KLC Newsletter

Biz Sense Media

Featured Articles

Offering multimedia to business people, including short instructional videos, articles, ebooks, blogs and quick tips and podcasts.

Archive for January, 2012

Oh You Mean We Have To Do It?

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Planning can be fun. At least it is most of the time. The executive team or management group gets together and talks about what is and what could be for the company.

And here’s how the process usually goes:

  • You look at the current state of the company
  • You discuss and spend time on the daily issues and micro-issues within the company (aka – side bar conversations)
  • You start looking at what you need to do as a company
  • You create a list of all the things you mustdo – usually on a white board or flip chart – the list is long because there is so much to do
    • Oftentimes the list of “must do’s” is not based on actual data: (employee surveys, client/customer surveys. market research – but on the general impressions of the people in the room)
    • You assign people’s names to things to do
    • Everyone walks out with their list

Next day, everyone goes back to their job and it’s business as usual. There may be a few follow-up meetings. But the reality is that there is way too much day-to-day work to do.

And here are snippets of conversations we hear in the meetings, at the breaks and afterward back on the job:

  • How can we possibly do all this when I have too much to do already
  • Things really aren’t going to change around here – it’s just the same ole – same ole.
  • Tell me what I shouldn’t do
  • These actions really won’t help and I don’t think they are worth spending my time on (uttered by people who disagreed with the conclusions and the go forward action plans)
  • If I do what they propose, I’ll be out of a job (frequently a complete misconception)

And another year passes.

What we’ve just described are businesses that lack discipline, focus and effective leadership. These businesses may or may not be affected by the economic conditions in the marketplace, but they are all infected with a disease we made up called complacertiaosis (complacency and inertia).

Now just to be fair, there are organizations that do an outstanding job with planning and they do it the right way and their follow-through is exceptional. These are usually the more successful companies.

As a business owner or executive, planning, and then implementing the necessary changes to realize the plan, takes thoughtfulness, time, leadership and courage. And your people, the ones who will be charged with implementing your plan, are by far the potential weak link in the planning chain. How you prepare then, how you support them, and how you reward them will directly relate to how successful you are. Miss this and you have wasted money, wasted time, disrupted the organization, and maintained business as usual.

For additional information on key issues and topics on Strategic Planning, Leadership and Business Growth see our blogs, free articles, white papers and videos at: www.kubicalaforestconsulting.com

Copyright 2012 Kubica LaForest Consulting

If you enjoyed this piece, please consider sharing it! Share This Post

If the Shoe Fits … A Key Consideration When Hiring Your CEO or Buying a Company

Friday, January 20th, 2012

We’ve all heard this – right. We probably even finished the sentence in our head without realizing it; it’s automatic.

But the idea of fit is not so automatic when it comes to vetting and hiring CEOs or acquiring companies. Fit doesn’t only apply to shoes. And unfortunately it is often overlooked.

When the Board hires a new CEO – it expects he or she will be successful because they have been. When one company acquires another company, the acquiring company expects the transaction will be accretive to their organization. Yet more often than anyone wants – it’s not.

When we hire a CEO, or any key position in the company for that matter, what do we look for? We look for technical skills, managerial skills, history of doing the job (or a similar job). Less often do we look for temperament; and even less often than that do we look for fit. That is, how likely is this candidate to fit into our organization?

When we look to acquire a company, we “run the numbers”. We perform a due diligence. Yet how often do we accept or reject a deal based on fit? Not very often.

And what’s the success rate of CEO’s and acquisitions? Poor. One survey result published in the Harvard Business Review reported that 40% of executives fail within 18 months. And the success rate of acquisitions is even worse. A number of studies report success rates below 50%.

So what’s going on? Well one of the things that’s going on is this thing called fit. That is – how well does the CEO fit into the culture of the organization; and, how well does the acquired company fit into the culture of the acquiring company?

Fit is based on values, and unless you know the values of the leader and the values expressed by the company culture, it is near impossible to gage fit. And if you can’t gage a critical component of a successful hire or a successful merger, then your might as well just flip a coin. And it’s so much less expensive for a similar outcome.

For additional information on key issues and topics on Leadership and Business Growth see our blogs, free articles, white papers and videos at: www.kubicalaforestconsulting.com

Copyright 2012 Kubica LaForest Consulting

If you enjoyed this piece, please consider sharing it! Share This Post

Four Metaphors: What the Most Effective CEOs Embody

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

Peter Fuda and Richard Badham wrote a fabulous little piece that we’d like to expand upon called How Leaders Spark and Sustain Change (Harvard Business Review, Nov. 2011). We find this particularly helpful for CEO’s and emerging leaders to not only consider but also ideally internalize to assist them in being successful leaders. And Fuda and Badhan go so far as to say that in studying ineffective CEO’s, they find that these ineffective leaders can in fact transform themselves into successful leaders through actionalizing four common metaphors.

The first metaphor is “fire” and it represents a burning ambition. Far too many people lack or have lost the fire for what they do. This is noticeable and uninspiring to others and becomes apparent in their (under) performance. This means that leaders need to identify and align their efforts with what they do best and what they have passion for. No passion, no fire, results in a low burn in value and impact.

Second, is “a snowball”, and it represents a cycle of momentum. Jim Collins, in Good to Great, references momentum as a fly-wheel. Leaders need to demonstrate and create “mutual accountability that creates momentum for change”. We find that low accountability in organizations results in inconsistency and poor output. And worse, a culture emerges that results in a destructive environment of infighting and competition.

Third, is “the mask” and it represents the false persona that people adopt to protect themselves from vulnerability. Fuda and Badham state that leaders must reveal their persona that they believe conceals their flaws – thereby allowing authenticity and genuineness with others to emerge. We find this is a tremendous enabler for developing real relationships. And it’s real relationships that promote trust.

Fourth, and lastly, is “the movie”. This is an area that we preach and strongly believe in; it has to do with a process (not an event) of truthful self-assessment: reflection, evaluation, and course correction.

It’s a wonderful thing to know that strengthening your performance and being your best is really, fully in your control. And we believe that being a successful leader is congruent with being a “happily successful leader.”  Left unattended, you are likely to find yourself in the “unhappily successful” category, or worse, the unsuccessful/ineffective category. It’s your choice.

For additional information on key issues and topics on Leadership and Business Growth see our blogs, free articles, white papers and videos at: www.kubicalaforestconsulting.com

Copyright 2012 Kubica LaForest Consulting

If you enjoyed this piece, please consider sharing it! Share This Post

Pay for Performance: A Great Premise Used Wrongly Results in Mediocrity

Wednesday, January 4th, 2012

We hear and read a lot about pay for performance. We see it in large corporations, in healthcare (physicians and hospitals) and even in small businesses.

And if you want to take one step toward mediocrity – put in a pay for performance system.

Now don’t get us wrong, pay for performance is a sound idea. Who in their right mind could or would be against the premise? The problem we have is that we don’t have pay for performance systems in many organizations that claim to. What we really have is a modified unearned bonus structure disguised as pay for performance. And the crux is that it all depends on how you define performance.

We have seen pay for performance ending up being an artificial intervention into an otherwise dysfunctional system to start. A system that can’t effectively perform on it’s own so we decide to pay for it (performance, that is). It’s like having your children behave badly in front of guests and paying them to behave nicely. And worse yet, paying them whether they behave nicely or not!

Another problem is pay for performance often becomes a dual cast system: those that get it and those that don’t. And when you end up paying for poor performance, as you often read about, just imagine how the employees feel when company performance tanks, jobs are lost, and “performance” is richly rewarded (for those executives on a pay for performance plan).

Now this certainly sounds like a rant. Perhaps it is. But we also want to reinforce that sometimes good and well-meaning ideas go terribly wrong; It’s what is referred to as the Law of Unintended Consequences.

We’ve written recently about becoming a talent gravity organization, about drawing high-potential talent to you. Well, there is absolutely no way you will do that if you have a pay for performance system that truly doesn’t reward good performance, or where performance is poorly defined, or if poor performance is really a cast system. Now change the “or’s” in the previous sentence with “and’s” and you simply have a bad policy in a poorly performing company.

If you truly believe pay for performance is a good idea, fine, put it in, but put it in for everyone. Clearly define performance as meeting or exceeding aligned company goals, as working together to focus on customer needs, as breaking down silos. But again, then you can just development a culture of alignment and performance and watch your company, careers and compensation grow.

For additional information on key issues and topics on Leadership and Business Growth see our blogs, free articles, white papers and videos at: www.kubicalaforestconsulting.com

Copyright 2012 Kubica LaForest Consulting

If you enjoyed this piece, please consider sharing it! Share This Post

KLC Biz $ense Blog is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).