Executive Times |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Volume 3,
Issue 4 |
April 2001 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ã 2001 Hopkins and Company, LLC Note re: links---certain
hyperlinks assume that you are registered as a subscriber to the site. If you
are not a subscriber to certain sites, the links will fail. If you register,
the links should work. Also, certain hyperlinks expire and may not be
available when you try to go to the site. Fits and misfitsWhat makes an employee
“fit” into your organization? What qualities, skills, experience, attitudes,
competencies and abilities lead you to select or retain one individual over
another? During times of layoff, who leaves, who stays, and why? What causes
you to conclude that an individual who fit at one time no longer belongs in
your organization? What causes you to decide that you no longer belong within
your company? The Bell Tolls Performance management
consultants (but not Hopkins & Co.) often recommend to organizations that
employee performance be ranked according to a bell curve to eliminate what’s
called the Lake Woebegon Effect (where everyone is rated “above average”).
Forced distribution demands that managers differentiate the top and bottom
performers from the vast middle. Extraordinary rewards are provided to the
very top performers, and the bottom performers are usually fired within a
short period of time, since they no longer fit the company’s expectations of
them. We read in The New York Times (3/19/01) (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/19/business/19GRAD.html)
that at least three large companies (Microsoft, Ford Motor and Conoco)
have been sued over these practices. While objective standards may appear to
be the basis for the performance ranking distributions, some classes of
employees can appear to receive lower rankings for subjective or
stereotypical reasons. Older workers, for example, can be perceived as having
less potential than younger workers when it comes to learning to use new
technology. White male evaluators may rate blacks and women based on personal
bias rather than job performance. When small units are forced to rank
employees, there may be a dysfunctional incentive for high performers to
gravitate away from units with other high performers and into units with
lesser performers to improve one’s relative ranking. How does your organization approach
employee performance ranking? What influences the ratings of employees, and
are those influences defensible? Have you examined whether the impact of your
approach has an adverse impact on certain groups of employees? What are the
perceptions of employees and managers about your organization’s methods of
performance assessment? Creamed Mergers create the
opportunity for using the skills and talents of experienced executives, but
more often than not, highly talented executives find no room for themselves
at the top, and are often surprised when they’re forced out. The Wall
Street Journal (3/22/01) presented a lengthy story http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB985210367309655944.djm)
of what happened to former Morgan Stanley head John Mack and
former Dean Whitter head Philip Purcell following the merger of
those two companies. When Purcell got the top job, Mack reassured former
Morgan staff to be patient, that “cream always rises to the top.” Instead of
rising to the top, the Morgan head resigned, along with a half dozen or so
other former Morgan executives, creamed by Purcell’s concentration of power.
Read this story of personality differences, misunderstandings, and the impact
of personal loyalty during organizational change. Mack thrived in a
partnership where lively debate led to consensus, while Purcell’s managerial
style is more authoritarian, and unaccustomed to questioning. Purcell won
control, and Mack is gone, at a time when the combined company would benefit
from Mack’s particular skills and experience. Purcell is left to fill empty
slots with less experienced players. Can different management styles co-exist within your
organization? When a talented manager is perceived as not fitting your
organization’s style, what happens? If you’ve been involved in a merger, have
you created a new culture, or has one or the other of the former cultures
dominated? Are employees always associated with their past organization, rather
than with the combined organization? Does “cream” in your organization rise
to the top, or does it get whipped? Do you know the way to San Jose? When Jay Harris
quit his job as chairman and publisher of The San Jose Mercury News
in mid-March most observers were shocked and surprised. Parent company Knight
Ridder set profit margin targets at 20%, and cyclical advertising
revenues made that target unrealistic from Harris’ perspective, so he quit
rather than reduce cost by cutting news resources. We read in The San Jose
Mercury News (3/20/01) (http://cgi.mercurycenter.com/premium/business/docs/papers032001.htm)
that, “Harris said he feared the pursuit of higher profits would degrade the
quality of the newspaper's journalism and alienate readers.” Knight Ridder
CEO Tony Ridder needs to balance the interests of shareholders,
employees, readers and advertisers, and with Harris gone, he has to find
someone at The News who will negotiate a budget that achieves a
balance acceptable to Ridder. What would cause you to
decide that the targets set by others leave you no choice but to resign from
your job? When you make changes in an attempt to balance divergent interests,
what changes are unacceptable to you, and why? In considering budgets, what
costs can’t be cut? Do you and your boss answer those questions the same way? Derailing the Soul Train We first paid attention to the Xerox sales
organization in reading David Dorsey’s fine book The Force (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679410309/hopkicompa).
Having read that book, it came as no surprise when we read about an employee
lawsuit in The New York Times (3/15/01) (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/15/technology/15XERO.html).
A dozen and a half former and current Xerox sales reps have filed
discrimination lawsuits claiming that because they are black or Hispanic,
they were not assigned more lucrative accounts. During annual
reorganizations, the minority reps received assignments “shunned” by white
reps, rather than receiving account assignments based on merit. According to
the Times, “Other black representatives said they were placed on a
sales team known as the ‘soul train’ team because six of the eight members
were black, according to the charge made by Alicia Dean-Hall. Ms.
Dean-Hall said she tried to get what she described as ‘a choice sales
assignment’ but she contends she was rejected because she was not the ‘right
fit’ because she is not white.” Xerox believes the lawsuit is without merit. Have you
decided that certain of your employees “fit” best in certain segments of your
business? What’s the basis of your determination? When you consider account
or territory assignments for your company’s representatives, how do you match
individuals with clients? Is there the equivalent of a “soul train” in your
organization? How aligned are your employees and managers on the
opportunities for advancement within your organization? Stamina Another dimension of “fit”
involves the physical fitness requirements for executives. We’ve observed that
most successful senior executives possess considerable stamina and can endure
successive long workdays and extensive business travel and entertaining,
often with only a few hours sleep. We found support for these observations in
The Wall Street Journal (3/20/01) (http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB985040878457937781.djm), “This boundless energy is a common trait in most
CEOs, and a critical one. As business becomes more global and technology
calls for 24/7 performance, those who lead companies must be able to move
through several time zones several times a week, and communicate with staff
and customers around the clock.” Executive stamina and endurance may become
new measures for performance. What do you do to
prepare yourself and others for the physical demands of work? How fit are you
and those who work for you? Are you or they fit enough to deal with the
demands of the job and the organization? When do endurance expectations
become unreasonable? Ja’recuseConflicted,
powerless or unfocused?
We were more than a little
surprised when we read in The New York Times (3/6/01) (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/06/business/06HOLD.html)
that Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill would hang on to about
$100 million of Alcoa stock and stock options and recuse himself from
any matters that would create a conflict of interest. Since so many Treasury
Department decisions have a significant impact on global and regulated
players like Alcoa, either O’Neill remains permanently recused, or his
position is powerless. Paul Gigot, writing in The Wall Street
Journal (3/16/01) (http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB984701850872862520.djm)
used the decision to retain the stock
as an example of O’Neill’s deaf political ear. According to Gigot, “Mr. Bush
promised to set a different ethical tone, and his Alcoa holding gives
Democrats a chance to say nothing's changed.” When a major O’Neill story
reached page one of The Wall Street Journal (http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB984957630380475155.djm) describing his rocky start as Treasury Secretary,
we expected political heat would increase. Sure enough, O’Neill announced on
talk TV on March 25 that he’d be selling his Alcoa stock. What criteria do you use to evaluate your own conflicts of interest? How well tuned in are you to the issues and concerns of your boss? How do you pull yourself out of a rocky start? When do you know it’s time to give in to outside pressure? Follow UpHere are selected updates
on stories covered in prior issues of Executive Times: Ø You may have read some of Warren Buffet’s
comments from the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Reports in both the
April 1999
and April
2000 issues of Executive Times.
Here’s our favorite quote from this year’s report (http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2000ar/2000ar.pdf):
“Agonizing over errors is a mistake. But acknowledging and analyzing
them can be useful, though that practice is rare in corporate boardrooms.
There, Charlie and I have almost never witnessed a candid post-mortem of a
failed decision, particularly one involving an acquisition. A notable
exception to this never-look-back approach is that of The Washington Post
Company, which unfailingly and objectively reviews its acquisitions three
years after they are made. Elsewhere, triumphs are trumpeted, but dumb
decisions either get no follow-up or are rationalized. Ø We’ve picked on Coca-Cola’s executive
foibles in the August 1999,
December
1999, April
2000 and December 2000
issues of Executive Times, so
it’s about time to note the company again. We were not surprised to read the
perspective of stock and investment analysts in Fortune (4/2/01) (http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?channel=print_article.jhtml&doc_id=201024)
that Pepsi is now winning the cola wars. Coke CEO Doug Daft has
already reorganized, so he’s running out of options. Stay tuned. LegaciesFor all the people S.
Dillon Ripley became head of the Smithsonian Institution in 1964, and over the following twenty years he
changed the face of the Mall and museum life for generations. He made museum
exhibits and events fun, out of a philosophy that a museum should reach out
to people, and the experience should be easy, diverse and varied. Ripley’s
reach was phenomenal. Among his many accomplishments are: building the
Hirshhorn Museum, the museums of Asian and African art, and the Anacostia
museum; opening the Air and Space Museum and the Renwick Gallery; putting a
carousel on the Mall; starting the American Folklife Festival; starting
Smithsonian Magazine and organizing the Smithsonian Associates. Ripley wanted
museums to be friendly and exciting, and that’s what museums around the world
are like today, as a result of Ripley’s vision and leadership. We remember
that in 1968 during the Poor Peoples March on Washington, when other
government buildings locked their doors to the “riffraff” descending on the
city, Ripley kept the Smithsonian museums open all night, and instructed staff
to stock extra soap and towels in the rest rooms. Ripley died in mid-March at
age 87. His respect for others, his visionary leadership of a major
organization and his way of looking at life leave a lasting legacy for all of
us, as solid as all those museums. Reading (Note: readers of the web version of Executive Times can click on
the book covers or titles to order copies directly from amazon.com. When you order through these links,
Hopkins & Company receives a small payment from amazon.com. Subscribers to the print version of Executive Times
can receive the web version at no additional cost. Send e-mail to hopkinsandcompany@att.net with a
request to be placed on the web version distribution list. Also, not all books we read make it to the
pages of Executive
Times. For expanded
reviews of Executive Times
selections and other books, visit our book review site at http://www.hopkinsandcompany.com/books/list.htm.) Amazing Arrogance Eureka! “Observation and inspiration don’t have to be
formal. Each one of us can learn to be a better observer simply by taking
stock of our environment. Try this simple exercise. The next time you visit
another company – or even your own – watch and listen carefully. Is it clear
where you’re supposed to go? Does a receptionist greet you and ask you to go
somewhere else? Is it a comfortable place to wait, or do you feel like you’re
at the dentist’s office. Which parts of the process welcome you like a
special guest, and which parts leave you feeling like a drone in the hive of
industry? If there’s any part of your business life that
requires innovation, and there must certainly be, reading this book with
provide you with approaches that help you. It’s worth the cost of the book to
learn and apply the seven secrets for better brainstorming. Recommendation: •••• (Highly recommended). Brief Recommendations
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ã 2001
Hopkins and Company, LLC. Executive
Times is published monthly by Hopkins and Company, LLC at the company’s
office at 723 North Kenilworth Avenue, Oak Park, Illinois 60302. Subscription
rate for first class mail delivery of the print version is $60.00 per year
(12 issues). E-mail subscriptions are $30.00 per year. Single issues: $10.00
print; $5.00 electronic. To subscribe, sign up at www.hopkinsandcompany.com/subscribe.html,
send an e-mail to hopkinsandcompany@att.net,
call (708) 466-4650, or fax to (708) 386-8687. For permission to photocopy or
e-mail Executive Times, call (708) 466-4650 or e-mail to hopkinsandcompany@att.net. We will send
sample copies if requested. The company’s website at http://www.hopkinsandcompany.com/archives.html
contains the archives of back issues beginning in the month after the issue
date. To subscribe to Executive Times,
sign up at www.hopkinsandcompany.com/subscribe.html
and we’ll bill you later. Consider
giving clients or friends Executive Times
as a gift. Gift subscriptions to the web version include an e-mail
notification of the gift. Print
version gift subscriptions can also include “Compliments of (giver)” with
your corporate logo on each copy. About Hopkins
& Company
To engage the services of Hopkins & Company,
call Steve Hopkins at 708-466-4650 or visit www.hopkinsandcompany.com. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|