seen as having a particularly necessary role on the remuneration committee – ensuring that directors’ pay is reasonable.
They are also supposed to be key members of the audit committee, where it is fondly hoped that they will help uncover any deliberate falsifications.
At first sight, if you’ve met a few of the country’s rougher chief executives, this view of the non-exec's role is hard to argue with.
But it only takes a moment to spot the flaws in this thinking.
Good corporate governance really depends on the company secretary and the auditors, rather than the directors.
It’s almost impossible for non-executives to overrule the will of the executive directors. (If they can, the executives are either trying to pull something so flagrantly wrong that it should be apparent to everyone, or they're such a weak team that they need replacing anyway).
But non-executives have a far stronger interest in the happy, healthy and wealthy survival of the board than the executives themselves.
A manager can quietly move on to another company. A non-executive who kicks up a fuss could find himself blackballed from boardrooms across the country.
Investors should be looking for a board that follows three key principles:
· Non-executives should bring a specific strategic benefit to the company, with experience and expertise in areas where the executive team is weak.
· Non-executives should have as few other directorships as possible, and certainly not be enmeshed in cosy networks of cross-directorships (‘I’ll sit on yours, if you sit on mine’).
· The board should have a cut-down, even emasculated, remuneration committee, which, at most, makes recommendations that are then voted on by shareholders.
As an executive director, of course, you should be fully aware of all these principles – and aim for exactly the opposite.
