Everybody knows what’s happening at Microsoft, the professional press covered the story from all angles, critique was raised where critique was due. If you missed it here’s one for taste.
I’d like to raise a tricky question: can Microsoft change?
The Nokia part is not relevant here, that company had clearly lost its identity over 7 years ago, what happened after the acquisition was in a way a natural unfolding of events, the final blow being simply administered by a glorified bureaucrat.
In order to change you need an identity. Better put: in order to change purposefully, you need an identity – Nokia also changed but without an identity, that change was anything but purposeful.
How can we judge the ability of an organization to change purposefully?
By looking at it through the lens of identity. We define identity as the synthetic whole of 3+1 factors: Purpose, Unfolding (of potentials), Style + Awareness (Identity Map). I use the Identity Map not only for complex organizations but also for individual CEOs. The 4 factors are almost never in perfect balance and that is normal. Huge discrepancies however are red flags.
If we look for parallels, this is similar to RIM’s case, when a polished insider took over after the founders stepped down: just maintaining the prevailing patterns until they ran their course.
An article with this title came up in my news feed from the Harvard Business Review; it was written by an HR manager working for a startup and dealt with pre-programmed / taught answers mostly from people fresh out of university. The point there was that these answers are not honest and not being honest translates to not admitting problems, which could be fatal in startups.
We will deal with this question from a completely different perspective.
I didn’t take the effort to research who came up with the “what is your greatest weakness” question in an interview setting – probably an empowered bureaucrat: the question is unfair and ill-willed and if asked “in general”, it is plain idiotic. If the interviewer has good intentions (whatever that means) and still asks this question, he lacks critical thinking or doesn’t think, period. This is why it has become an issue how to answer it.
An acceptable way to approach this for anyone with some degree of self-respect:
If you are a specialist: tell them technical areas: I am not that strong in Python yet, I am still learning new tricks with macros and similar. If you want to dig more, ask my wife, boyfriend, roommate, whatever, but I don’t see how it’s relevant.
If you are going for management or leadership roles and you hear this question, it’s probably time to walk: they either use this because they don’t want you or they are wasting your time with incompetent paper pushers.
If you decide that it’s worth your time to address the question:
Tell them the management principles that you operate by, like “I always try to set clear expectations”, “walk the talk”, ” I fire manipulators”, “I put integrity above profits”, “I hire the best and let them flourish”, “I treat people like adults”, whatever. Then ask: could this be a weakness in this organization?
Leadership is based on supra individual principles and principles are neither good nor bad: in this context the weakness is always the individual himself.
If the interviewer is more interested in discussing principles than weaknesses, you’re in the right place.
Guest post by Tuncay Tekdemir. Contact author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Getting your team to follow you through the good times and even more importantly the tough times, is the hallmark of a great leader
One of the best ways of judging the quality and ability of of a leader is by looking at the levels of loyalty they inspire from their staff. Getting your team to follow you through the good times and even more importantly the tough times, is the hallmark of a great leader.
And to get people to follow you when things are not going well you have to make them want to stay with you on the journey. In other words you need your staff to be totally loyal to the cause and to you as individual.
There are plenty of people out there who expect and demand loyalty from their employees at all times. They think that giving someone a job is enough of reason to expect them to be completely loyal and totally committed.
However, true and lasting loyalty is not simply about giving someone a wage and than demanding they follow you through thick and thin.
The fact is that loyalty is something that has to be earned and comes as a result of a relationship that is built up over a long time.
Some people think that you can lead through fear and that all you have to do is tell an individual to do something without expecting to be questioned in any way. But to get the very best performance from people you have to have a mutual understanding and the kind of relationship where you can sit down and have an honest and open discussion.
Of course in a business, especially one in the early days of its life, there can only ever be one boss. In my experience trying to run a company by committee and as a democracy is always going to end in failure. I have seen this being the case at many international companies, and decisions took too long to be made. There needs to be a clear decision maker -someone at the top of an organisation who makes the big decisions and takes the ultimate responsibility.
But as a company grows and expands, there is a need for a clearly defined structure and a board of directors. When you get to a situation when you have one individual micro-managing, it can lead to paralysis.
However even as the business and the management team expands it is still important that the person at the very top commands respect and loyalty.
All of us individuals like to feel appreciated and like to be told that we are doing a good job from time to time. Showing empathy and understanding as a leader does not means that you are soft and it can be the best way to motivate members of the team
Great leaders are able to give something back to everyone, no matter what their position is in the hierarchy.
Admittedly this is somewhat provocative, but perhaps not that far – fetched.
Considering that over 90% of companies are mediocre, it doesn’t make much sense to even raise the question of strategy. Companies are mediocre because they have no leadership who could provide a concept that may serve as the foundation of any kind of strategy, so they are, without exception playing catch-up. Their „leaders” are staring in the rear-view mirror and at various indicators while stepping ever heavier on the gas pedal. All the while there is only one song coming from the speakers at maximum volume: faster!
Paradoxically they are terrified of taking their eyes off the rear-view mirror and focusing on the road.
People leading leading firms do precisely this. There is no noise, their attention is proportionately spread between the road, the mirrors and the indicators with most attention dedicated to the road, they feel the car and most of all: they know precisely why they are driving and they know it pretty well where they are heading.
There is no strategy without a concept!
It’s easy to find out if there really is a concept behind a written and „internalized” strategy; we just need to ask the question: what is your strategy based on? If the CEO’s answer is quantitative or is based on outside factors, like last year’s results, market data, competitive behaviour, etc., then there is no concept.
There is no focus without strategy
This is also easy to test. Just see what happens in the controlling department in budgeting or reporting times: so called bullshit strategies, that are not based on a defendable concept but are dreamed up by management in offsite sessions somewhere in the mountains or beach resorts, simply can’t be implemented. If they still appear to be implemented, it is mostly because the controlling team is diligently correcting the numbers in the reporting period.
The organization is weak without focus
A weak organization is slow and reactive. It is passive. There is simply nothing to organize around. Most of the people don’t do what they should be doing and almost everybody performs way below their abilities – 10-12 hours a day.
We can immediately recognize a weak organization: it’s enough to sit around at the main reception for 5-15 minutes during lunchtime and listen to the people. They are typically cynical, complaining or you can see fear in the eyes.
A weak organization is a sign of no leadership
Without a leader there is no concept, strategy is forgotten and resources are wasted on trying to keep together a disintegrating organization while the company is missing opportunities and falls behind.
Mediocrity can’t be kept secret!
According to the association of executive search consultants Thorndike Deland established the first executive search firm in 1926, focusing on retail executives. He charged clients a retainer and 5% of the first year’s salary of the executive.
Top management consulting firms like McKinsey and Booz, Allen & Hamilton would also provide executive search services until conflicts of interests became an issue and certain partners left the firm to establish executive search business.
The first one was Sid Boyden who left Booz, Allen & Hamilton and launched a company named after himself in 1946. Booz, Allen & Hamilton continued offering executive search until 1980.
Ward Howell left McKinsey to establish his own firm in 1951 and consequently McKinsey exited the business. For some reason he also decided to name the company after himself.
Gardner Heidrick and John Struggles were also Booz, Allen & Hamilton alumnus; they established their executive search practice in 1953. Curiously the new firm was named Heidrick & Struggles.
Spencer Stuart used to work for Heidrick and Struggles for merely one year in 1955, then he left and the year Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis and Carl Perkins were jamming spontaneously in one studio, he established his own firm, calling it quite surprisingly Spencer Stuart. It is interesting to note that he was concerned that he had entered the business too late; he considered the space already too crowded back then!
Egon Zehnder left Spencer Stuart and launched the firm bearing his name in Switzerland in 1964.
Lester Korn and Richard Ferry left accounting careers behind to get into executives search in 1969, and Russell Reynolds used to be a commercial banker at J.P. Morgan – he also launched in 1969, when the American charts were dominated by Led Zeppelin, Neil Diamond, the Beatles and the Jackson 5 and when Neil Armstrong took a casual walk on the moon – whose name luckily remained “the Moon” – perhaps because Armstrong was not a consultant.
A lot of things changed between 1926 and 1946, between 1946 and 1969 and between 1969 and 1989 and of course since then: new industries emerged, new business models appeared, management theories came and go, the average tenure of a CEO had decreased to 2-5 years, depending on the industry and the geography, market leadership means different things today than 60 years ago, success factors for companies has changed, transparency has increased, the public’s perception about companies and corporate life has changed, entrepreneurship has evolved considerably, the role of board of directors has changed dramatically, how we work and communicate has changed, careers have changed, change itself has come to mean something entirely different than 40 years ago.
Only one thing has not changed much at all is executive search. Some firms have added more services perhaps to counter balance the decline in their search business but they didn’t change the search business itself.
Well, it seems something has to change!
The mistakes are getting more expensive: appointing the wrong CEO may cause the demise of companies employing 100s of thousands of people, the elimination of a large chunk of people’s retirement funds, it may affect the economy of countries and regions and it may even cause global financial crisis.
Just to stick to less complex examples it’s enough to think about the recent mistakes HP’s board made with CEO decisions, including how they ended up hiring Leo Apotheker, Yahoo!’s years of inability to appoint the right CEO, Nokia’s and RIM’s ongoing story and the list continues.
Boards in some cases are absolutely clueless, inert or indifferent when it comes to appointments. They should be responsible. The old paradigms are no longer valid. Today it should be clear to everybody that we operate in constant crisis; to assume otherwise is a fatal mistake. But first things first! ….to be continued
Celebrities were created by the herd; they do everything possible to comply with the expectations of the herd and the herd celebrates their success – this is the de facto definition of success.The most successful celebrities manage to exceed expectations – and this is not a good thing!
The expectations are well defined and clear: how to dress, how to speak and how to think.
It would be a waste of time to list all herd / celebrity segments, so we just pick 3 to make the point:
For anyone who tend to form their opinion independently, it is obvious that these are not real segments since the herd behind them is the same.
Personal branding consultants help the wannabe celebrities comply, teaching them repulsive methods to exceed, which could be summed up by the following: be louder, go farther (down the herd lane), go faster. They are teaching other stuff too, like being passionate about all this, that telling everybody that you’re the greatest is not distasteful but shows confidence, that wanting what others what even more is what makes you unique and similar non-sense.
Now these branding consultants and similar bottom feeders, like “introversion experts”, behavioral coaches and others, are following of course their own advice and call themselves authorities and gurus(!) every chance they get, do speeches, pull together a book or two on the collective wisdom, quoting the quotes of other celebrities and pop a champagne at the award ceremonies of their respective fields together with their herd, celebrating each other.
How about stepping out of the herd, wash off the nauseating smell and start again on true fundamentals?
People usually polarize between “what should be” and “what is“. Their position on this scale depicts very distinct types.
The “what’s possible” usually becomes a matter of opinion but -quite logically- the closer it is to “what is”, the more likely it is that the possibility may become an actuality… but: closer to whose reality…?
What I describe as intellectual cowardice is when people who know better (have the experience, have seen proof, have the intellectual capacity to recognize and embrace potentials) decide to take the comfortable position of the lowest common denominator, the “what is”, and against all they know, they don’t sway from it one inch. Their motivation is typically career related: it’s safe to be the guy who challenges potentials or the potential. Not only is this motivation not heroic, very often it is also ill-willed and cynical in that it makes it look like that the “what should be guy” doesn’t even know what’s going on; and of course nothing is farther from the truth.
This clip, depicting a hypothetical scenario of Nikola Tesla (what should be) pitching to VCs (what is), provides a great example for all this. While the clip is incredibly funny, it’s not an exaggeration and it’s a perfect snapshot of what I mean by cowardice and often even sabotage with or without arrogance as a style element. http://bit.ly/19OBSEn .
In highly bureaucratic organizations you can’t make a career by being the “what should be guy”; such guys typically get to play only when it’s already too late.
In highly entrepreneurial environments the “what should be” guys should lead. In an ideal world both the VCs and the founders are of this breed!; and the way they lead is very different from how the “what is guys” lead.
Otherwise do any of the following and watch the dynamics change:
- don’t invite “what is guys” to meetings about strategy
- make rules, like: you’re not allowed to make statements about things everybody in the group is aware of (like what is the budget (e.g. we don’t have a budget for that), what day it is (e.g. we are not there yet), basic math (e.g. that’s gonna cost us), etc.)
- put “what is guys” in problem solving or solution development positions
The lifesytle expat is a sign of times, their existence is a logical necessity; they are the byproducts of flawed views and the corresponding thinking that are prevalent in the corporate world, which promotes arrogance and infantile behavior and necessarily divides employees into cynics and idiots.
The lifestyle expat may be best described by one word: entitlement.
They are typically sent from mature markets to developing ones to “get things done”, to “teach and educate those people”, to “achieve” and what in light of all this seems to be paradoxical: to gain international experience. Not all expats are lifestyle expats but we won’t speak here about the others.
Six simple ways to recognize the lifestyle expat:
- She’s doing the company a favor. The ones that are not that bright are convinced of this, the cynical players are just good at playing this card smart.
- He has demands or non-negotiables: these are typically stuff he could not get at HQ in his “normal job”. A good example could be vacation days for North American expats (a scarcity in their home markets), job for the spouse, paid (elite) school for kids, the best house money (not budget!) can buy – and similar. For lifestyle expats non-negotiables are a vanity question (a “question of principle” as they put it) and they fight for them vehemently.
- She is not really participating, let alone rocking the boat. She typically lets her team working overtime while she’s leaving precisely at 5pm (work/life balance), takes her vacations when the going gets tough (on short notice if necessary), etc. She often counterbalances this with a great smile and a smooth personality.
- No ideas, no strategies. He’s much happier talking about his career plans. This typically boils down to becoming a general manager and a regional CEO. The career usually stops at the GM level, they rarely become regional CEOs and never become CEOs of multinationals….and this is of course a good thing.
- When it becomes clear that there is no “room for growth”, or when the lifestyle is not likely to be financed by the company anymore she moves on to another company. The plan is typically to become a GM by the time he’s 35…then by the time he’s 45, etc. Some of them are out of there way before the notice period is up… like they had never even been there.
- Never learns a local language, interacts mostly with expats and locals who share “his views”. I link here some more relevant stuff to this from my friend Eric Bilginoglu, who has a unique perspective on the issue.
…and you can probably list many more.
Someone dealing with these guys often summed up their performance like this: nice guys, great at building relationships, perfect presentations, structured input, absolutely no results.
Top 3 reasons why lifestyle expats exist:
1. There is no leadership in the organization: the boss of the lifestyle expat may very well be another lifestyle expat, a Like-minded Local or just a weak manager
2. The company’s “culture” actually favors the lifestyle expat; this means that it’s full of incompetent super stars. Since in this case the company is not performing well (most of the good guys have already left and the cynical and the stupid constitute the majority) a CEO change and a major organizational change should be expected – or the company’s demise.
3. The organization is going through massive change and they haven’t got around firing them yet (see also point 1)
If you have lifestyle expats reporting to you,
- you MUST start showing leadership NOW
- if you haven’t yet, you must realize that business is NOT as usual: you have a CRISIS on your hand and you must manage accordingly
- you MUST re-think how you approach and manage change
- you should start looking for another job
Excerpt from the upcoming book: The funny business of executive search
Search guys’ networks maybe large but it doesn’t mean that they are valuable for clients or potential candidates. This is logical since agents benefit more from their network than their network from them; and when we look at search guys specifically, who are after people not looking for new jobs, they provide actual value only to current clients (even for those ideally NOT through their network) and to a lesser degree to shortlisted candidates: percentage wise – in proportion to their total network– this is close to zero. Even if we consider potential benefits to their network the ratio is not much better for the same reasons.
Interestingly neither the clients nor the candidates act as if they were aware of this. It happens often that clients call search guys saying: here’s a great guy do you have something for him? Or vice versa: candidates often check in with search firms when they are looking for jobs. It’s not a 100% useless to do this but realistically there is not much point in it. Unless they have special arrangements with clients to bring them top candidates without a formal search process in place, the search guys are not that motivated to make moves: they don’t want to jeopardize coming across as desperate or “creative”. There are “influential” search guys out there who can call up a client and say: hire this guy! In some cases they can do this because they put the guys they call in their position the same way, sometimes for other reasons – the number of these players are not substantial and these practices are of course highly questionable from an ethical point of view. It’s also worthwhile to note here that many search guys expect “loyalty” from the directors they placed, thinking that when they hire key people they should use them for the search – these players obviously lack business sense and/or they are pressured to do so; either way, it’s not good.
Search guys are of course selling heavily the size of their network. This is typically a sign of the clients and/or the search guys being clueless. People hiring search firms often complain: I spoke with this guy and I couldn’t even finish explaining what the situation was, he kept on interrupting by telling me who he knows who maybe relevant…
Strongly related to the size of the network is when local search guys sell the “I know everybody” proposition. The disadvantage of the search guy “knowing everybody” is that the chance that he will subconsciously screen out candidates before even starting the search is big. A search guy who is not that tied in to the social fabric in a particular location and performs a thorough research will go in without any preconceived notions and talks even to candidates that others may not even think about approaching for whatever reason.
Another thing about this proposition is that people tend to associate knowing everybody with being influential. Knowing everybody often means that they spoke once in a conference, somebody was a candidate once or they both member of the same chamber of commerce, attend the same networking events, etc. Some search guys throw BBQs, have lunch and drinks with somebody every day, etc. None of this means influence.
Even if both the search guy and a high profile candidate are members of an exclusive club where members tend to deal mostly with “insiders”, the only advantage from all this for the client is that the candidate maybe more willing to talk about their role – and even this is losing relevance: interested candidates discuss interesting opportunities no matter where it comes from – testament to this is the well documented story of Ramsey Beirne Associates (now Kindred Partners) in the USA that rose to dominance in the Silicon Valley in the 90’s without even having an office there. Club membership and the brand name of the search firm absolutely does not mean that the candidate will be influenced by the search guy when considering the opportunity- provided that he really is of high caliber.
There are managers who just recently entered high enough positions to get on the search guys’ radar and they often make the mistake to get into discussions and even go to client interviews to please the search guys all the while knowing that they will not take the job. This normally happens when it comes to top tier search firms and the candidates typically think this maybe a good way to build “relationships”. Most candidates sooner than later realize that this is a big mistake and their reputation will become stronger when they deal openly and say NO right off the bat when they see that there is no point in continuing.
Only influential people (the ones high caliber people tend to call before making big decisions) have valuable networks and the size of the network obviously has no co-relation to its value. By being professional agents with one single weapon (similarly to real estate agents, management consultants and similar), search guys’ sphere of influence is highly limited and so is the value of their network.