On Leadership

Developing Future Leaders At All Levels: What Does Good Look Like?

It is generally accepted that a lack of focus on cultivating future leaders negatively impacts organizational performance.  The findings of OnPoint’s 2011 Execution Gap Survey support that view.  The study found that implementing succession management programs and leadership development programs is strongly correlated with job satisfaction, employee engagement/retention, and effective strategy execution, which are all key predictors of organizational success. 

Firms with a more strategic focus continue to invest in succession and leadership development despite changes in the economic or competitive environment.  As such, they are well-positioned to address planned and unplanned leadership changes.  To support this effort, an organization needs to understand which competencies make a difference in a leader’s effectiveness and the extent to which this varies by level.  To help answer these questions, OnPoint Consulting, in partnership with the American Management Association, collected data on the managerial effectiveness of 622 managers across organizations including government agencies, non-profits, multi-nationals, Fortune 500, and Fortune 1000 organizations.

Four key findings about the competencies that drive leader effectiveness came out of our study:

1. Exceptional managers, regardless of level, demonstrate competence in four key areas.

Our study found that Action Orientation, Building Teams, Building Trust & Personal Accountability, and Critical & Analytical Thinking differentiate top performers at all three levels: first-line manager, manager of managers, and functional manager. 

Implications for Talent Management—Because these competencies appear to be essential for top performance at higher levels as well as for managers of individual contributors, both formal and on-the-job training that help develop these competencies should be targeted to first-line managers to ensure they develop these skills early in their careers.  Allocating resources to this area will help build a strong pipeline of internal managers who are prepared to make the transitions to the next level of management and take on additional responsibility.

2. In addition to the four core competencies mentioned above, it is important to master specific competencies that are critical for success at each level.

In addition to the four core competencies described above, exceptional managers master specific competencies required for success at their level.  We found that exceptional managers received substantially higher ratings than average performers in the following key areas:

• First-line managers: Self Development and Resilience & Stress Tolerance
• Managers of managers: Influencing, Interpersonal Savvy, Creative Thinking, Emotional Intelligence, and Strategic Planning
• Functional managers: Action Orientation, Customer Focus, and Managing Conflict 

Implications for Talent Management—These findings provide guidance for making selection decisions and for the timing and content of training and development.  For example, since the most successful first-line managers are learners and have a high tolerance for stress, organizations should assess leaders for these competencies as part of the selection process.  On the job support for developing these competencies would also be important.  In addition, preparing people to take a broader organizational perspective and building strong interpersonal skills before they are promoted to a manager of managers role would increase the probability of success in that position.

3. The ability to effectively execute plans and initiatives is the hallmark of an exceptional manager.

The managers in our study who were considered exceptional received higher ratings in the areas related to execution and getting things done: Action Orientation, Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Results Orientation.  Competence in these areas appears to set the best apart from the rest.

Implications for Talent Management—Most organizations understand the need to develop an exciting vision and a realistic strategy.  The key issue for organizations today is fulfilling the promise of that vision.  In a recent OnPoint survey, 49% of respondents reported a gap between their organization’s ability to formulate a vision and strategy and deliver business results.  Sixty-four percent of those people lack confidence in their organization’s ability to close the gap.  Ensuring managers have the skills required to deliver consistent results and get things done day-to-day should be a top focus of an organization’s management development activities.

4. Practice is required to build competence and expertise—managers don’t need to be born with it.

Our study suggests that managers who are in a position for five to ten or more years are more likely to be seen as exceptional.  Exceptional managers gain competence and enhance their performance over time, while the average managers reach a performance plateau.  This supports the idea that expertise and effectiveness are the result of experience and practice. 

Implications for Talent Management—Moving managers to the next assignment too quickly does not provide enough time for them to learn from the experience.  Managers need to see the impact of their actions to truly develop competence.  In addition, expertise results when managers are required to tackle problems and situations they have not faced before and that take them out of their comfort zone.  This finding emphasizes the importance of providing on-the-job learning opportunities such as action learning projects where leaders work on solving real business problems. 

 

                                                

The 2010 Execution Round-Up

It’s that time of year again: time for business owners and senior executives to take stock of the past twelve months. What did 2010 look like for you and your company? Did you struggle to regain your post-recession footing? Were employees engaged and focused? Are financials on track? The questions you could ask during your year-end assessment are endless. But, there’s only one that really matters: Did your company effectively execute its plans and initiatives?

Our research uncovered five characteristics and competencies, which we call “The Five Bridges,” that enable people to traverse the execution gap. It is these bridges that differentiate the companies that are consistently able to get things done from those that aren’t. (the former are called “Gap Closers” and the latter “Gap Makers”—and some well-known examples of each are profiled in my book, Closing the Execution Gap: How Great Leaders and their Companies Get Results)

Of course, time has marched on since the book was written, and plenty of other well-known companies have dropped the execution ball in the meantime (BP in the most spectacular fashion). To help the rest of us learn from what we call the “living laboratory” of real-world companies, we present the following execution gap maker list.

OnPoint Consulting’s 2010 Execution Gap Maker Round-Up…

Execution Gap Maker #1: BP (Need we say more?)

It’s obvious from recent events that BP experienced an enormous execution gap. (More like a chasm, really.) Had the company focused on recognizing and closing that gap, it would have prevented this year’s unprecedented disaster. While the oil spill is a complex and tragic event, the cause can be traced back to BP’s failure to build the critical bridges. Leading up to and after the oil spill BP violated almost all the guidelines of effective execution, including lacking an effective structure and lacking clear accountability. These gaps created another problem for them: In the critical stages following the spill, BP was unable to get input from those who had the knowledge and experience to make the best decisions about how to handle it. What’s more, BP failed to empower people to use their best judgment and take appropriate action. Consider that hours before the explosion the rig crew was arguing about the best way to finish the oil well and move the rig to the next site. A Transocean mechanic testified that he overheard a “company man” telling rig workers “how it’s going to be,” and that although the rig workers felt the plan was too risky, they reluctantly agreed. And just after the explosion, as workers were scrambling for safety, a worker was yelled at by the captain (who worked for the rig’s owner, Transocean) for pressing the distress button without authorization, and when another worker was asked if he had called to shore for help, he said he had not because he did not have permission to do so.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: Employee Involvement in Decision Making…among others.

THE LESSON: In order for any company to execute successfully, the right people have to be involved with the right decisions. BP provides a devastating example of what can happen when this isn’t the case. Obviously, this lesson is even more critical when there is as much at stake as there was in the BP disaster. But really for any company trying to gain footing in a constantly changing business environment and tough economy, empowering the right people to make the right decisions can be the difference between landing that next great customer or account or not.

Execution Gap Maker #2: Nokia

Nokia’s share of the worldwide market for mobile phones continued to slip in 2010. It may surprise you to learn that about five years before Apple introduced the iPhone and three years before it launched an online applications store, Nokia was ready to introduce its own Internet-ready touch screen handset with a large display and had an early design of an online applications store.

So what happened? Why was this once-dominant player unable to execute and maintain its market position? It appears Nokia was not able to coordinate decisions and activities across departments or levels of management. Many innovative ideas became the victims of in-fighting among managers who had competing objectives. Plus, as a result of a lack of cross-organizational coordination and cooperation, Nokia wasn’t able to improve its proprietary operating system, Symbian, which would have allowed it to support a more sophisticated smartphone.

Execution Gap Makers #s 3 and 4: The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and the Agriculture Department

In August of this year, thousands of consumers became ill after eating eggs that were contaminated with salmonella. The discovery of the contamination resulted in over half a billion eggs being pulled from store shelves. How could something like this, and on this scale, have happened? Much of the blame has been attributed to poor federal oversight,. and the cause appears to be a significant lack of coordination across federal agencies. You see, the responsibility for food safety is split between two agencies: The Agriculture Department is responsible for chickens, the grading of eggs for quality, and regulating liquid eggs that are used in industrial food production. But the FDA oversees the safety of eggs still in their shells. So who inspected the Iowa farms to make sure the eggs were safe for human consumption? It turns out that no one did, it just fell through the cracks. The lack of coordination between these two agencies is one reason why so many consumer advocates believe we suffer from a dysfunctional food safety system.

The “BRIDGE” that failed for Gap Makers #2, 3, and 4: Company-Wide Coordination and Cooperation.

THE LESSON: It’s critical that organizations learn to coordinate and collaborate decisions across organizational boundaries. But doing so requires more than faith and words alone. Shared goals and clearly defined roles provide the foundation upon which cooperation and coordination can be built. In addition, people must be held accountable for results. This requires a combination of direct leader behavior and systems that encourage and reinforce the appropriate behavior among employees.

Execution Gap Maker #5: Johnson & Johnson

It’s been a bad year for J&J. Since 2009 McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the J&J division that makes over-the-counter drugs, has had eight recalls, including popular children’s versions of Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, and Zyrtec. Most disturbingly was what has been called the “phantom recall,” in which contractors hired by J&J carried out a scheme to buy every package of Motrin by going store to store without informing the FDA. Poor execution doesn’t happen overnight, it can often be traced back to a pattern of behavior that gradually erodes a company’s ability to deliver consistent high-quality results. At J&J it may go back to 2005 when employees reported a lack of alignment between manager behavior and company values and policies. When one million bottles of St. Joseph aspirin failed a quality test after a sample did not dissolve properly, quality workers who blocked the distribution of the bottles claimed their supervisor ordered them to retest the drugs and then average the scores to get a passing grade. Fortunately, there was not a problem with the batch that was released, but it appears that the misalignment of leader behavior with company values in this situation laid the foundation for poor execution, and a potentially dangerous situation, in the future.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: Alignment Between Leader Actions and Company Values and Priorities.

THE LESSON: Leader behavior must be aligned with company objectives and values. While I admit this phrase has been said so often that it’s become a cliché, companies can’t afford to ignore it. You don’t really understand how important value alignment is or the impact it has on effective execution until you see what happens when it’s not there. That’s why stories like the Johnson & Johnson one are so important. They remind us not to take it for granted or assume it’s a ‘no-brainer.’

Execution Gap Maker #6: Toyota

During 2010 Toyota recalled millions of cars due to a variety of defects. This was an extraordinary number for a company once recognized for the quality of its vehicles. What went wrong? It appears Toyota’s decentralized structure, which served it well for many years, turned into a liability as the company continued to grow and dominate worldwide markets. For example, some of Toyota’s former U.S. senior executives believe that keeping the U.S. operations separated in a functional structure—rather than reporting to a single headquarters—forced each to report back to Japan. This required customer complaints to first make their way through the U.S. operation and then over to Japan where they were reviewed by a special committee—which would then have to communicate back to the U.S. All this had to happen before a recall could be issued.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: A Structure That Supports Execution.

THE LESSON: Make sure you have a structure that supports execution. A good structure enhances accountability, coordination, and communication. Plus, it ensures that decisions are being made as close to the action as possible. Toyota’s structure slowed down decision making and the company’s ability to effectively respond to the recall crisis. The Toyota breakdown also illustrates that the five execution bridges are not permanent. In fact, they are quite fragile. Once you’ve built them, you must keep vigilant watch over them and work hard to maintain them over time. It’s quite possible for a company to have a bridge in place one year, only to discover that over time it has weakened or even crumbled and is no longer able to help your people traverse the gap.

As these stories illustrate, execution is the real bottom line and our constant battle cry. It’s what I push our clients to focus on as they seek to improve organizational performance—and it’s the lens we urge all leaders to look through as they review 2010 and make their “business resolutions” for 2011. Execution is not a single-point event, it’s an ongoing process. But since your ability to execute well and consistently is the very fabric of success, I can think of no better place to focus your time and energy.

Accountability Boosters: Managing Accountability in Others

Although it is usually difficult to predict what people will do or say, there is at least one principle of human behavior many of you will agree is predictable and consistent.  On employee surveys, when we ask people if they and others in their department are held accountable for results, we always get a very high percentage of favorable responses.  However, ask them if people in other departments are being held accountable and the percentage of favorable responses is typically very low.  In other words, while we believe we take accountability for our actions we are just as certain that others do not.  This is one aspect of human behavior that you can take to the bank. 

 

How big a problem is the lack of accountability in today’s organizations, anyway? Our research suggests it’s a fairly substantial one.  In our survey of over 400 senior and mid-level leaders, 40% report that employees in their organizations are not being held accountable for results and 20% report that managers in their organizations do not deal with poor performers.  It also appears that the presence or absence of accountability in an organization makes a difference—77% of leaders in top-performing organizations report that “employees at all levels are held accountable for results” compared to only 44% in less successful organizations.

 

One reason leaders hesitate to tackle the accountability problem in a timely way is a lack of clarity on what the person is accountable for in the first place.  The key is setting people up for success by clarifying expectations up front and building in time for course corrections before the deadline.  This helps avoid the need to make excuses because problems are identified and solved before the due date. 

 

Before-the-Fact Accountability Booster: Set People Up For Success

 

The best way to manage accountability is to ensure that people follow through in the first place, versus trying to hold them accountable after they’ve dropped the ball.  Three techniques can help you dramatically increase the chances that people will follow through and keep their commitments.  The three techniques are clarifying actions and expectations, agreeing on due dates for deliverables, and establishing check points.  The acronym ATC can help you remember the technique.

 

Action. This is the starting point for both setting people up for success and being able to hold them accountable after the fact, so it is critical to get it right.  This is where you clarify expectations (what “good looks like”) and identify who is accountable for which parts of the work.  Regardless of how good an idea someone has or how sincere their intention, nothing happens until someone commits to taking some action to produce a specific deliverable. 

 

It is unfair to expect someone to deliver the results you expect if those results are not outlined clearly and unambiguously.  In fact, if expectations and responsibility for specific aspects of the work are up for interpretation, it’s impossible to hold someone accountable for results.  Missing this first step often explains why many managers are hesitant to discuss accountability when people do not follow through or, when they do, why the conversation can deteriorate into “he said she said” arguments.

 

Timetable.  Just as important as clarifying actions and expectations, establishing an agreed upon due date is critical to ensuring everyone is on the same page.  Due dates like “as soon as possible” and “by next week” lay the foundation for misunderstandings because your “as soon as possible” may not be anywhere near theirs. (Does “by next week” mean before next week? Does it mean Monday of next week or Friday of next week?) In addition, commitments that don’t have a time frame frequently do not get attention and usually fall by the wayside.

 

Checkpoints.  One of the biggest mistakes people make is waiting to check in until the action or deliverable is due.  Although the pitfall seems obvious—waiting until the due date to check in does not leave time for problem solving—it is surprising how many people stumble into it.  One explanation leaders offer for this self-defeating behavior is that they’re afraid of communicating a lack of trust in the other person’s ability—or of being labeled a micro-manager.  

 

The simple, yet powerful, solution is to establish periodic progress check points before the due date.  The frequency of the checkpoints will depend on the difficulty of the task and the experience of the person.  This technique simultaneously solves both problems: the implied lack of trust and the micro-managing.  Agreeing on checkpoints with the other person makes follow up and progress checks a shared and mutually endorsed activity.   The check-ins are now part of project management and they also provide opportunities for you to coach if there is a problem and recognize and reinforce behavior when things are going well. 

 

In addition, because you’ve outlined the milestones you are comfortable with and built in time to get things back on track if you discover there is a problem, you don’t have to give in to the temptation to make spontaneous or surprise visits or to call when you get nervous about whether the project is on track. 

 

After-The-Fact Accountability Booster: Three Accountability Questions

 

Sure, prevention is better than an after-the-fact remedy. But in the real world, people will drop the ball from time to time. Rather than berating a person for her failure to deliver results, reinforce her accountability and focus on problem solving.  Three questions will encourage the person to think about how she contributed to the current situation, what she can do to get things back on track, and what she can do to prevent it from happening again.

 

In addition to asking these questions directly yourself (which might come across as accusatory), you should coach the person to pose them to herself as a way to manage her own accountability. The three questions are:

 

§ Present: “What can I do now to get on track?”

§ Future: “What can I do to prevent this problem from happening again in the future?”

§ Past: “What could I have done to prevent the problem? What, if anything, did I do that might have possibly contributed to the problem”?

 

Although we are aware that it’s important, many of us still hesitate to hold others accountable for their actions.  In the heat of the moment it may seem faster and less of a hassle to let something go or to wait and see what happens. Discussions about accountability can be straightforward and potential conflicts less intense when everyone knows ahead of time what is expected and how success will be measured.  Plus, of course, establishing this clarity reduces the likelihood of having to have the discussions in the first place.

WHY WE SHOULD HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE--AND WHY WE DON’T

Excerpt from Closing the Execution Gap: How Great Leaders and Their Companies Get Results (April 2010 Release)

  

When we fail to hold others accountable, we reap the consequences—some obvious, some not so obvious. A lack of productivity is one of the more obvious negatives that come to mind.  While everyone is busy pointing fingers at each other, deadlines don’t get met, the work remains below standard, or customers continue to be dissatisfied.  Worse yet, things won’t get better until people stop trying to affix blame and start addressing the issue that caused the problem in the first place.  This cycle will continue until people take accountability for their contribution to the problem and focus on seeking solutions.

 

Impact on Your Top Performers

The impact that a lack of accountability has on your top performers is a little less obvious.  What happens when someone (often a chronic poor performer) drops the ball and we don’t hold him accountable for results?  We usually give the assignment to someone we feel we can count on and ask her to make it right.  This may work in the short-term but in the long term it creates more problems than it appears to fix. 

 

First, asking your top performers to pick up the pieces will eventually wear them out. They may very well come to see their heavier workload as punishment for good performance.  In addition, taking a poorly executed assignment away from someone just reinforces the poor performance.  The message is, “Don’t worry if you screw up.  You won’t be asked to make it right because someone else will get the assignment.” For unmotivated employees, the lighter workload that results is, in effect, a reward for poor performance.

 

Perception of You as a Leader

In my view, the greatest impact of not holding others accountable is that it creates a negative perception of the leader.  When other members of the team see you letting someone get away with not producing the agreed upon output or keeping commitments, they begin to wonder why they are working so hard.  They wonder why you don’t take action to address a poor performer who is creating problems for the rest of the team. 

 

Yes, failing to hold others accountable reflects on you as a leader.  It raises questions about your willingness to hold everyone to the same standards and creates the perception that you don’t treat people fairly and equitably.  Pretty soon others on the team get the message about “what it takes to succeed around here” and the extent to which they can count on you as a leader.

 

Lack of accountability creates and reinforces a culture of blame—which, in turn, generates other problems. You may notice increased evasion and avoidance as well as a pervasive “don’t get caught” attitude. Innovation plunges as people become less willing to be creative and think out of the box. Employees take fewer risks (or stop altogether) because no one wants to be blamed if something goes wrong. “Blamestorming” sessions proliferate, creating a cycle of blame that ultimately shuts down communications. 

 

So here’s the real question: if accountability is critical to execution and individual and team performance, then why don’t we consistently hold people accountable for results? There are several reasons. In fact, I believe there are seven assumptions and misunderstanding—let’s call them “Tickets to Slide”—that contribute to this phenomenon.

 

Ticket To Slide #1: “This Too Shall Pass”

The “wait and hope” syndrome assumes that poor performance will improve on its own over time.  “They’ll learn,” we say in the (often futile) hope that you’ll never actually need to have a conversation about meeting commitments and delivering results.  Or, you assume that people know what they should be doing, and that this was simply a blip on the radar screen.  “I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt this time,” you say.  Problem is, “this time” often turns into “next time” followed by “What? It happened AGAIN?”

 

Ticket To Slide #2: “They Know How I Feel.”

You just responded in your “I’m dissatisfied” voice and put on your “I’m very disappointed” face.  That should do it, right? Well, maybe not. Most of us like to assume that sending indirect messages and subtle signals has not only made our dissatisfaction known but clarified what needs to happen differently—and how it needs to happen. Yes, it’s a highly unlikely outcome, but many of us prefer it to a more direct discussion of the problem and the need to take responsibility. Unfortunately, it seldom works.

 

Ticket To Slide #3: “It Will Turn Into An Argument.”

Even if the other person is not difficult to work with, it’s a safe bet that he or she will likely have a different point of view.  You are certain this will deteriorate into an uncomfortable conversation or, worse yet, a real disagreement.  Better to let it go and avoid the conflict.  But while it may be easier in the short term to “just let it go,” in the long run you may find that the situation has snowballed into a problem that is vastly more difficult to deal with.

 

Ticket To Slide #4: “I Made My Expectations Clear (I think…)”

One reason you may avoid holding others accountable is that, actually, you have not set clear expectations.  Either you haven’t clarified what you want done, what “good looks like,” or when you want it done.  Without this base, don’t be surprised when you encounter more than one point of view or when conversations turn into arguments.  Remember: everything can be either measured or known.  Even qualitative outputs such as customer service or quality have components that we use to know when it has been done well.  Those are the things for which we can set expectations and monitor and measure. 

 

Ticket To Slide #5: “I Will De-Motivate or Lose Them.”

One of the challenges managers face is holding top performers accountable for behavior that is consistent with work processes and organizational values.  You may be inclined to give these “superstars” some leeway because you feel they’re too important to your team’s success and you don’t want to break their momentum or steal their mojo.  Unfortunately, this sets up an undesirable dynamic among the team where people come to believe that it doesn’t matter how you hit the target— as long as you do, you’re not accountable for other aspects of performance.

 

Ticket To Slide #6: “I Will Be Seen As A Micro-Manager.”

Over the years consultants and academics have put the fear of micro-managing into the hearts of many leaders.  We avoid the implication of it at all costs.  In a world where a “collaborative” style is revered and a “command and control” style is frowned upon, the practice of monitoring has gotten an undeserved bad name and fallen out of favor.  The truth is, the more you delegate and empower others, the more you need to monitor and track progress.  Following up and monitoring progress are not synonymous with micro-managing.  Monitoring, when done well, can be a constructive activity that provides an opportunity to make course corrections and praise good performance.

 

Ticket To Slide #7: “It’s Easier If I Just Do It Myself.”

Doing it yourself may seem like a good idea when you’re making the call but few myths are as wrong as this one.  When you don’t hold others accountable and you take on the work yourself, you become complicit in the cycle of poor performance and lack of accountability.  If you do not break this negative cycle you will always have to do it yourself because you’ve missed a coachable moment and an opportunity to set expectations. 

 

Although we are aware that it’s important, many of us still hesitate to hold others accountable for their actions.  In the heat of the moment it may seem faster and less of a hassle to let something go or to wait and see what happens.  However, those of us who are “one trial learners”—meaning we don’t have to experience something more than once to get the lesson and change our behavior accordingly—know that this approach does not work in the long-term.