Have you ever been told that you are just too valuable in your job to be given an opportunity to do something else? Even worse to be given an indeterminate answer as to when you might be able to move to something else. Worse still is to be given a promise that you can take on a new challenge under certain conditions or at a certain time only to find out your boss was merely placating you. This happened to me once and it caused me to leave a company I truly loved working for but I simply could not live with not being allowed the opportunity to try something else.
As leaders we have all had employees that were outstanding performers. Who can work miracles, are at our every beck and call or, simply are doing a job that no one else can or will do. There is a temptation to leave things well enough alone and try and maintain the status quo. Sure, raises and perks such as days off work, for a while but trust me resentment is building. You have skipped over an employees stated need or desire and eventually there will be consequences. At best, their performance will suffer but most likely, one day they will simply leave.
Part of the responsibility of every leader is to develop our people and maximize their value to the organization. This takes real work but it pays off in spades. It starts with having regular dialogs with our teams and understand peoples desires and capabilities. From there plans can be built for career progression to allow them to grow both in terms of their own knowledge but also in their value to the organization. The critical element to this is to ensure that both parties work to the plan. The plan can be modified as time goes on but it is important that we, as leaders, do what we say we are going to do.
Equally important is providing candid feedback to the employee on their performance and skills. I once had a test technician that applied for every executive level position. Apparently she had been doing this for years and her prior management failed to explain that she lacked the skills to do those jobs and more importantly, failed to tell her what she needed to do to develop those skills. By the time I got involved and had this discussion with her she was so bitter it was very difficult to get her to accept a rational 5 year development plan that would develop the foundation for leadership. She met her end of the bargain and we started her off on a new track. Shortly thereafter we noticed that her prior attendance issues cleared up and her attitude was markedly better. She became a much more valuable member of the team.
I know some of you maybe rolling your eyes at this point but trust me, I have a former assistant that is now an engineer. She has grown tremendously over the past 10 years and I know she can do more. I can point to several other examples where people given the chance have risen to the occasion and flourished. Developing people is part of a leaders job and if you are not doing, you are not doing one of the most important aspects of your job. If you don't take care of your people, they may take care of themselves and leave you holding the bag at a very inopportune time. Don't be that person that is a career killer, instead be a career builder!
Friday, May 31, 2013
Diversity is Great for Business
A lot is said about the social side of creating diversity. Those of you that know me well, know that I hate all things political so I'm not about to touch that side of the argument with a 10 foot pole. Fact is diversity in the work place is just plain good sense and makes for stronger more productive teams which in turn innovate better than monolithic teams.
Let me start by expanding the term diversity to include not just race, sex, and sexual orientation to include industries, education and age. When we create teams our natural instinct is to pick people that look just like us and that is a grave mistake because that leads, at best, to evolutionary thinking. True out of the box thinking and high performance comes from having a wildly diverse mix to approach the problem from different angles and to push and pull on ideas until they become truly revolutionary.
Many years ago in my first management job I was given an organization that had 3 spacecraft to complete and launch by the end of the year. Sound hard? Wait. The group was also not fully staffed because we were growing at an unprecedented rate and all the engineering groups were understaffed. I had to beg borrow and steal to fill my team in short order. I was lucky enough to inherit and hire a group of people that even today, I believe is the best performing team I ever had. It was also the most diverse and while I'd like to claim credit for it, it really was mostly luck and timing but I learned that having a mix of diversity in all of these parameters produces amazing results. To finish the story we managed not only to launch all three on time but did so in the face of some amazing, unplanned incidents and all three launches were firsts in their own respects in terms of new customers, new launch vehicles and spacecraft designs.
Conversely, I worked in an organization that had been on a downward spiral for years. When I joined the same management had been shuffled from job to job for decades with ever decreasing results. I started to insert leadership that had a more diversity and the company helped by developing programs to attract and retain diverse talent. We also expanding college recruiting to move away from our comfort zone. The results were dramatic improvements in performance across the board. Not only that intangible costs like employee turn over reduced sharply.
I was talking with a friend who works for a large consumer electronics company. Despite doing well the company felt it needed to improve and sought to do so by recruiting management strictly from their largest (and most successful) competitor. He was lamenting that in trying to replicate their customers culture they were failing to really make traction. This is a classic failure because you can try as hard as you want to replicate someone else's winning culture and no matter what you won't be able to do it. Cultures are grown, not transplanted. Want to change your culture, you have to do the hard work and in starts by diversifying your teams. Hire as many different types of people as you can, they have to be good, high quality hires but focus on diversity. Look for people with adjacent skills in different industries that bring fresh ideas. Hire folks from all walks of life and different diversity groups to bring fresh perspectives. Hire well, encourage diversity in both people and thought and you will be amazed at the results.
Let me start by expanding the term diversity to include not just race, sex, and sexual orientation to include industries, education and age. When we create teams our natural instinct is to pick people that look just like us and that is a grave mistake because that leads, at best, to evolutionary thinking. True out of the box thinking and high performance comes from having a wildly diverse mix to approach the problem from different angles and to push and pull on ideas until they become truly revolutionary.
Many years ago in my first management job I was given an organization that had 3 spacecraft to complete and launch by the end of the year. Sound hard? Wait. The group was also not fully staffed because we were growing at an unprecedented rate and all the engineering groups were understaffed. I had to beg borrow and steal to fill my team in short order. I was lucky enough to inherit and hire a group of people that even today, I believe is the best performing team I ever had. It was also the most diverse and while I'd like to claim credit for it, it really was mostly luck and timing but I learned that having a mix of diversity in all of these parameters produces amazing results. To finish the story we managed not only to launch all three on time but did so in the face of some amazing, unplanned incidents and all three launches were firsts in their own respects in terms of new customers, new launch vehicles and spacecraft designs.
Conversely, I worked in an organization that had been on a downward spiral for years. When I joined the same management had been shuffled from job to job for decades with ever decreasing results. I started to insert leadership that had a more diversity and the company helped by developing programs to attract and retain diverse talent. We also expanding college recruiting to move away from our comfort zone. The results were dramatic improvements in performance across the board. Not only that intangible costs like employee turn over reduced sharply.
I was talking with a friend who works for a large consumer electronics company. Despite doing well the company felt it needed to improve and sought to do so by recruiting management strictly from their largest (and most successful) competitor. He was lamenting that in trying to replicate their customers culture they were failing to really make traction. This is a classic failure because you can try as hard as you want to replicate someone else's winning culture and no matter what you won't be able to do it. Cultures are grown, not transplanted. Want to change your culture, you have to do the hard work and in starts by diversifying your teams. Hire as many different types of people as you can, they have to be good, high quality hires but focus on diversity. Look for people with adjacent skills in different industries that bring fresh ideas. Hire folks from all walks of life and different diversity groups to bring fresh perspectives. Hire well, encourage diversity in both people and thought and you will be amazed at the results.
Friday, May 24, 2013
What Makes Lasting Leaders?
What is it that makes lasting leaders? People that can weather storms and keep the organization committed and moving forward despite facing enormous difficulties. People that can lead organizations in good times and bad times. I have been lucking enough to work for some absolutely phenomenal leaders and I have seen a few duds. What makes them different?
At the top of the list is integrity. Lasting leaders have unquestioned integrity. This is different than ethics. You can be ethical but still lack personal integrity. Here's an example. I worked for someone briefly that lacked personal integrity. He was solely focused on his personal upward mobility and would do anything to advance his cause. He certainly was ethical in all his business dealings yet, you were either committed to his cause or, you were merely cannon fodder. He destroyed people to make himself look good and bred a culture of fear and mistrust yet. People knew that it was all about him and he didn't care what he did to others. Despite all this he was viewed as highly ethical... until his career abruptly ended.
Conversely I have worked for very demanding people. Folks that would call meetings at 4:30 am and would demand detailed action plans for very difficult problems within hours. Yet, I would gladly do anything for him. Why? Because he was one of the most honest guys I ever met. Not the warmest but he was a genuinely good human being. He would hold you accountable to the same standards he set for himself but he his first question was always "what help do you need?". If you asked, it came and it came with no strings attached. Further, he was motivated by driving improved performance for the company, not himself and despite his bluntness, you knew his motivations where pure.
Next is commitment to the overall success of the organization and providing unwavering support to the organization no matter how difficult the situation. This means putting the needs of the organization first. I once worked for a company that was pulled into a bankruptcy by the parent corporation. The CEO vehemently and publicly denied responsibility for the company's situation and fought a bitter battle to retain control at the expense of 100's of jobs. People celebrated when he was brutally forced to resign.
Conversely, I worked for a woman who turned around an organization by living by the model that it was "all about the people". She was the model of integrity but she was also 100% dedicated to making the organization a success by making her team successful. Within a year all of the key indicators in the organization showed marked improvement. She was the kind of person that you could call day or night and she would listen and be ready to lend whatever help was needed.
Finally, lasting leaders are consistent in their actions and do what they say they are going to do. Always. There is nothing worse for an organization when it's leader changes course with the seasons and fails to follow through from one fad to the next. I was just listening to a former employee lament that the current leadership has no consistent vision, moving from one fad to the next and never follows through on anything to see it through. Despite having phenomenal talent and desire to do whatever it takes, the organization is adrift, lacking motivation and merely waiting to see what's next.
Conversely, I once went through a manufacturing facility as a guest. I paused to look at one of their "wall walks" where they posted metrics, data and actions for the organization to review daily. Instantly an employee appeared and started reviewing the metrics with me and talked about their actions to resolve current issues. I asked them who reviewed the metrics and she said their VP came down every day to review them and followed up on every one of his actions always. You could tell by her commitment and pride that she was totally committed to her leadership.
The above traits, integrity, commitment to the organization's success of personal success and consistency and follow through are traits that inspire an organization to be committed to exceptional performance. Conversely, leaders that fail to have all 3 of these traits suffer from organizations that lack trust, accountability and commitment. Poor performance and loss of key talent are byproducts of these missing ingredients.
At the top of the list is integrity. Lasting leaders have unquestioned integrity. This is different than ethics. You can be ethical but still lack personal integrity. Here's an example. I worked for someone briefly that lacked personal integrity. He was solely focused on his personal upward mobility and would do anything to advance his cause. He certainly was ethical in all his business dealings yet, you were either committed to his cause or, you were merely cannon fodder. He destroyed people to make himself look good and bred a culture of fear and mistrust yet. People knew that it was all about him and he didn't care what he did to others. Despite all this he was viewed as highly ethical... until his career abruptly ended.
Conversely I have worked for very demanding people. Folks that would call meetings at 4:30 am and would demand detailed action plans for very difficult problems within hours. Yet, I would gladly do anything for him. Why? Because he was one of the most honest guys I ever met. Not the warmest but he was a genuinely good human being. He would hold you accountable to the same standards he set for himself but he his first question was always "what help do you need?". If you asked, it came and it came with no strings attached. Further, he was motivated by driving improved performance for the company, not himself and despite his bluntness, you knew his motivations where pure.
Next is commitment to the overall success of the organization and providing unwavering support to the organization no matter how difficult the situation. This means putting the needs of the organization first. I once worked for a company that was pulled into a bankruptcy by the parent corporation. The CEO vehemently and publicly denied responsibility for the company's situation and fought a bitter battle to retain control at the expense of 100's of jobs. People celebrated when he was brutally forced to resign.
Conversely, I worked for a woman who turned around an organization by living by the model that it was "all about the people". She was the model of integrity but she was also 100% dedicated to making the organization a success by making her team successful. Within a year all of the key indicators in the organization showed marked improvement. She was the kind of person that you could call day or night and she would listen and be ready to lend whatever help was needed.
Finally, lasting leaders are consistent in their actions and do what they say they are going to do. Always. There is nothing worse for an organization when it's leader changes course with the seasons and fails to follow through from one fad to the next. I was just listening to a former employee lament that the current leadership has no consistent vision, moving from one fad to the next and never follows through on anything to see it through. Despite having phenomenal talent and desire to do whatever it takes, the organization is adrift, lacking motivation and merely waiting to see what's next.
Conversely, I once went through a manufacturing facility as a guest. I paused to look at one of their "wall walks" where they posted metrics, data and actions for the organization to review daily. Instantly an employee appeared and started reviewing the metrics with me and talked about their actions to resolve current issues. I asked them who reviewed the metrics and she said their VP came down every day to review them and followed up on every one of his actions always. You could tell by her commitment and pride that she was totally committed to her leadership.
The above traits, integrity, commitment to the organization's success of personal success and consistency and follow through are traits that inspire an organization to be committed to exceptional performance. Conversely, leaders that fail to have all 3 of these traits suffer from organizations that lack trust, accountability and commitment. Poor performance and loss of key talent are byproducts of these missing ingredients.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Finding True North....
A lot of people unfortunately put monetary compensation at the top of their list when evaluating their next step in the career. If you do that without checking your internal compass and figuring out which direction it is pointing you to, you may be making a grave mistake. I am not postulating that money is not important, it's just not the most important factor in determining your next step. The allure of money or the potential to make a lot of money wears thin very quickly and you are left having to evaluate your job on it's own merits within a few months.
What are some important things to consider?
1. Do you fundamentally like the business? Does it resonate with your core values? Does the technology or space excite you? If you aren't excited about what you are doing, then no amount of money offsets boredom. I truly loved working in commercial space and defense. The technology was exciting, the people were brilliant and it had a noble mission. I was providing protection to our troops or communications to developing countries. For me that worked. For others the thrill of developing a new commercial gadget does it for them. Follow your passion, it will lead you to the right place.
2. Do you like the company? This is more than feedback from friends or reading the company's profile. Do they represent values you support? Do they treat people and customers ethically and well? This takes some digging to find out but talk to a cross section of people and customers or suppliers to understand something about their core values. Suppliers are often a good place to check because a company that treats their suppliers poorly may not treat customers and employees all that much better. I am not talking about aggressive negotiation but things like cancelling orders at the last minute, forcing unfair terms, and consistent late or non-payment for convenience. Ask yourself if their behavior resonates with the way you would like to be treated and the way you treat others. I company that does not have a strong foundation in ethics may soon wear thin.
3. Do you like the management? Look not only at direct management but also the senior leadership. What are their values and do they resonate with yours? Most importantly do they adhere to them consistently and do they stick with them? If the values do not align with yours or, more importantly if they don't follow through or "walk the walk", then again, this may wear thin over time.
I have had the pleasure of working for some phenomenal companies in some terrific industries. More importantly, I have worked for some terrific leaders and while I may have been able to make more money if I had done things differently, I believe I have had a pretty good career thus far. Looking back I have been most happy when these three things were in alignment and least happy when 1 or more have not been in alignment.
What are some important things to consider?
1. Do you fundamentally like the business? Does it resonate with your core values? Does the technology or space excite you? If you aren't excited about what you are doing, then no amount of money offsets boredom. I truly loved working in commercial space and defense. The technology was exciting, the people were brilliant and it had a noble mission. I was providing protection to our troops or communications to developing countries. For me that worked. For others the thrill of developing a new commercial gadget does it for them. Follow your passion, it will lead you to the right place.
2. Do you like the company? This is more than feedback from friends or reading the company's profile. Do they represent values you support? Do they treat people and customers ethically and well? This takes some digging to find out but talk to a cross section of people and customers or suppliers to understand something about their core values. Suppliers are often a good place to check because a company that treats their suppliers poorly may not treat customers and employees all that much better. I am not talking about aggressive negotiation but things like cancelling orders at the last minute, forcing unfair terms, and consistent late or non-payment for convenience. Ask yourself if their behavior resonates with the way you would like to be treated and the way you treat others. I company that does not have a strong foundation in ethics may soon wear thin.
3. Do you like the management? Look not only at direct management but also the senior leadership. What are their values and do they resonate with yours? Most importantly do they adhere to them consistently and do they stick with them? If the values do not align with yours or, more importantly if they don't follow through or "walk the walk", then again, this may wear thin over time.
I have had the pleasure of working for some phenomenal companies in some terrific industries. More importantly, I have worked for some terrific leaders and while I may have been able to make more money if I had done things differently, I believe I have had a pretty good career thus far. Looking back I have been most happy when these three things were in alignment and least happy when 1 or more have not been in alignment.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Follow Your True North...
Someone recently pointed out to me recently that we all come with our own internal compass that steers us toward happiness. This compass steers us away from danger but also is responsible for letting us know when our own personal boundaries are in danger of being violated. As I have reflected over the past week about not only where I've been but also where I want to go, I started thinking about this and realized she was dead right.
Turns out when I look back on my worst career misadventures I had ignored and even suppressed my own internal compass and weeks later found myself regretting the decision. Many years ago, I interviewed for a job and walked away with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right. The company checked out OK but the people I was going to work for seemed a little too slick. An offer came and they used some very hardball tactics in the negotiation process that should have been my final warning to run but it offered a move to a very attractive location. Shortly after I started, it became obvious that they had withheld some key information and my boss proved to be very inexperienced and his boss was flat out lazy and unethical. I stayed just long enough to finish an acquisition that I started, chalked it up to a learning experience and moved on with life.
As I look forward in life I have reflected on what's important to me because it turns out when I review the high points of my career they all share some common threads. I worked for ethical people that were committed to doing the right thing no matter what, I was working on a product or technology that made a difference, and I had a position in the company where I had both a voice and direct responsibility in the outcome. Not surprisingly, the places where there were low points in my career violated one or all three of these things.
If you get nothing else out of this post but this "Listen to your internal compass and follow it" than you will be better off. If you take the next step to understand the inner working of your internal compass then you will be able help your compass better guide you along your journey.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
ISO... What it really means...
I was just reading a post this morning questioning whether outsorucing partners really live up to their ISO certifications. It got me thinking about ISO certifications and what they really mean. They are an excellent start but that's all. What ISO 9000 certification really means is that you have demonstrated that you have a process and that you have written documentation to follow it. ISO 9001 added in the requirement to demonstrate a continuous improvement environment which is another step in the right direction but again, having a supplier that is 9000 or 9001 or even AS9100 doesn't tell you whether they really are capable of high quality.
According to the letter of the law if you have an electronic system that employees have access to and have been trained to use, you have documentation to prove that they are following it (for the cases the auditor samples) and there is some system for continuous improvement, congratulations you are an ISO 9001or AS 9100 certified supplier. You can have the most atrocious processes in the world and a quality system that leaks like a sieve and still be ISO or AS certified. These certifications are very general in nature and do not have any specific requirements for process content or performance standards. Further, their continuous improvement requirements do not have any time table or improvement targets. That means you could be do all the wrong things for improvement and as long as you show progress to your goals, technically you meet the objectives.
I am not suggesting that ISO or AS quality standards are meaningless or that all companies game the certification system. I believe these standards are very important and I have taken a half dozen companies successfully through the process and we were always better off for it. What I am saying is that when evaluating the quality system of a supplier one needs to dig one layer deeper. Look at the quality metrics, not just top line yield data but dig into the metrics the factory uses. Make sure that they have continuous improvement plan that consistently ties back into top line yields, cost, throughput and the detailed factory metrics. If they are using SPC, look at how often they exceed limits, how that ties to yield and cost, look for frequent exceedences and repeat causes. These will all give insights into the effectivity of their continuous improvement plan.
According to the letter of the law if you have an electronic system that employees have access to and have been trained to use, you have documentation to prove that they are following it (for the cases the auditor samples) and there is some system for continuous improvement, congratulations you are an ISO 9001or AS 9100 certified supplier. You can have the most atrocious processes in the world and a quality system that leaks like a sieve and still be ISO or AS certified. These certifications are very general in nature and do not have any specific requirements for process content or performance standards. Further, their continuous improvement requirements do not have any time table or improvement targets. That means you could be do all the wrong things for improvement and as long as you show progress to your goals, technically you meet the objectives.
I am not suggesting that ISO or AS quality standards are meaningless or that all companies game the certification system. I believe these standards are very important and I have taken a half dozen companies successfully through the process and we were always better off for it. What I am saying is that when evaluating the quality system of a supplier one needs to dig one layer deeper. Look at the quality metrics, not just top line yield data but dig into the metrics the factory uses. Make sure that they have continuous improvement plan that consistently ties back into top line yields, cost, throughput and the detailed factory metrics. If they are using SPC, look at how often they exceed limits, how that ties to yield and cost, look for frequent exceedences and repeat causes. These will all give insights into the effectivity of their continuous improvement plan.
Monday, May 20, 2013
We Truly Have Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself!
I was thinking about those words this morning on my early morning bike ride up one of the local hills. FDR couldn't have been more right when he spoke them during his first inaugural address. Trust me, I have spent most of my life pushing the boundaries of fear and there is no greater feeling when you tear that veil off and realize the thing you feared so much really wasn't worth all the anxiety in the first place. In fact, what you are usually left with is often a sense of relief, if not triumph. I've had a number of situation from as a student pilot finding out what it was like to demonstrate the maximum cross winding landing capability of an airplane on a solo flight (hope my instructor is reading this) to running out of air under 80 feet of water. During each of these situations there was real fear but I also knew I had to deal with the situation rationally or face the ultimate consequences. When I got out the other side once the effects of the fear wore of they proved to be valuable learning experiences and it was good to know that I could count on myself during difficult situations.
Fear is one of those funny things, in some people it can cause irrational inaction and in others very irrational action. The key to successfully dealing with fear is to realize it's there for a reason and to respect it without letting it drive us. The best advice I ever got was when I was doing some advanced SCUBA training and during any emergency the advice was to Stop, Breath, and Act. Same holds true in any situation. If you truly have to rely on the reptilian part of your brain to make a split second decision that will make or break you, then chances are not good for a positive outcome. I'm not saying you should ever give up, rather unless all is truly loss take the time to breathe and think before acting.
So why am I writing about this? I have two major fears. Heights and being unemployed. I know those of you that know are saying really, a pilot, skier and mountain biker is afraid of heights? Well, that's the thing, fears may not be rational and in many ways I have managed my fear of heights. Up until now I had never faced my fear of unemployment. I have been in the solar power industry for the last few years and have suffered through the most challenging business climate of my life. Despite a lot of hard work and creativity, I could see that time was running out for us and as the end neared my fear of being unemployed blossomed. While not becoming quite paralyzed, I was certainly not my usual self and I was having a very hard time figuring out what to do next.
A recruiter called about an opportunity that sounded very marginal but my fear of being unemployed got the best of me and I forward with a first meeting. During the initial meet it was clear there were a number of serious concerns but yet at the end of the meeting I found myself saying yes to a second interview. During that meeting every red light was on and flashing. This was not a good situation and I was having to confront my fear of being unemployed versus making a bad decision that offered short term employment but potential long term consequences. Fortunately, after sleeping on it I chose to follow my gut and head and over rule the scared 4 year old. After I formally declined, I actually felt a sense of relief and empowerment.
When the day finally came that we ceased operations I surprised to find that I was not only slightly relieved but actually looking forward to figuring out what was next. I/m not sure I know where I will wind up but so far, the support from friends and family has been overwhelming. I truly appreciate every one's support from those that are sending jobs, offering financial assistance and leads to those that just called to have lunch. Thank you all so very much, I am truly blessed to have all of you in my life. For now, I am treating this as another one of life's adventures and as I often say "how bad could it possibly be?".
Fear is one of those funny things, in some people it can cause irrational inaction and in others very irrational action. The key to successfully dealing with fear is to realize it's there for a reason and to respect it without letting it drive us. The best advice I ever got was when I was doing some advanced SCUBA training and during any emergency the advice was to Stop, Breath, and Act. Same holds true in any situation. If you truly have to rely on the reptilian part of your brain to make a split second decision that will make or break you, then chances are not good for a positive outcome. I'm not saying you should ever give up, rather unless all is truly loss take the time to breathe and think before acting.
So why am I writing about this? I have two major fears. Heights and being unemployed. I know those of you that know are saying really, a pilot, skier and mountain biker is afraid of heights? Well, that's the thing, fears may not be rational and in many ways I have managed my fear of heights. Up until now I had never faced my fear of unemployment. I have been in the solar power industry for the last few years and have suffered through the most challenging business climate of my life. Despite a lot of hard work and creativity, I could see that time was running out for us and as the end neared my fear of being unemployed blossomed. While not becoming quite paralyzed, I was certainly not my usual self and I was having a very hard time figuring out what to do next.
A recruiter called about an opportunity that sounded very marginal but my fear of being unemployed got the best of me and I forward with a first meeting. During the initial meet it was clear there were a number of serious concerns but yet at the end of the meeting I found myself saying yes to a second interview. During that meeting every red light was on and flashing. This was not a good situation and I was having to confront my fear of being unemployed versus making a bad decision that offered short term employment but potential long term consequences. Fortunately, after sleeping on it I chose to follow my gut and head and over rule the scared 4 year old. After I formally declined, I actually felt a sense of relief and empowerment.
When the day finally came that we ceased operations I surprised to find that I was not only slightly relieved but actually looking forward to figuring out what was next. I/m not sure I know where I will wind up but so far, the support from friends and family has been overwhelming. I truly appreciate every one's support from those that are sending jobs, offering financial assistance and leads to those that just called to have lunch. Thank you all so very much, I am truly blessed to have all of you in my life. For now, I am treating this as another one of life's adventures and as I often say "how bad could it possibly be?".
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Time to Rethink Board of Dirctors?
Boards of Directors are supposed to be a resource for the CEO to discuss potential strategies and tactics for a company as well as providing a check and balance for investors to ensure that the company's senior management are being responsive. When companies get into trouble often the management is turned over but how often do we look at the board's role and what mechanisms are there to hold them accountable?
Let me relate to you a story of a couple of cases. The first was a moderate sized public company. The senior leadership team that took the company through a long period of steady growth and had a falling out. The board sided with the CEO and allowed him to go forward with his risky plan. There was a split in management that resulted in one senior manager forming what ultimately became a very successful company and the CEO ultimately making a series of errors that caused serious damage. The end result was a very painful bankruptcy in which the investors, creditors and management fought a protracted battle for control.
Clearly in this case the CEO should have either voluntarily stepped down or, been forced to resign by the board. This didn't happen and ultimately the company exited from bankruptcy and were able to make the effect the necessary changes. In this case, the board clearly failed to represent the investors and creditors interests which is a breach of their responsibilities. In the end they were not immediately held accountable for their actions which leaves one to wonder how are boards held accountable for their actions.
I recently ran across another example that left me shaking my head where a privately held company had a board that was "hand picked" by the CEO. The company was not achieving its objectives and the board was a board in name only because the CEO was clearly driving in the ship towards the beach. As an outsider it was clear that as bright as the CEO is, he needs some outside supervision and more importantly some outside influence.
Where I have seen boards function well is where there is diverse mix of people from both inside and outside the industry people that have history with the CEO and others that don't. This provides a group of people that will not only provide a check and balance to the potential monolithic thinking of a CEO but also a life line. The other key aspects is that they must be independent and courageous enough to speak up and when necessary to tell the emperor that he in fact, has no clothes. Finally, they must be decisive. They don't have to necessarily be of like mind but they need to reach a lasting consensus and follow through with timely actions.
So how do we motivate companies to do better with their boards? The surest way is to make sure that boards are properly incentivized to do well if the company does well and should suffer consequences when companies don't do well. In fact, the whole concept of directors and officers (D&O) insurance serves to insulate boards from consequences of not effectively carrying out their responsibilities. Perhaps putting in term limits or requirements to re-evaluate the board on a periodic basis are things that should be considered. Even putting in requirements that call for a percentage of board seats to be turned over in the event of non-performance. I throw these things out there because I think something needs to change because we are facing increased competition on all fronts and we need to take a fresh look at our old ways.
Let me relate to you a story of a couple of cases. The first was a moderate sized public company. The senior leadership team that took the company through a long period of steady growth and had a falling out. The board sided with the CEO and allowed him to go forward with his risky plan. There was a split in management that resulted in one senior manager forming what ultimately became a very successful company and the CEO ultimately making a series of errors that caused serious damage. The end result was a very painful bankruptcy in which the investors, creditors and management fought a protracted battle for control.
Clearly in this case the CEO should have either voluntarily stepped down or, been forced to resign by the board. This didn't happen and ultimately the company exited from bankruptcy and were able to make the effect the necessary changes. In this case, the board clearly failed to represent the investors and creditors interests which is a breach of their responsibilities. In the end they were not immediately held accountable for their actions which leaves one to wonder how are boards held accountable for their actions.
I recently ran across another example that left me shaking my head where a privately held company had a board that was "hand picked" by the CEO. The company was not achieving its objectives and the board was a board in name only because the CEO was clearly driving in the ship towards the beach. As an outsider it was clear that as bright as the CEO is, he needs some outside supervision and more importantly some outside influence.
Where I have seen boards function well is where there is diverse mix of people from both inside and outside the industry people that have history with the CEO and others that don't. This provides a group of people that will not only provide a check and balance to the potential monolithic thinking of a CEO but also a life line. The other key aspects is that they must be independent and courageous enough to speak up and when necessary to tell the emperor that he in fact, has no clothes. Finally, they must be decisive. They don't have to necessarily be of like mind but they need to reach a lasting consensus and follow through with timely actions.
So how do we motivate companies to do better with their boards? The surest way is to make sure that boards are properly incentivized to do well if the company does well and should suffer consequences when companies don't do well. In fact, the whole concept of directors and officers (D&O) insurance serves to insulate boards from consequences of not effectively carrying out their responsibilities. Perhaps putting in term limits or requirements to re-evaluate the board on a periodic basis are things that should be considered. Even putting in requirements that call for a percentage of board seats to be turned over in the event of non-performance. I throw these things out there because I think something needs to change because we are facing increased competition on all fronts and we need to take a fresh look at our old ways.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
What is Frugal Innovation?
I thought I might follow up with an example of frugal innovation. The Tata swatch water filter made by Tata India is an amazing example. The product is a water purification system that not only removes particles, odors and some contaminents but also disinfects the water. This product uses the ash from rice husks and silver nano particles in a gravity feed container system. The system can purify 3-4 liters of water per hour and each filter cartride is good for 3,000 liters of water. This system is low coast and easily manufactured from locally available materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Swach
This is a great example because it meets all of the frugal engineering criteria plus uses material discarded from the production of a major food staple. For those of you who are not familiar with Tata, you will be soon. Tata is a major Indian conglomerate that produces everything from chemicals to cars. They also happen to build on of the lowest cost cars made in the world and while they aren't sold in the US yet, one needs only look back 10 or 15 years to when Korea entered the US car market. Today they are a force to be reckoned with and I suspect in another decade we will see Indian cars on the road in the US.
If the US wants to remain a major economic player it must learn to solve basic human problems in an entirely new way. We must focus on the things that are required and only those things and then relentlessly focus on producing a robust low cost product using locally available and sustainable materials.
We must learn to move away from the temptation to throw expenseive and unecessary technology at products and focus purely on solving the problem. There are many examples you can find where expensive changes to products are driven by uncessary technology or asthetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Swach
This is a great example because it meets all of the frugal engineering criteria plus uses material discarded from the production of a major food staple. For those of you who are not familiar with Tata, you will be soon. Tata is a major Indian conglomerate that produces everything from chemicals to cars. They also happen to build on of the lowest cost cars made in the world and while they aren't sold in the US yet, one needs only look back 10 or 15 years to when Korea entered the US car market. Today they are a force to be reckoned with and I suspect in another decade we will see Indian cars on the road in the US.
If the US wants to remain a major economic player it must learn to solve basic human problems in an entirely new way. We must focus on the things that are required and only those things and then relentlessly focus on producing a robust low cost product using locally available and sustainable materials.
We must learn to move away from the temptation to throw expenseive and unecessary technology at products and focus purely on solving the problem. There are many examples you can find where expensive changes to products are driven by uncessary technology or asthetics.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Why We Must Embrace Frugal Innovation
The gap between developing and developing nations is rapidly closing. We all know that but what does it mean? Quite simply it means we need to shift our thinking, and fast. Last year it was predicted that the sum of GDP's of the developing nations would equal that of the develop nations by 2018. This year that prediction has been moved in to 2016. That means the economies of the developing nations will equal that of the developed nations.
As a friend of mind used to say, "that's a so statement", "So what?". The what is that these developing nations have much larger populations and their per capita GDP is much lower than that of the developed nations. Meaning the average person in these nations is still making very little and nearly all, if not all, of their income goes towards subsistence.
This means that if we want to have access to these markets we need to re-think the way we develop products from the ground up. It starts with understanding basic human needs and coming up with low cost solution that addresses those needs. Traditional western thinking involves iterative approaches to reducing part count, labor operations, squeezing supply chains, and going to low cost manufacturing regions. All good things to do but not good enough.
We need to look at whole new ways of doing things, a true minimalistic approach to solving the basic need, using new, and sometimes locally available materials. This also means that we need to be immersed in the local market and understand their needs as they see them and not as we see them. There is a story I heard about the US coming into an Afgan community during the winter and seeing people freezing. They provided the folks with the latest high tech mountain wear to keep warm. Several days later the locals were using this very expensive gear to make fires to cook with. We completely missed the mark in terms of the problem we were trying to solve because we saw the problem through our eyes not theirs.
This means we need to learn to let go of glitz and glitter of high technology and embrace the concept of true innovation to provide a low cost solution. Sure technology has it's place in the world but we need to learn to embrace a true minimalist approach for development of products that can truly serve the emerging world and guess what, this approach will work for higher end products as well. To see some great examples of this work I recommend you take a look at the work that University of Santa Clara is doing in their Frugal Innovation Lab. These folks are teaching tomorrow's engineers a new way of thinking and are making some truly creative products that are solving real human problems.
http://www.scu.edu/engineering/frugal/index-old.cfm
If the US wants to continue to enjoy a leadership position in the world economy we must embrace a new way of thinking in terms of innovating and developing products. We need to learn how to address basic human needs, using simple designs that produce effective, robust products, with locally available, low cost sustainable materials. This means gaining a greater understanding of these markets through immersion in their cultures and collaborating with them in the product development to not only understand the market but learn from them the art of the possible in their environment. If we fail to do this we will not only miss a great opportunity but may lose our place in the world economy.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Why Monopolies are Bad
I read the link below where Bill Gates himself was fervently proclaiming that Apple got it wrong and consumers really wanted a "Surface" with a combination of a smirk and astonishment. Could we be watching the fall of Microsoft? I went on to wonder if they really could be that far out of touch with consumers and then it hit me, of course they are.
http://allthingsd.com/20130506/microsofts-gates-ipad-users-really-just-want-a-surface/?mod=fb
Microsoft has had a monopoly on personal computing and office software for 20 years and they have been dictating to consumers for over 15 years what they want because we had no choice. We have learned to tolerate software packages that don't integrate with each other completely after 15 years, buggy operating systems with nearly daily releases of patches that are very disruptive and new releases every 5 years that are detrimental to productivity because we all need to be retrained on where everything went. It has gotten so bad that people have even given up complaining about Microsoft.
The above interview points to what happens when disruptive technology comes along. We see that PC sales are falling dramatically and the sales for Windows 8 are falling short (some people are refusing to accept it on new computers). Microsoft's tablet which looks like a 4 year old prototype has captured less than 2% of the market despite their expenditure of $1.5B to promote the product. The tablet has completely turned the PC market upside down and Microsoft was caught flat footed and looking the other way.
Why is this? How could such a behemoth as Microsoft be in such a position and why aren't they doing something about it. Because they were set up from the beginning to be a Monopoly. For nearly 2 decades they have been able to tell the market what features they would get and how much they would pay for it. They were allowed to deliver shameful customer support (remember Clippy that annoying help icon from the '90s?) and refused to give customers the time of day. Their culture simply does not allow them to objectively look at the market place and respond.
When companies are in a healthy competitive market they are forced to stay in touch with their customers and provide better products and services at competitive prices. When companies have a monopoly they are not forced to have that intimate touch with the customer and they lose touch with the market place which makes effective product development nearly impossible.
Does this mean I am foretelling the end of Microsoft? No, they have way to big an installed base and there are things tablets won't do very well... yet. It does mean that I am very glad I don't own their stock because I think they are in for a very rough ride for the next few years as they come to grips with the new world. This should be a lesson to us all as to why competition is so important to not only the consumer but to sustainable business.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Thank You
So having been at this for almost a couple of months, I wanted to take a moment to thank all of you that have taken time to read my various ramblings. I have been shocked at how many folks have taken the time read this and it's been a very enlightening case study about the power of the web. I have had readers from all over the world which has been very gratifying indeed. So, whether you read this regularly, once in while or merely stumbled across it when you were looking for something else, thank you so much for the greatest gift of all, your time and presence.
Regards,
Paul
Regards,
Paul
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Half, that's right Half, of our Kids Aren't Prepared
Thanks to LinkedIn I ran across this excellent summary from Raytheon Corporation that has best summary of the coming shortage of technology workers. Before reading any further I suggest you go check this link:
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/feature/rtn13_mathawareness/
Half of our students won't be qualified to work in an automobile assembly plant. That's right half will lack the technical skills to work in a manufacturing job. We used to think of manufacturing as being a largely physical job with a few exceptions, requiring limited technical skills. Not so, anymore. Today's assembly lines have high levels of automation and the jobs have moved from manual assembly to more automation oversight. Workers must have the ability to understand things like statistical process control, be able to interpret trends and take appropriate corrective action.
To do these jobs they will be required to have a solid background in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). These subjects are no longer the domain of the so called "gifted" students and we must shift our thinking in how these subjects are taught. We must raise our competency standards or we face a wider economic gap between those that have the technical skills and those that do not.
At the core of this issue is that we are still teaching math basically the same way we did back in the 1800's and it's not working. Almost 30% of our 8th grade students don't meet the minimum standards for Math proficiency. If you start to break these statistics down, the numbers are much worse for low income and minority students. Further, if you look at the data you see that we are failing to gain ground on the problem. Problem has essentially stopped.
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) defines the standards for math and while their heart is in the right place, the fact is that they are not driving change in how we teach math. The are, in fact, maintaining the status quo. Charter schools do a better job but they serve just a few of our students.
In order to address this problem we must do several things. First, we need to recognize that each student learns differently. We must find a way to allow the content to be delivered in a way the student can absorb it most effectively. Second, to do the first thing we must embrace technology into our schools. Unfortunately, this is one area where the unions will not help because unions typically resist technology because of fear of loss of jobs. In my experience with unions, it requires a lot of discussion and education to introduce new technology but it must be done. Third, all parents must embrace the need for better math skills and support their child in the learning process. Finally, we must find a way of holding our math teachers accountable to a higher standard. We need some tool to evaluate math teachers performance, reward those that are doing well and improve those that are substandard.
We need to get this right because our children's future depends on it.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/feature/rtn13_mathawareness/
Half of our students won't be qualified to work in an automobile assembly plant. That's right half will lack the technical skills to work in a manufacturing job. We used to think of manufacturing as being a largely physical job with a few exceptions, requiring limited technical skills. Not so, anymore. Today's assembly lines have high levels of automation and the jobs have moved from manual assembly to more automation oversight. Workers must have the ability to understand things like statistical process control, be able to interpret trends and take appropriate corrective action.
To do these jobs they will be required to have a solid background in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). These subjects are no longer the domain of the so called "gifted" students and we must shift our thinking in how these subjects are taught. We must raise our competency standards or we face a wider economic gap between those that have the technical skills and those that do not.
At the core of this issue is that we are still teaching math basically the same way we did back in the 1800's and it's not working. Almost 30% of our 8th grade students don't meet the minimum standards for Math proficiency. If you start to break these statistics down, the numbers are much worse for low income and minority students. Further, if you look at the data you see that we are failing to gain ground on the problem. Problem has essentially stopped.
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) defines the standards for math and while their heart is in the right place, the fact is that they are not driving change in how we teach math. The are, in fact, maintaining the status quo. Charter schools do a better job but they serve just a few of our students.
In order to address this problem we must do several things. First, we need to recognize that each student learns differently. We must find a way to allow the content to be delivered in a way the student can absorb it most effectively. Second, to do the first thing we must embrace technology into our schools. Unfortunately, this is one area where the unions will not help because unions typically resist technology because of fear of loss of jobs. In my experience with unions, it requires a lot of discussion and education to introduce new technology but it must be done. Third, all parents must embrace the need for better math skills and support their child in the learning process. Finally, we must find a way of holding our math teachers accountable to a higher standard. We need some tool to evaluate math teachers performance, reward those that are doing well and improve those that are substandard.
We need to get this right because our children's future depends on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)