Leadership Fundamentals

Once upon a time, the Project Creep Monster was feared by all. Most managers at one time or another have led a project that developed Project Creep somewhere along the way. There was always to be found the project that just went on and on and on. The cause was usually a growing list of specifications that were never in the original proposal. The result was an ever-expanding development calendar that ended up trouncing the deadlines of other projects that may have had better foresight and planning, not to mention a better expected ROI. It was becoming increasingly obvious that a project’s roll-out could be delayed forever if all the specs had to be fulfilled at once. There had to be a better way.

Well, in 2001, a group of 17 developers met at the Snowbird ski resort in Utah and created the Agile Manifesto, an approach to development that relies on an iterative process which seeks to roll out projects in stages rather than trying to get in all the bells and whistles on the first and only round. I confess I was skeptical at first – until I read the Agile Manifesto. Oh, our IT director tried to explain it to us during a presentation meeting, but I don’t think we all understood or agreed with the process — myself included (my bad). The Agile Manifesto states:

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

* Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
* Working software over comprehensive documentation
* Customer collaboration over contract negotiation [note that customer collaboration includes in-house requests for projects -- so your "customer" may be one of your company's departments or head of departments - MY note- BB]
* Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

What was important about The Agile Manifesto was the degree of collaboration between developer and project manager, which allowed both to better understand the goals of each. But just as important was the ability to quickly respond to change in the business market and to zero in on identifying the most important items. By releasing the project in stages and getting the key items out first, other additions could clearly be seen as updated new features releases, thereby demonstrating a series of enhancements to add value. The “all or nothing” approach had finally slain the project creep giant. And although I was skeptical at first, I admit I was wrong. Having seen the monster “project creep” and having seen the delays and the failing of getting projects out there and keeping up with business market changes, I admit I was wrong. It’s more important to keep the “monster” from your door. So I apologize to all those IT people who I didn’t jump on board with before. I understand your pain. I understand your frustration with ever-increasing specs. And I DO understand the value of what you all do, under tremendous pressure, and ongoing revisions of specifications. You are all so valuable, and you tolerate our fantasies, near-sightedness, and misunderstandings of what it takes to launch a project. So, in a way, this is a salute to IT people everywhere, who struggle to meet our demands under intense conditions and somewhat crazy expectations. I know we are all sometimes referred to as “users” – those nutsy people who have no clue what to do with computers and software and hardware. But that is why we need YOU guys. S-M-O-O-T-C-H! I have a strong suspicion that Agile Development will be a boon to you all.

And I want to issue a thank you to all you men and women who keep us connected and keep us working. We really do appreciate you!

If your employees were to take a closed-door poll of how you’re doing as a manager, how do you think they would vote? Are you confident that you have their respect, their trust, their reliance on you to perform adequately as a manager? Or would you have misgivings, concerns about how you’d score? If you do have concerns, chances are that you already have an at least an inkling of what your drawbacks are. If your employees could fire you, would they? What’s your management style? Does it work?

Micromanager
Do you feel that you must be involved at all levels in order for any project to be completed in a timely, efficient, and productive manner? Do you suspect that without your attention to all the details, the project could not be completed? Are you involved with every project at the same level of intensity and intervention? You may be doing your team a big disservice by demonstrating that you obviously do not have enough trust in their experience and know-how to carry out a project on their own. While a manager should give project definitions and goal-setting directives, you are killing initiative and the sense of responsibility your team should have if you get yourself overly involved. It’s fine to set delivery dates and allocate certain tasks, as well as to ask for updates on how the effort is going. It is not fine to demonstrate that you have little faith in their ability to complete the task at hand unless the reins are all in your hand.

Directorial and non-inclusive

You call all the shots, and truthfully are not interested in “group participation” or input, not even enough to fake it, because you are sure you are the only one with all the answers. You don’t even give lip service to “teamwork” because you have no desire to let it get started in your management system, to slowly creep into a system that is just fine the way it is [as far as you're concerned] — with you in charge and calling all the shots.

If you start to weaken and let everyone else’s ideas go into the pot, you’ve lost all control, right? Or are you just so afraid of anyone questioning your methods and shining a spotlight on your failures?

One of the other sinister results of this kind of leadership is the fact that you have locked out everyone else’s ability to shine — even their DESIRE to shine.

Once again, remember: it’s not all about you — it’s about your team. But if, by some magic, your team is highly regarded, it will reflect on you. Fascinating concept — yes? By stepping back and letting the light shine on your great team, you still win.

One of the less than sound moves a leader or manager can make is to be afraid of admitting when they’re wrong. Many bad mistakes are made when an idea or vision is held on to tenaciously just because it is your own. Truly great managers are those who want to examine a policy from all angles before finalizing a decision. You put together what you believe is a team made up of highly creative and hard-working individuals. The purpose of doing that is to achieve access to the brightest and the best ideas to help you sharpen your decision-making practices, so why not take advantage of your assets?

Most of us need and want to look at issues from many sides and consider the possible repercussions of our policies before they are set in stone. There is wisdom in gathering alternate views and considering suggested alternatives. One of the key rewards in listening and reviewing additional points of view is that people buy into policies they have contributed ideas to. It’s that simple. They also take ownership of ideas that make sense to them and seem possible to carry out. The trouble with top-down decision-making is that it’s hard to enforce if it doesn’t make sense to the people who must carry it out. Unfortunately, too often one of the strong reasons people want to manage other people is so they can make decisions for those people based solely on what they themselves want. Too often, when the policies or implementation doesn’t work out, it’s those other people who get blamed for the failure.

The failure is not simply a policy that doesn’t work. The failure is a loss of trust, a discouragement of sharing ideas, and to put it bluntly, a lack of faith in your judgment. That doesn’t mean everyone expects you to be right all the time — they don’t. They simply expect you to listen, to ponder, to be open to other ideas.

When we talk of good management, the same terms come up again and again: trust, communication, inclusion, employee engagement.

While looking around the web and thinking about leadership topics, I came upon this article about employee loyalty and thought it well-written and thoughtful, so I wanted to share it with you all. So I’ve copied it here and, of course, credited the writer. It reminded me of how years ago, when my husband and I had our own typesetting company, one of our employees referred to it as a “sweet shop”. When we asked him what he meant, he told us it was the fact that “when you come into work, you feel like you’re home.” That feeling promotes a sense of loyalty that is as strong as steel. So that is why this article interested me. Without further rambling on my part, here it is.

Back in 2008, my firm was asked by The Lane Construction Corporation to conduct a survey of their employees on the topic of loyalty. The results of the survey, and the additional unanswered questions that were raised by them, have been the subject of much of my thinking time ever since. While I have formulated many theories on how Lane’s culture of loyalty developed, the one conclusion that can be drawn is that the culture is unique and worthy of being documented.

Background

Prior to conducting the survey, loyalty had been extensively discussed and debated by Lane’s management, primarily during planning sessions. Management felt that the company’s culture was strong and formed the foundation for aggressive growth. The company had pursued growth through internal channels, as well as acquisitions, without a deterioration of quality or an undue strain on their infrastructure. The growth had led to improved financial performance, and it was only natural that management wanted to continue on that path. They felt that the company’s culture was strong and able to support further expansion, but they wanted to be sure. In addition, they simply wanted to confirm that all employees felt about Lane the same way they did. Therefore, they decided to undertake a double-blind survey of all employees that would assess the strength of their culture and the loyalty of their employees. At the time of the survey, Lane had approximately 1,200 employees.

The survey was conducted online in a manner that completely preserved the confidentiality of the participants. All programs and databases were deployed on our servers, under a sub-domain web address that was secured. Participants were given unique user names and passwords, to ensure that there was no unauthorized access to the website. However, once access to the website was granted, there was no attempt to attribute answers to survey questions to specific individuals. No session data were maintained, and no cookies were set. In essence, all reasonable steps were taken to ensure that participants could submit their responses to survey questions in a totally anonymous fashion. The goal was to ensure that participants answered survey questions openly and honestly, without any fear of possible reprisal.

Survey Results

To some of us, the survey results were nothing short of astounding. A full 75% of all participants responded that they were totally loyal to Lane, and would not even consider offers from other companies under any circumstances, even if those offers were for better opportunities or higher compensation. Many of us feel a sense of loyalty to the company for which we work, but most of us would be excited for an offer of a better job or higher compensation. Not at Lane. Three quarters of Lane employees said they would not leave under any circumstances. The remaining 25% of employees said they considered themselves totally loyal to Lane, but would consider offers for better opportunities or higher compensation. In our experience, the views of this remaining 25% are more reflective of almost all employees at other companies.

The survey touched on several other topics related to loyalty, but it was the main results of the survey that caused us to pause and consider the implications for Lane. Immediately, we began asking ourselves obvious questions, such as:

* How did this type of culture develop at Lane?
* Does Lane’s culture provide them with a competitive advantage?
* Can the culture be sustained?

In the remainder of this document, we will try to explore each of these questions in a little more depth.

How Did Lane’s Culture Develop?

No one at Lane seems to be able to answer this question, but employees seem to know that the culture is real, and that it has been there for a long time. The culture seems to be a natural assumed part of their everyday working life at Lane. The Lane Construction Corporation was founded in 1890, and it would not be surprising to us if it were learned that the company’s culture stemmed from those early days.

One symbol of the culture is Lane’s published Mission, Vision, and Values Statement. Care for People is clearly spelled out in the Values Statement. We believe that these types of corporate documents are important to defining and developing a culture. However, even more importantly, Lane seems to have lived up to their stated values over many years. When asked to provide examples of instances when Lane demonstrated their values to them, employees cited numerous times when the company continued to pay them during periods when construction projects were halted for various reasons. They also cited numerous situations when the company came to their aid during periods of personal tragedy. Therefore, it is our conclusion, that one element that has contributed to the development of Lane’s culture is a clearly stated set of values regarding people. In addition, the company seems to have adhered strongly to those stated values, even though other decisions may have been easier and less expensive. In other words, the company has “walked the talk”.

Legacy is certainly another element that has played a role in the development of Lane’s culture. A high percentage of employees have been with Lane for many years, and in some cases, through generations of families. A case in point is David Benton. David is currently Executive Vice President of Lane’s Southern Division, and he was the sponsor of the survey of employees that we conducted. David has been with Lane for over 30 years. His father was with Lane for over 40 years. His brother is currently with Lane, has been there for over 40 years. His father-in-law was with Lane for over 40 years. His brother-in-law is currently with Lane, and has been there over 20 years. David’s legacy at Lane may be somewhat extreme when viewed against the average employee at Lane. However, there are numerous examples where multiple members of the same family worked at Lane for at least some period of time. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that many employees view Lane as something more than just a place to work. The company is linked to the family history of many employees, and that has certainly contributed to the development of the Lane culture.

Does Lane’s Culture Provide a Competitive Advantage?

There is no doubt that Lane’s culture is a strategic asset. Most companies with which I am familiar would deeply covet such a culture. It is also easy to conclude that Lane’s culture provides the company with operational strengths on a day-to-day basis that are just not present in other companies. However, for a strategic asset to become a competitive advantage, it must be able to be leveraged in the marketplace. It also must be visible and evident to customers, suppliers, and competitors. When viewed in this context, the answer to this key question is not so clear.

Lane currently acquires almost all of its business through government sponsored bids. In the bidding process, as long as all bidders can demonstrate the technical ability to do the job, the lowest bid wins. Having employees that are more experienced in the company’s methods than those of competitors does not necessarily translate directly to lower costs. A highly experienced workforce would probably translate better to a company strategy of higher quality, rather than one of low cost producer. However, Lane’s experienced workforce does lower costs of a project in an indirect way. The higher level of knowledge and experience on a project reduces the amount of rework that must be done, the processes are cleaner, and fewer mistakes are made. Nevertheless, these attributes do not necessarily lead to a low cost bid on a project, and any government entity that is choosing a vendor for a project would be hard pressed to select one that is not the lowest bidder.

It is our conclusion that while Lane’s culture certainly provides the company with operational strengths and flexibility, it does not provide a strategic competitive advantage in the markets where Lane currently competes. This would likely change if Lane decides at some point to enter markets where quality of work is paramount to winning jobs.

Can Lane’s Culture be Sustained?

Another obvious question that comes to mind when being exposed to such a unique culture as Lane’s, is how long can this last? There is no way of predicting, but it seems to have lasted a long time at this point. One way that strong cultures get changed and diluted is through mergers and acquisitions. Yet, Lane has made many acquisitions over the years, and has folded them into the company and their culture very effectively. The Lane culture appears to exist everywhere in the company, regardless of how employees came to be part of Lane.

In fact, Lane’s culture was probably a strength when integrating acquisitions. Seeing and meeting large groups of loyal, dedicated Lane employees would have to ease the anxieties of employees whose companies were being acquired.

Lane has grown significantly over the past several years, through internal growth as well as acquisitions. During that growth, the company has done a masterful job of maintaining the strength of their culture. However, the question at hand is can it continue? There is no doubt that the company wants to continue to grow, and more acquisitions seem likely. Logic would say that further growth over time, especially through acquisitions, will lead to dilution of culture, regardless of how strong that culture might be. Our guess is that Lane’s culture will evolve over time, as is only natural, but most of the major attributes of the culture will be carried forward. The culture is so strong at Lane that it is impossible to believe it will totally disappear within the foreseeable future.

* * * * * *

The culture of loyalty is extremely strong at Lane. In our view, it is one of a kind. It took decades to develop, but was certainly guided by the company establishing values that it thought were right, and then living up to those values. While the culture provides a wealth of operating advantages to the company on a day-to-day basis, it does not necessarily create a competitive advantage in the market in which Lane currently does business. However, the culture is strong enough to be a competitive advantage should Lane decide to enter different types of markets. We believe the culture is so strong at Lane that we would not bet against it surviving over the long term. It has already survived through numerous growing pains, business pressures, and economic cycles. In our opinion, the culture and the company will go hand-in-hand for many more decades into the future.

McGee Partners LLC is a professional services firm located in Avon, Connecticut. The firm offers professional services in the areas of business management, financial management, and business improvements. More information about McGee Partners can be found on their website at http://mcgeepartners.net William M. (Bill) McGee is a Managing Partner with the firm and led the survey on loyalty for Lane.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=William_McGee

In this episode, Chris McCann, President and COO of 1-800-FLOWERS, America’s largest florist and online gift shop, goes undercover to try and understand what practices the company is lacking in and how to battle the image of his company as simply an internet business.

A little background information: His older brother, James McCann, started his chain of florist shops — at the time known as Flora Plenty — in the New York City Metropolitan area in 1976. In 1986, he made the important decision to acquire the 1-800-flowers phone number and changed the company name. They were reportedly the first company to incorporate a toll-free number into their business name. They were no stranger to leadership.

Their vision of where business was headed had them on the internet in the 1990s. They have been around for 33 years and have grown to a billion dollars in annual sales. They pride themselves on quality and in knowing who their core customers are. And they know how to keep their costs in line. They had 5 service centers a few years ago and were able to cut that down to 2, offering their employees the ability to work from home and make more money. You’ll recognize some of their companies immediately — Fannie May Confections, the Wine Tasting Network, the Popcorn Factory, Plow & Hearth.

They obviously know how to run a successful business, but they wanted to know firsthand where improvements could be made that would benefit the company and its employees. So Chris went undercover, and spent a week going to several 1-800-flowers locations. He discovered the reason why one of their most profitable locations did so well. The woman who managed it, Dee, had built strong relationships with people in the community. She treated patrons like family and their loyalty made them staunch customers. Chris recalls that his brother Jim’s philosophy is to build relationships first, then do business. Chris considered her “fantastic”. In fact, he was so inspired by her, the company named a floral arrangement after her: Dee’s Paradise.

As usual, there are employees here who are of great value. The creative floral designer who paid for her own classes and seminars to keep up with new trends in the industry. The store manager who understands that well-to=-do potential customers are put off by the company name, or don’t realize it’s an actual florist, not just an internet service. When an undercover boss is willing to go to the trenches, he leaves with a bundle of information which, if acted upon, will strengthen the company and create dedicated employees.

P.S. Chris did extremely well with the flowers, but not so good with the Fanny Mae chocolates. It was reminiscent of Lucy and Ethel’s I Love Lucy episode which took place in a candy factory. Neither one of them could keep up with the conveyor belt and ended up stuffing chocolates in their pockets and mouths and anyplace else they could think of.