strategy |

Archive | strategy RSS feed for this section

Question your Assumptions – Publicly — no, Really!

By Pamela on January 7, 2012 in Executive Excellence, Perspectives, strategy, Trust, Values

I propose a new year’s resolution: Take your leadership insecurities to your peer group for review. Consider that you might sometimes be “being right” when you are really being arrogant, and it is costing you credibility.

The downside of “being right” when dealing with a subordinate, can be costly. For example, if an employee isn’t feeling heard, that employee might begin to withhold information which can begin the slippery slope of mis-information, mis-interpretation, and bad feelings.

If you are feeling the least bit uncomfortable while considering the above possibility of arrogance, it might mean you are tapping into your conscience.

Here lies an opportunity to distinguish between arrogance parading as self-esteem, and challenging your assumptions. One source for reflection on that topic is “Acting as if your assumptions are the truth,” number two in the downloadable free report on this website, “Seven Costly Mistakes Senior Executives Make that Cause Performance, Productivity and People to Suffer.”

What if you took your inquiry — or any internal discomfort as a leader— to your peers, not as gossip but as an opportunity to seek suggestions in the name of collaboration, cooperation, teamwork, productivity, authenticity, contributing and being contributed to?

As an executive coach I have witnessed the value of doing so. One manager in particular was reluctant to expose herself to her peers, believing they would think less of her. However, she took the coaching, rallied her courage, and the result was unexpected. She actually garnered MORE respect for having been vulnerable in a situation everyone knew anyway! It was a real lesson for her that the elephant in the room is more visible than most people want to admit.

I recently submitted a white paper for consideration to present at the Conference for Global Transformation in the spring of 2012, the root of which was an inquiry into trustworthiness of business leaders.

The chairman of the review committee said, in accepting the paper for presentation, “I found your paper to be very interesting, particularly how you questioned your own views. I think this is really an important point that should be brought forward….” As a result of that feedback I changed the title of my paper from “Transforming Leadership in Business…” to “Transforming the Leader Within: Questioning Self as Access to Expanded Thinking Capacity.”

What does this bring up for you? Your questions and thoughts make a rich dialog.

Comments { 0 }

Tech Talk with Jim Goldman: From San Diego to Silicon Valley and Beyond

By Pamela on October 22, 2011 in Business, business planning, Perspectives, strategy, Technology

A Wrap-up of the University Club’s Roundtable on the Tech Industry

Christine Benton

The biggest challenge facing the technology industry is people. Or more specifically, the lack thereof, according to tech industry leaders at a recent San Diego business breakfast. The event, hosted by the University Club San Diego, brought together executives from a broad swath of the technology industry to discuss the state of the industry in San Diego and beyond. The discussion was led by Jim Goldman, chairman of the U.S. Technology Practice at public relations firm Burson-Marsteller and former CNBC Silicon Valley bureau chief.

The panelists didn’t identify capital or revenue as the greatest challenge facing tech industry companies. They said their biggest challenge was staffing and recruiting tech-related positions—such as software engineers, managers, marketers and salespeople.

In a time of double-digit unemployment, “there are more than 6,000 technology-related positions open in San Diego alone,” said David Titus, president of the San Diego Venture Group and managing director at venture capital firm Windward Ventures.

George Mathew, president and COO of Irvine-based Alteryx, nodded. “Fifty percent of my time is spent on staffing and recruiting,” he said.

While a few were surprised by this, Titus backed up Mathews, saying that when he looks at companies to invest in, he looks for senior executives who spend a significant amount of time on staffing, pointing out that these executives are more realistic than those who turn to recruiting and staffing as a second or third priority.

The challenge is exacerbated by U.S. immigration policy, said Titus, which currently requires foreign students who matriculate and earn advanced degrees at U.S. universities to return to their home countries after graduation. “We are educating them and then sending them back,” noted Titus. “Why not allow them to work here and make our companies and economy stronger?” He urged people to support the STAPLE Act, which would authorize certain students from foreign countries to be admitted for permanent residence after earning a PhD from a U.S. university in the field of science, technology, engineering or mathematics.

Admiral Jim Zortman, sector vice president of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, shared a few ways that he has approached the staffing issue, including working with high schools and colleges within the framework of internship programs. “If you have a good internship program, by the time the intern is in his or her third year of internship you have a pretty good idea of whether they’re a good fit for your company,” he said.

In addition, he pointed out, “Not everyone peaks at the moment of graduation.” While other companies go for the top graduates, he may aim a few spots down, looking for qualities in a candidate that will help them to be strong in the long-term. Zortman mentions that, like others on the panel, his team has been able to lure candidates to move to San Diego from other parts of the country by giving them a taste of Southern California in the winter. However, many leave after two to three years, so he has learned to focus on candidates he believes will be here for the long run.

Do you share the same challenges in your industry? Use the comment section below to let us know!

Christine Benton is a director in the Technology Practice at Burson-Marsteller. Based in North County San Diego, she is an avid lover of both San Diego and Technology. You can reach her at christine.benton[at]bm.com.

Comments { 0 }

Key Words for Affecting Employee Engagement

By Pamela on October 12, 2011 in Employee Engagement, Executive Excellence, Perspectives, strategy, Trust, Values

I had the pleasure of interviewing John Schierer, Vice President of Human Resources at Cubic Defense Applications. I reached out to John because when at Cobham, he and consultant and author Sandy Asch had devised a comprehensive program for employee engagement that was extremely effective. I had read John’s article about that initiative and I wanted more.

In our relatively short conversation, I got something incredibly valuable. There are some key distinctions regarding Employee Engagement that, if you don’t know deeply what they mean and how to use them, will stifle any attempt to transform a corporate culture. I am clear John Schierer is a master in these distinctions.

Employee engagement means that people at work will give you their discretionary time and attention. They don’t just show up; they show up engaged, excited, and enthusiastic about making their unique contribution, and accountable for producing results.

Situational. That means you have to first understand the culture you are in before you can expect to garner employee engagement. This takes time, effort, and study. Where is the company in its organizational life cycle? Is it small and growing? Or large and complex? Is it in transition from one stage to another?

Desired Behaviors. Before taking on any transformational efforts, know the outcome you want — greater productivity, quality — improvement over the current state. Here, John collaborated with Sandy and came up with behaviors and created a code of conduct based on Sandy’s book, Excellence at Work: The Six Keys to Inspire Passion in the Workplace (World at Work Press, 2007).

Language. Having clear behavioral outcomes created common definitions, language and understanding for not only employees, but also for the supervisors. Language is unique to a culture, and having intentional language can add strength to the culture. New people pick up on it very quickly.

Alignment. If you hold values, or a code of conduct high, are those values/is that code of conduct in the performance appraisals and the compensation structure? Are you interviewing for preferences around those values? Are you asking employees about them through 360’s?

Buckets. If your language is built around alignment with those values that are aligned throughout the organization, then people will begin to express upsets in the language that mirrors the buckets that were formed. New employees will quickly align to the language and also begin to relate to the buckets. Structural integrity is very quickly discernable.

Transparency. If people know the mission and are aligned, they are self-informed because everything is transparent to them. Transparency is taught by being modeled. It can be tracked anecdotally, by learning where transparency is being rewarded.

Thinking in these terms will help you ask the right questions, so that if you believe, as the Jurdy cartoon suggests, that something is missing from employee engagement, you can look deeply for what will make a significant, measurable, positive difference, as John and Sandy and their team did at Cobham.

Perhaps you have terms that you have found key to employee engagement. Please share by leaving a comment.

Comments { 0 }