Without Integrity, Credibility Dies

brian williamsSocial media has been ablaze this week with articles, comments, and creative memes about Brian Williams and the false statements he made about his experience reporting in Iraq in 2003.

Williams’ report, in and of itself, is pretty much meaningless. On the other hand, the significance of his lie permeates much deeper and broader than an event covered over a decade ago.

Americans are so obsessed with meaningless day-to-day nonsense – everything from Bruce Jenner’s gender confusion to what so and so wore last night on Scandal. People think less and less for themselves and rely far too heavily on what the news media tells them is important. The national news media in particular substantially influences what the public knows, thinks, and believes.

For the past couple of decades, the news media in this country have become far more involved in shaping the news, rather than reporting the news. What used to be valued as unbiased reporting has evolved into editorialized pandering to one ideal or another. Every US media outlet I can think of is shamelessly biased either left or right, although they are certainly loath to admit it. All of them, subtly if not overtly, promote their respective political and social agendas.

As the prime time anchor, Brian Williams is the voice of NBC news. As such, both his credibility as a journalist, and consequently the credibility of his entire organization, is now called into question, and rightly so. The credibility of every news organization should be called into question, not because Brian Williams lied, but because the presentation of the news in this country has become disingenuous, cropped and carefully presented in a particular context to deliberately shape public opinion.

We cannot become complacent and accept the blatant falsification of events that are documented and presented as factual, particularly from our news media. Brian Williams should step down permanently, and this incident should be a wake up call to the entire industry.

Advertisements

The Social Construct of Morality

Joining the ranks of religion and politics, morality has quietly become a minefield to be publicly avoided at all costs.  Discussion on the matter, let alone debate, is just not politically correct; someone is sure to be offended.  Others might disagree, but I assert that morality, once commonly guided by absolute principles broadly accepted by society, has gradually evolved to a matter of individual preference.  I personally believe that matters of preference are subject to compromise, while matters of principle should be firmly upheld.  The problems begin when my principles differ from yours.  While my intent here is not to impose my ideology, I do want to explore the cultural inconsistencies in the interpretation of right and wrong within our society.  To that end, I pose these questions as food for thought and comment:

Should the foundation of morality be based on an absolute – a definitively established set of ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’, or should it be left to the interpretation of individuals or larger society groups?  Should these cultural standards be established or affirmed, recognizing that not everyone will be in agreement?  Do we let the majority decide, or do we default to the lowest common denominator within our culture – the individual?

I’m using the term ‘lowest common denominator’ in the context of contrasting two ends of the spectrum for judgment over what is and is not acceptable, i.e., morally right.  By that I am referring to an accepted societal viewpoint in which the wishes/rights of individuals have priority over those of a larger population.  I’m drilling down to the idea of ‘individual rights’ as the lowest level driver of moral authority, assuming ‘rights’ are interpreted in the strictest sense.  I’m also using the concept of right and wrong in the same context as morality, since by definition, morality is the principles of right and wrong in behavior.

The fact is, belief and value systems within our culture vary so greatly that there is an enormous gap between what most of us believe as individuals and the reality that exists within our society.  Despite what many would assert should be, I don’t think a consensus on ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ truly exists in our culture because we simply cannot agree on the boundaries.  Sure, there are certain actions that are almost universally considered taboo, but the waters get murky when you start talking about simpler issues of right or wrong.  Subsequently, no one is satisfied.  We assess issues and behaviors, etc., based on our personal perspective, recognizing the influence that our experiences, beliefs, and shifting cultural views have on us.  Perhaps the most commonly accepted concession is that what is ‘right’ for one person or group may not be so for another.

As a society of like minded people (I’m talking in the broadest sense), we’ve traditionally made sweeping cultural decisions about what is considered right and wrong.  In the age of political correctness, those decisions are being challenged by those who believe the ‘one’ is just as important as the ‘many.’  Priority of designated ‘rights’ has shifted away from the absolute and/or cultural majority to individuals and small groups with interests that do not conform to traditional norms.  Current cultural pressure dictates that we are no longer supposed to judge right or wrong whenever there is the potential that an individual or group might take offense or in some way be repressed.

Some would argue that morality is and should be a social construct.  That concept is indeed at the heart of the questions I’m posing.  Since defining morality as a social construct implies that there are culturally established standards of right and wrong, how then should this morality be imposed upon society, when by doing so, it may in fact conflict with the principles and values of those in disagreement?

In a discussion on this subject several years ago, a friend of mine argued that cultures judge right and wrong at will while governments protect the rights of individuals.  I don’t entirely agree with this, although I think I understand what he was getting at.  Cultures do define and judge right and wrong, however, governments obviously do not always protect individual rights.  The legal imposition of morality is in constant flux and the monitoring and protection of affected ‘rights’ depends on a host of social and political factors, all of which vary by culture vis-à-vis country.  I would point out that even in the U.S., public perception of certain assumed rights is itself frequently a cultural misconception, based on popular assumption but with no specific legal basis.  Simply put, just because we think we deserve something doesn’t mean we’re legally entitled to it, and having a voice doesn’t always equate to having a vote.

That same friend also asserted that “tyranny of the masses precludes justice and fairness” in the application of moral constructs imposed upon broader society.  Assuming that’s true, where then is the demarcation between social morality and individual rights?  How exactly should fairness be defined?  Given the imposition of social/cultural morality on the broader population, exactly how and where is the line drawn when a generally accepted social ‘good’ conflicts with the perceived rights of a smaller group within that population?

My point is our individual concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is founded entirely through our personal perspective, which is a product of our experiences, environment, religious beliefs, and cultural influences.  When does the determination of ‘right’ by the majority justify decisions that adversely impact the minority?  I think we’d all agree that it sometimes does.  Perhaps the bigger question is should it?  Is there in fact an absolute truth that supersedes an inconsistent socially constructed morality?

I think our society today frequently confuses its beliefs with its desires, or more accurately, we shape our beliefs to conveniently fit our desires.  More to the point, we allow our preferences to shape our principles instead of the other way around.  We also confuse our freedoms with rights.  As a result, everyone creates his or her own reality.  In my reality are my perceptions of right and wrong.  There are people who agree with (i.e., share) my perceptions, and people who do not.  Consequently, there are multiple social moralities on any given issue.

It’s unfortunate that we’ve been so programmed to embrace everyone else’s opinions and beliefs, we’ve compromised our own principles in the process.  I’m not suggesting that anyone should be intolerant or judgmental, but I think the terms are often used as a convenient weapon against those who philosophically disagree.  There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in, even when it’s not politically or socially correct.  In fact, I believe that by adhering to the rules of political correctness under the premise of ‘not offending anyone’, we’ve completely prostituted ourselves to a homogeneous culture where people are persecuted for defending a principle that conflicts with the preference of others.  There are many people who are not concerned by that, so maybe I’m being cynical.  I just have a hard time accepting that actions and behaviors should be justified based on whether they pass the ‘doesn’t harm anyone’ test.  Shouldn’t there be some better criteria for judging the morality of what we think and do?

We live in an age of anarchy – not political anarchy, but social and cultural anarchy.  Everyone is encouraged to ‘do their own thing’, whatever that thing may be – and it’s all supposed to be okay so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone or infringe upon anyone else’s rights.  It’s an inconsistent premise at best and I don’t buy it.  When the boundaries of morality and ethics are deemed malleable and subject to individual interpretation, the concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ becomes driven by convenience and preference, lacking any principled bearing.

Actions, whether by individuals or societies, have repercussions.  Our decisions and behaviors, whether in public or in private, slowly shape the world in which we live, and ultimately influence who we are.  We create our own cultures, just as we create our own realities.  Whether you believe in a single authority or cultural evolution, there are many social moralities.  The trouble with that is, none are right, some are right, all are right.  It all depends on your perspective.

Five Fundamental Principles of Service Excellence

To say that customer service is virtually non-existent today would be a comical understatement.  It seems everywhere we turn the quality of service we receive is inconsistent at best, from the waiters and sales people who ignore us to business managers who view us as interruptions.  I believe the root of the problem is not so much one of employee indifference; this is merely a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.  The real problem is a systematic failure on the part of companies and their managers to see beyond the transaction, make decisions based on intellect verses emotion, and empower their employees to be an advocate for the customer rather than ‘defender’ of the company.

Most people, if they are at all engaged in their job, want to do well.  Likewise, all companies want to be successful, and understand the value and necessity of happy customers.  So, where is the disconnect?  I believe it’s with the middle and lower level leadership.  It’s not much of a stretch to conclude that employee attitudes toward customers are a reflection of the culture created by management within the store, restaurant, or department.  I suppose there are a myriad of reasons, everything ranging from indifference and ignorance to a misguided notion of protecting the financial bottom line.  Just last week my wife asked to speak with the general manager of our dealership over a mechanical problem with our year old car that the staff was unwilling to rectify.  His response after listening to her complaint was to accuse her of being confrontational.  It is no wonder his staff was so unhelpful.

Leaders at every level bear the responsibility for maintaining a culture of service excellence, communicating expectations, and monitoring performance.  This requires personal interaction, not only with employees, but also with the customers.  Leaders can’t lead from behind a desk or though emails.  They have to get out of their offices, spend time along side their employees and participate in constant face to face interaction.  This is why you see managers in finer restaurants stop by your table to ask if everything was okay.  They understand the value of personal attention to their staff, customers, and business.  Philip K. Wrighley, chairman of the world’s largest chewing gum company, famously relayed the following story: “I went into our New York office one day and they asked who was calling. I told them it didn’t make a bit of difference. It might be a guy wanting to buy some gum – and that’s all that mattered.”

Below I’ve attempted to summarize service excellence in five fundamental principles.  Perhaps I’ve oversimplified it, but I don’t think so.  In fact, isn’t that the point?  Superior customer service really isn’t all that complicated or expensive.  Everyone should try it.

  1. Customer service is never an ‘exception’ or an ‘accommodation’
    These two words should be removed from our vocabulary.  Meeting (not to mention exceeding) a customer’s expectations should be a matter of principle.  Make decisions with enthusiasm, not reluctance, demonstrating a spirit of genuine appreciation instead of concession.
  2. Delighting a customer is a personal opportunity to be the ‘hero’
    Be the customer’s advocate in every interaction.  Customers should see us as their personal partner, not simply a representative of the company, and certainly never an adversary.  It is our job to get to ‘yes’.  Regardless of the situation, every satisfied customer reflects a personal success, and every disappointed customer reflects a personal failure.
  3. Customer service does not cost money, it earns future business
    We get far too wrapped up in our perceived sense of what is ‘right’ or ‘just’ when making service related decisions.  Any costs incurred in delighting a customer are literally insignificant compared to the goodwill and future business we gain.  Whether or not we feel they deserve it is irrelevant.  Customer service is not a battle to be won or lost, nor is it an affront to our integrity.  Better to give in to 10 thieves than to lose one legitimate customer.
  4. The solution is always more memorable than the problem
    Problems are going to occur – products will break, deadlines will be missed, mistakes will be made.  It is how well we anticipate and resolve our customers’ problems that influences their perception of our company and their decision to give us their future business.  Never leave a customer with an unresolved problem; always initiate a solution.
  5. The customer doesn’t have to ‘be’ right for us to ‘make it right’
    It’s as simple as this… no matter who is at fault, no matter what it costs, no matter what it takes – make it right for the customer.

12 Rules for Success: A Father’s Advice to his Kids

father-and-child

  1. Don’t despair in failure
    Be strengthened in your resolve to succeed.  Failure is temporary.  Rather than being discouraged, learn to leverage failure as an instrument for learning and an opportunity for strengthened resolve.  Remember, every hurdle cleared is one less obstacle between you and your objective.  Should you stumble and fall, fall forward.
  2. Never give up
    Be a relentless tormentor of your objectives.  Be both patient and persistent, focusing on the objectives, not the obstacles.  If you believe in your course, persevere to the end, even in the face of great adversity or overwhelming odds.  Never give up.
  3. Never compromise your principles
    It takes courage to draw a line in the sand, to stand up for what you believe.  Your principles should be absolute, upheld with unwavering conviction.  Personal preferences, on the other hand, warrant flexibility.  Know the difference between the two – when to be firm, and when to be flexible.
  4. Own your mistakes
    Admit your mistakes, embrace them, and learn from them.  Don’t hide them and never ever deflect responsibility to someone else.  The future has an uncanny way of revenging past deception.  Take ownership and live with the consequences.
  5. Challenge convention; question assumptions
    Question what everyone else takes for granted or assumes to be true.  Ambiguity and change is unsettling.  Consistency is comfortable and people often become unwittingly trapped by complacency or conjecture.  Acceptnothing without confirmation or validation and challenge others who do.  Remember the old saying; sacred cows make the best burgers.
  6. Show integrity in the smallest of things
    Integrity is the resolve to do the right thing even when no one else will know you’ve done it.  It’s returning a shopping cart to the cart return, turning in the sunglasses you found, leaving your name and number on the car you accidentally bumped.  Integrity is rooted in the foundation of character.  It’s not rewarded by recognition, but sustained by a personal conviction of right and wrong.
  7. Lead from the front
    …from over your shoulder and within arms reach.  You have to touch the people you lead; walk among them and share in their burdens and triumphs.  Lead face to face – not from an office, not through memorandums or phone calls or email. Show, don’t tell, and don’t ask anyone to do what you are unwilling to do yourself.
  8. Establish a sphere of influence
    Everyone needs advocates, people resolute in their support while unequivocal in their candor.  Surround yourself with an inner circle of trusted friends and family who will champion your cause while providing honest, constructive feedback and advice.  Learn to leverage their strengths to counterbalance your weaknesses.
  9. Learn to ask questions
    Rather than trying to learn all the answers, it’s far more important to learn what questions to ask.  Milan Kundera, the author of The Unbearable Lightness of Being once observed, “The stupidity of people comes from having an answer for everything.”  The ability to ask intelligent, relevant, and insightful questions is supremely valuable and uncommonly rare.  One final thought… know the distinction between asking for information and asking for affirmation.
  10. Pick your battles carefully
    Life is not fair; injustice sometimes prevails.  Still, not every conflict warrants a fight.  Like it or not, our world is complicated by political influences, and it’s easy to win a battle and still lose the war.  Consider what is to be gained and lost, and keep your eye on the larger objective.
  11. Master the language
    It might sound old-school in the age of texting, tweeting, and social networking, but a mastery of language communicates as much credibility and commands as much respect as a pedigree diploma, perhaps more.  Language skills in our society have become appallingly poor.  By contrast, a broad vocabulary brandished with flawless spelling, punctuation, and grammar is an incredibly powerful asset.
  12. If you speak, speak thoughtfully with purpose, confidence, and authority; otherwise, be silent
    Don’t speak simply to be heard.  Have something relevant to say.  “Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.” – Robert Frost

Delusional Effectiveness Disorder: Confusing Activity with Achievement

De-lu-sion-al  Ef-fec-tive-ness  Dis-or-der

Pronunciation: \di-‘lüzh-nəl\ \ĭ-fěk’tĭv-nes\ \dĭs-ôr’dər\

–noun

  1. a functional disorder characterized by systematized delusions of accomplishment and the projection of personal achievement, which are ascribed to the span and intensity of activity demonstrated, and manifested in the notable absence of meaningful results.
  2. delusions of grandeur
  3. slang: rectal-cranial inversion

Mission AccomplishedWe’ve all seen them.  Companies and organizations around the country are full of them.  You know who I’m talking about – you have a few in your organization right now.  I’m referring to those people who make the most noise, ask the most questions, make the most suggestions, send the most email – unrepentant self-promoters who frantically wave their banner to demonstrate to the world how busy and important they are and how tirelessly they work.  They make a big fuss and put on a great show, but actually accomplish very little.  In short, these are folks who confuse activity with achievement.

I refer to this common malady as Delusional Effectiveness Disorder.  While its origins are unknown, the presence of this condition has been noted among several business, military, and political leaders throughout history, including recent presidents.  The manifestation is essentially the same in all those infected.  Somewhere along the way in their careers, folks with DED have fallen under the illusion that recognition and advancement is the reward of working hard.  Indeed, working hard is important, but is only a meaningless shell if the effort fails to yield fruit.  (For the sake of argument I’m using “hard work” and “working hard” interchangeably and in the same context.)  To be sure, hard work is to be admired, but not simply for its own sake.  By contrast, smart work resulting in meaningful accomplishment is far more impressive. Success is the product of accomplishment, not merely the result of working hard.

Hard vs. Smart – Consider the response of the bar soap manufacturer when it discovered approximately one in every thousand of its boxes left the plant empty, resulting in numerous customer complaints.  Their team sprang to action, their best engineers were assembled, the equipment manufacturer was consulted, an extensive quality control study compiled, and a detailed plan to re-design their assembly line proposed – all at a substantial cost in time, labor, and materials.  Thankfully, a low level staffer quietly suggested that they simply set up a large fan at the end of the production line.  The empty boxes, he reasoned, were substantially lighter than those containing the bars of soap, and would therefore easily blow off the conveyor.

Or… When NASA began to launch astronauts into space, they discovered that their pens wouldn’t work in zero gravity. To solve this problem, they spent one decade and $12 million.  They developed a pen that worked at zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on practically any surface including crystal and in temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300 degrees C.

And what did the Russians do?  They used a pencil.

PelosiNow to be fair, many who are burdened with Delusional Effectiveness Disorder are fevered with the most benevolent of intentions.  In such benign cases, this unfortunate affliction is indicated by a distinct absence of malice often complicated by limited mental acuity, where genuine enthusiasm, however misguided, reflects a sincere attempt to boldly demonstrate that something (i.e., anything) is being done. The problem is that typically the “something” involves a flurry of activity that, while perhaps appearing impressive on the surface, contributes little in the way of substantive results.  It’s activity for the sake of activity with a focus on action rather than the accomplishment.  This reminds me of the adage we jokingly followed in business school when preparing case presentations: “If you can’t make it good, at least make it pretty.”  Form over substance.

Sadly, however, Delusional Effectiveness Disorder is more often manifested in those primarily interested in self promotion rather than misguided enthusiasm.  These individuals are convinced that advancement will be rewarded to those demonstrating a maelstrom of activity (they’ll call it initiative).  They are masters of deception, flawlessly executing their political song and dance.  Their objective is the glorification of process – their process – rather than a measure of true accomplishment.  But what is value of initiative in the absence of achievement?  Ironically, if these people worked half as hard at actually accomplishing something as they do demonstrating how busy they are, how hard they work, and how important they are to the organization, they might truly achieve great success.  And in what is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all, managers in many organizations fall under the spell of this thinly veiled farce, enabling and encouraging DED induced behavior by celebrating “initiative” rather than meaningful achievement or contribution.  While the desire to recognize such initiative is presumably well intended, the effect of poisoning the morale of those with greater substance is nevertheless profound.

What are we to do?  Entire books have been dedicated to managing strategically in a highly politicized environment.  Capable, effective leaders with a well defined vision of success find no distraction by subordinates infected with DED.  They recognize that substance presents itself in many forms, sometimes very subtle, and they reward achievement.  They coach through behaviors that are unproductive to the individual, team, and organization, and re-focus efforts to the attainment of broader objectives.

Fortunately, Delusional Effectiveness Disorder is not usually contagious.  In fact, those infected are typically held in leprotic contempt and shunned by peers.  While superiors often swoon with a temporary sense of euphoria, the effect wears off as time and transparency take their toll.

Championing Change After Restructuring & Layoffs

I. Employee Reaction and Response

The Emotional Response to Restructuring
Let’s face it, corporate downsizing and restructuring is stressful on everyone involved, and the effects are registered on both those who remain employed as well as those who leave the company.  It’s ironic that companies frequently refer to staff members who retain their jobs as “unaffected” or “untouched” by the layoffs.  The fact is employees who remain employed after restructuring are far from unaffected.  They experience numerous and wide-ranging feelings of distress during and following periods of significant change.  Typical reactions include fear, grief, depression, resentment, diminished energy and motivation, difficulty concentrating, and even symptoms of physical illness.  These reactions are normal, but if left unaddressed can easily degrade short-term productivity and leave long-term scars that affect both individual and team performance.

People are not so much resistant to change per se, but rather have difficulty coping with change, particularly when it is totally out of their control.  This response is probably felt even more acutely in teams that normally enjoy a strong sense of alignment – where the culture is normally one of active involvement and participation in the change process.  Employees and teams with a strong sense of personal ownership and attachment to the company often feel a stronger sense of betrayal.  In these teams, re-establishing a sense of security and purpose after restructuring can be a challenging prospect requiring a thoughtful plan of action.

A 2006 study published in the Academy of Management Journal found that layoffs have the most negative effects on subsequent performance in what they identified to be “high involvement” workplaces. These are workplaces where employees have more decision-making authority and responsibility and greater emphasis is placed on the importance of human beings compared to traditional workplaces. As the study concludes, when members of an organization have been treated especially humanely, given substantial authority, and persistently told how much they are valued, layoffs violate the “psychological contract” between the organization and its people.

By contrast, organizations that have a history of treating employees in less humane ways and giving them less power, and then do involuntary layoffs, aren’t breaking any implicit or explicit psychological contract – employees don’t have as much reason to believe that such treatment is breaking any promises.

This may all sound like evidence that “no good deed goes unpunished.”  But the study did find that high involvement companies that stuck to their practices during downsizing rebounded more quickly than those companies that abandoned high involvement practices after implementing layoffs.[1]

On some level, everyone’s personal identity is tied to the company they work for, the position they hold, and the job they do.  Well aligned team members enjoy exceptionally deep attachments to their peers, their company, even their team culture.  When something disturbs the cultural foundation of the team (such as restructuring or layoffs), those who remain naturally go through an adjustment period.

Leaders have both a responsibility and opportunity here – the responsibility to make the transition as painless as possible, and the opportunity to strengthen the team and take it to new levels of effectiveness and success.

Effects of Transitioning Roles and Responsibilities
Following an organizational restructuring, daily routines are disrupted.  Some responsibilities are redefined, others are left untouched, and still others are completely orphaned and must be absorbed into existing roles.  Even well planned reorganizations can leave employees feeling a bit disoriented and overwhelmed during and following the transition.

We all have different internal mechanisms for coping with change, yet some are more productive than others.  I think it’s instinctual for people to want to get through the process and re-establish a new sense of personal order and routine – to “get back to normal” as quickly as possible.  However, the path through the transition can be bumpy with obstructions that will derail the effort if not monitored and managed effectively.

While some employees need to openly share their feelings about the changes confronting them, others completely withdraw into silence.  Some employees spend an inordinate amount of time talking about the changes to anyone who will listen.  Again, it’s important to remember that this is part of their healing process and necessary for them to move on.  At the same time, their energy should be directed appropriately (and constructively) so as not to unduly distract or undermine the healing of others.  Similarly, the needs of those who withdraw should also be respected, but they should never be abandoned.

Some people have difficulty accepting and adapting to new roles and responsibilities while others see the changes as a new career opportunity.  The simple fact is that some people, even high performers, are averse to change.  Change shakes them out of their groove and serves as a distraction.  Certain changes, in fact, may legitimately inhibit their ability to successfully perform at the level to which they are accustomed, at least temporarily.

It’s also worth considering that some employees have extended personal support groups outside of work while others have little or none.  Someone well established with a spouse, children, parents and other family members as well as a large group of friends may cope differently than a single person alone in the area.  Additionally, the jobs of some employees are simply more affected than others.

There are numerous factors that impact the degree to which change is felt and the ability of each individual and teams collectively to cope.  People respond differently to stressful situations and organizational upheaval.  To bring a team through the changes and re-establish a sense of common vision and purpose, it’s essential for leaders to plan strategically and implement situationally.

II. Recognizing & Responding to Organizational Change – A Leader’s Guide

Understanding the emotional effects of organizational restructuring on employees and the various ways people cope with change is obviously important.  Using this knowledge to help a team transition is crucial, certainly for its immediate short-term benefits, but more importantly, for the long-term efficacy of the team as a high performing entity.

Faced with circumstances which are at least for the moment out of their control, employees look to their leaders for guidance and reassurance (even when none exists).  These are times when the mettle of leadership is put to the test, when credibility and trust is either reaffirmed or destroyed.  Leaders have a tremendous opportunity to re-define the vision and sense of purpose of the team, introduce new objectives, strengthen alliances, and re-establish a culture of organizational alignment committed to the future, all in a relatively short period of time.

Make no mistake, during times of crisis, leaders are closely watched and their character and efficacy assessed. Everyone from subordinates to co-workers and even superiors look for and depend upon effective leadership.  Decisive, courageous, visionary leadership laced with empathy and sensitivity goes a long way toward re-establishing trust and re-building confidence, and helps assure that desired employee engagement and productivity levels are maintained through the change process.

Weakened teams cannot effectively heal under a “business as usual” approach.  There are numerous efforts that leaders should undertake to mitigate both the emotional and practical impact of restructuring on morale and productivity while championing the change initiative:

Treat Everyone With Dignity and Respect
This may sound like an obvious no-brainer, but at a minimum, everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.  Those being laid off, or for that matter those who are terminated for performance issues throughout the year should always be treated with dignity and empathy.  Again, the rest of the team is always watching.  The co-workers of an ousted employee may very well have a very different relationship (and perception) of the individual than does management.  The manner in which terminated employees are treated can have a considerable impact on the morale of the team, and influence their view of the company and their personal sense of value.

Rebuild Trust
The fact is, in the wake of early retirements, layoffs, and restructuring, trust is weakened.  Despite the sensitivity with which changes are implemented, it is weakened due to the emotional response to circumstances beyond the employees’ control, and a perceived violation of the psychological contract and sense of security that management typically works so hard to establish.  Think about it… companies go out of their way to foster a sense of family and teamwork.  Senior management refers to it in global communications; we build it locally through departmental celebrations, holiday dinners, and team picnics; we even celebrate important milestones in employees’ personal lives.  We do all of these things and more to impart a sense of cultural connection, and to nurture relationships with our employees and their families.  Restructuring undermines this sense of security, belonging, and personal value.

Of course intellectually, everyone understands that sustaining the viability of the business entity is the highest priority, but it doesn’t diminish the feelings of betrayal when changes in the form of layoffs and reductions in force become necessary.  The loss of a co-worker and team-mate is painful, regardless of how fiscally prudent it might be.  Those who survive the reduction still suffer a range of emotions despite the legitimacy of the business need.  Their sense of confidence and security is understandably compromised.

The key to rebuilding trust is demonstrating a strong sense of integrity and equitability.  Integrity is built on honesty and the consistent, steadfast adherence to established principles and standards.  Trust itself is a product of character and integrity, and part of the foundation on which effective leadership is built.  Further, trust cannot be reestablished without demonstrating sensitivity to the needs of others.  Everyone needs encouragement and reinforcement when they struggle.  Leaders who are strong of character neither delight in, nor are they complacent with, the struggle of others; they are personally burdened by it.

Be Visible and Be Involved
Employees are not the only ones who are affected by restructuring.  Leaders are personally affected as well.  In the immediate aftermath when responsibilities need to be delegated, job descriptions re-written, and plans for the future redesigned, it’s easy to get caught up in the tasks that must be accomplished at a time when employees need their leaders for stability and guidance.  It’s tempting to put managerial tasks first, but doing so invariably sequesters leaders away in meetings and on conference calls behind closed doors, physically and psychologically separating them from the staff just when they are most needed.

Although they might not ever admit it, employees like having their leaders visible and accessible.  Particularly during times of high stress, it’s reassuring for them to be able to interact with their managers.  It’s really not unlike the relationship that parents have with children.  There is comfort in knowing our leaders are close by and available.  All the closed door meetings and phone calls send the message that there are more unknowns, more changes to yet to come.  It’s bound to be unsettling, even to the most secure staff member.

There is also tremendous practical value to being visible and involved.  It affords the opportunity for a leader to listen, respond, empathize constructively, address concerns, and dispel rumors.  This time can and should be used to re-emphasize goals and vision for the team and company, laying the cultural groundwork for future alignment.  It also provides an opportunity for leaders to publicly show appreciation for dedication, resilience, initiative, and achievements during the transition period.

Communicate Constantly and Honestly
Lack of timely and open communication is perhaps the single most significant contributing factor to the erosion of employee trust and confidence.  Fear of the unknown is a powerful and destructive force.  Left unchecked, it fosters speculation, becomes a breeding ground for gossip and rumors, and grows into a distraction that overwhelms productivity, bringing the business at hand to a crawl.

I don’t know of anyone who would rather not know what’s happening behind closed doors.  And while answers are often slow coming to light, people appreciate consistent communication even if it’s for no other purpose than to offer reassurance or empathy.  Even when there is no new news, a staff meeting can serve as an opportunity to honestly explain the current state of affairs, describe the planning process taking place, focus on new objectives being designed, or simply discuss and respond to concerns.

Key to maintaining credibility and trust is to be as honest as possible.  As is appropriate, state what you know, concede what you don’t, and be truthful in all things.  Keep staff members engaged in the process and focused on the future of the team and company.  This is not the time to B.S. – be honest and genuine and give it to them straight.  Don’t sugar-coat the facts.  They may not like the message, but they’ll respect (and trust) the messenger.

In the aftermath of restructuring, keep talking.  Make sure everyone knows what prompted the changes, what alternatives were considered, and how conclusions were ultimately reached.  This message needs to reflect a rational decision process with consideration for all subsequent effects (on both the people and the business), and focus on the positive outlook for the future of the company.  Again, the message needs to be repeated over and over to rebuild the confidence and sense of personal security of the employees.

Reaffirm Personal Value and Contribution
In a recent team meeting following our own organizational realignment, I asked everyone present to take a moment and look around the room at their co-workers assembled.  I acknowledged that while some of our friends were no longer with us, this was the team that represented the future of our business.  I confirmed that the changes before us would necessitate flexibility and adaptability, and I asked for their patience as roles evolved and responsibilities shifted.  I reminded them of our strength as a team and the exciting opportunities afforded us to reshape our business and relationships, both with each other and our customers.

Ironically, the period just following a restructuring is when the absolute best is needed from remaining employees, yet this is the very time when they are most distracted and least inclined to give 100 percent.  Just about everyone’s sense of safety is compromised to some extent.  Employees are emotionally detached and motivation to put forth discretionary effort diminished.  The sense of job security is low, uncertainty over roles and responsibilities pervades, and even future reporting structure is often up in the air.

It’s important to provide a renewed sense of purpose – to specifically remind everyone just how valuable they are to the company and team, to detail what their role will be moving forward, and to engage them in the process of establishing new goals.  Focus on the new opportunities that the change presents rather than simply assigning the additional responsibilities that will be required.  The objective should be to involve them in the process and make everyone feel valuable and appreciated rather than victims of circumstance.

Create New Opportunities
Most people prefer to live and work within their zone of comfort.  Even the most ambitious people would, given the choice, prefer to adapt to change on their own terms.  Organizational change forces people to step outside of their box.  Some respond with enthusiasm over the chance to learn new skills or take on more responsibility, while others fret over the additional burden or worry that they may not be able to meet the new demands.

Smart leaders use this time of transition to meet with employees to discuss career development, identify individual goals, and develop a plan of action to take them to the next level.  It’s an excellent opportunity to reaffirm the value of the employee’s contribution, outline opportunities for growth, and personally engage them in the change process.

Champion the Vision, Values and Goals
Fundamentally, any organizational restructuring reflects the necessity for immediate and drastic change.  Despite attempts to the moderate the impact, company culture takes a hit on some level.  Priorities shift, even if only temporarily, and everyone’s sense of the future is suddenly diminished.  Individual separation, changes to team dynamics, shifting responsibilities, even changes to schedules disrupt the status quo.

As discussed earlier, teams with even the strongest culture of alignment are shocked by the reality of present and pressing business needs.  The team’s sense of purpose and direction must be reset, trust re-established, and sense of security reaffirmed.  People in these situations will generally rally around a common sense of purpose, and it’s up to the leader to define that purpose.

Again, this affords the leader an opportunity to spend time meeting with both individuals and teams to re-establish the vision of the company, values of the team, and goals for achieving success.  People are naturally inclined to seek comfort in the familiar.  An emphasis on building upon existing cultural strengths provides reassurance while establishing a foundation on which to build new goals for the future.  By providing a context for the team and its members to successfully implement the company’s plan for the future, and detailing each individual’s role in the process, cultural alignment and personal engagement can begin to restore.

Leverage Competitive Advantage
Winston Churchill once said, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”  Opportunities always exist.  The challenge is often in knowing where to look, and more importantly, how to take advantage of them once identified.  Leveraging existing competitive advantages provides an opportunity to reaffirm a common vision and focus team efforts on the positive strengths of the organization.

Building upon and focusing on existing strengths should not be anything new to the team.  If anything, these are likely to be concepts with which employees are both familiar and comfortable.  These typically represent a source of pride for the team and can be used as unifiers in rebuilding confidence and a positive outlook.  Examples include:

  • Talent and Ability of Team Members
  • Industry Experience
  • Brand Strength
  • Client Relationships
  • Quality of Products and Services
  • Design Quality and Exclusivity
  • Breadth and/or depth of Products and Services

Additional Steps
The following are just a few additional steps that leaders can undertake to rebuild team unity and restore a culture of alignment.

  • Enthusiastically reinforce the vision every single day.
  • Focus on achieving daily and weekly goals together, keeping everyone involved and engaged.
  • Provide rewards and recognition whenever appropriate.
  • Continue existing traditions and activities that the staff is used to enjoying.
  • Initiate team activities and new traditions such as periodic pot-luck lunches, team movie nights, afternoon ice cream “socials,” awards for attendance, service and contribution, or get the team involved in a philanthropic activity
  • Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative, and don’t mess with mister in-between!

Finally, it’s important for leaders to accept and share in the grieving process after layoffs.  Employees need to see for themselves that their leaders share their pain and care about the effects of change.  However, while they appreciate empathy, they also look to their leaders for strength and direction.   Superior leaders always focus on objectives, not obstacles.  They are optimistic, enthusiastic, and inspire people to become better than they might on their own.  On the heels of a corporate restructuring, these leaders provide a clear vision of the successful future, leveraging both the strengths of the business and unique talents of the individuals who provide a face to the public.

III. Preparing for Future Changes

Mitigating Risk of Additional Turmoil
High involvement teams that normally enjoy a strong sense of cultural alignment, where employees enjoy more decision-making authority and responsibility and are involved and participate in the change process, are generally able to rebound quickly when continually engaged throughout the restructuring process.  While not immune to the emotional turmoil that accompanies significant change, they are better equipped to weather the storm long term than teams with lower cultural alignment.

Most of the same techniques leaders use to lead teams through the wake of restructuring should also dampen the impact of any subsequent layoffs or downsizings that become necessary.  The benefits are essentially the same.  Leaders should continually:

  • Build Trust
  • Be Visible and Be Involved
  • Communicate Constantly and Honestly
  • Value the Team and Members
  • Create New Opportunities
  • Champion the Vision, Values and Goals
  • Leverage Competitive Advantages
  • Continue to Promote a Sense of Team

[1] Sutton, Robert. The Last Word on Layoffs: Evidence on Costs and Implementation Practices. Harvard Business Publishing, 2007

Summary – The Qualities of a Superior Leader

You know, being a strong leader is really just a simple matter of putting others first.  It’s having the confidence in yourself and your own abilities to let others have the spotlight.  It’s understanding that your own success depends entirely upon the success of those you lead.  The self-efficacy of the strongest leaders comes not from titles or promotions, raises or recognition, but from seeing those with whom they’ve achieved some measure of influence become better for the experience.  Regardless of rank or title or position, and independent of any designated authority, leaders influence those around them.  Superior leaders are set apart by their strength of character and integrity.

Superior leadership, through the attributes of character I’ve laid out, requires tremendous personal discipline and uncommon selflessness and sacrifice.  The pursuit of each attribute – character, discipline, humility, courage, and vision is an ongoing endeavor for most of us.  It certainly is for me.  They perhaps represent an idealistic goal, but I know with all certainty that they form the core qualities of superior character based leadership.