You should begin training the family member who is going to take over now. Many times I have gone into a company and Dad is really frustrated because Son or Daughter are not ready in his opinion. Usually it is because he has been treating them like a Son or Daughter rather than an employee/heir apparent.
If they are in the training phase and in some department or function within the company, they should be held to the same level of competency that any employee would. If they are acting like children or cannot do the job, either transfer them or discipline them or maybe both. They will never learn if you coddle them and allow them to be not held to the same level of maintaining the rules as anyone else. If they are doing well, promote them like anyone else, pay them like anyone else and give them the praise they deserve.
After working in all the functions in the business in one capacity or another, then bring them along with increasingly responsible positions. Remember you should have already told your top management what you are doing. They should know your intentions. That may create a problem. If you have someone really good and you really trust them and they are doing a great job. increase their responsibilities too. Probably, have your heir apparent report to them to learn how to manage and gain the respect of others. Your family member may become frustrated because they have to follow someone else's orders and, after all, they are family, they are flesh and blood. Well too bad. Until they act like and perform like the best employees you have, they should not be promoted or given any special treatment. I promise you, the children of owners that have been left to their own devices loose the respect of the employees, never get the respect of suppliers/bankers/investors and they never experience the business like they should. Sure it is tough, but was it easy for you? Did you have to work hard for what you have? So should the kids.
Finally, if the family member is anxious to take over, you should be excited for them and glad they are so interested, but do not give in. Make sure, no matter what, they are fully integrated, have the respect of their peers and are as knowledgeable as anyone else in the company on its products/services, methodology, strategic plan, strategic initiatives and the budget/financial statements. They can do it, but you must be the overseer of their training and make sure they become an owner at the right time.
What do you think?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Family Business Helper Part 1
As a consultant and business owner, I have been in 12 family owned business in one capacity or another-23 different assignments. In that time, I have seen good ones, bad ones, successful ones, unsuccessful ones, well run and poorly run, profitable and unprofitable, those that keep up with the times and those that do not and, unfortunately, most of all....... businesses that were fairly well run and profitable turned over to the kids only to be run right into the ground. Some times I have come in to save them, some times to reorganize them and sometimes to put them in bankruptcy and see what could be salvaged (have actually salvaged the entire business on occasion).
So here is my advice if you have a family business:
1. If you have a successor, decide who that is right now. If you do not, see #7 below.
2. Begin training that person to replace you right now.
3. Make that person work every function in the company until they realize that it takes all the functions in the company to make it work. Pay them like everyone else in those categories. If they need special treatment or arrangements, do that only if you have to and do confidentially even if you have to do it personally.
4. Make sure, no matter what, they get sales experience and know the difference between sales and marketing. Even if they are not sales people, make them do it, make them "carry the bag" if you will. It would be great if they had to make cold calls and travel.
5. When the time is right (I will describe that later) give them a title that lets everyone know they are the heir apparent. Not such a large title that they cannot be promoted through a series of events, but something significant.
6. Progressively increase their responsibility until you name them President and COO. You remain Chairman and CEO until you retire. When you do this, be there to help not direct and let them lead no matter how hard it is.
7. If you do not have a relative that is going to take over, begin looking for your heir at least 5 years before you are going to retire. It might take more than one to work out. Family owned businesses have their own idiosyncrasies usually some of which are not normal business methodology so be ready to change.
So lets elaborate on #1. If you have kids in the business and you want one of them to take over (they cannot all take over) make sure that they REALLY want to stay in the business. Do not ASSUME that they all want to be in the business. All of Warren Buffets children could have been in the business I suppose, but only one is. If there is more than one, without regard for age/education, pick the one who works best with your people after you have seen them all in action. If you only have one child and he or she wants to be in the business, get them a great education (as far as they can go) and begin training them right now. Let them work summers, Christmas holidays, etc. Then start them out learning the product/service and work their way up through all facets of the business. If you are 20 years from retirement, it is not too early to start.
Next make a plan for the heir apparent to assume the throne (the job not the executive bathroom LOL). Identifying the person becomes the easy part, training them according to a plan may be tougher, but in my experience the single biggest reason children assuming the helm of a company is that they were not properly trained and the owner/founder/parent was so busy running the business the way they always have that when they were ready to back off/retire the kids were not ready to take over. Most of the businesses that the kids ended up running into the ground were because they did not know the intricacies of running the business that the owner held dear and did not pass on OR the business needed so much upgrading that by the time the kids tried it was too late. Even more common was the kid had be coddled through the business and put in charge right away. They were GIVEN EVERYTHING and then GIVEN the business and they had no idea of the fiscal responsibilities of the business.
So choose early, train properly, treat them like employees at first and then as owners and then get out of the way!
What do you think?
So here is my advice if you have a family business:
1. If you have a successor, decide who that is right now. If you do not, see #7 below.
2. Begin training that person to replace you right now.
3. Make that person work every function in the company until they realize that it takes all the functions in the company to make it work. Pay them like everyone else in those categories. If they need special treatment or arrangements, do that only if you have to and do confidentially even if you have to do it personally.
4. Make sure, no matter what, they get sales experience and know the difference between sales and marketing. Even if they are not sales people, make them do it, make them "carry the bag" if you will. It would be great if they had to make cold calls and travel.
5. When the time is right (I will describe that later) give them a title that lets everyone know they are the heir apparent. Not such a large title that they cannot be promoted through a series of events, but something significant.
6. Progressively increase their responsibility until you name them President and COO. You remain Chairman and CEO until you retire. When you do this, be there to help not direct and let them lead no matter how hard it is.
7. If you do not have a relative that is going to take over, begin looking for your heir at least 5 years before you are going to retire. It might take more than one to work out. Family owned businesses have their own idiosyncrasies usually some of which are not normal business methodology so be ready to change.
So lets elaborate on #1. If you have kids in the business and you want one of them to take over (they cannot all take over) make sure that they REALLY want to stay in the business. Do not ASSUME that they all want to be in the business. All of Warren Buffets children could have been in the business I suppose, but only one is. If there is more than one, without regard for age/education, pick the one who works best with your people after you have seen them all in action. If you only have one child and he or she wants to be in the business, get them a great education (as far as they can go) and begin training them right now. Let them work summers, Christmas holidays, etc. Then start them out learning the product/service and work their way up through all facets of the business. If you are 20 years from retirement, it is not too early to start.
Next make a plan for the heir apparent to assume the throne (the job not the executive bathroom LOL). Identifying the person becomes the easy part, training them according to a plan may be tougher, but in my experience the single biggest reason children assuming the helm of a company is that they were not properly trained and the owner/founder/parent was so busy running the business the way they always have that when they were ready to back off/retire the kids were not ready to take over. Most of the businesses that the kids ended up running into the ground were because they did not know the intricacies of running the business that the owner held dear and did not pass on OR the business needed so much upgrading that by the time the kids tried it was too late. Even more common was the kid had be coddled through the business and put in charge right away. They were GIVEN EVERYTHING and then GIVEN the business and they had no idea of the fiscal responsibilities of the business.
So choose early, train properly, treat them like employees at first and then as owners and then get out of the way!
What do you think?
Monday, October 13, 2008
I was asked, so here is my answer on election and economy
My nephew sent me an e-mail that said "I have a friend is is unsure who to vote for and she is very concerned about how they might handle the economy in the next 4 years.". I wrote the following answer:
Well, I would tell her not to panic, first of all. The market will survive and so will the economy. Neither candidate for President can do ANYTHING on their own. Whoever is elected must work with Congress to make things happen. So be very careful who you vote for for the House of Representatives and Senate. The President, by himself, can do nothing!!!
Secondly I would tell her to vote for the person who is telling the truth as best we can determine it. Thirdly, vote for the person who is a proven leader who will keep us safe and will surround themselves with the most experienced people who are not yes men. Lastly, I would vote for someone who has a proven record of working with both parties in the country's best interest. (By the way, Sarah Palin might be the best leader of the bunch!) Someone who is not afraid to pray and allow God to be part of the process.
We should pray for the country right now and for this election. Remember the Bible says that the effective, fervent pray of His people avails much!
I do not have any problem not voting for Obama but I did have a problem voting for McCain! Then I heard his interview with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church early in this campaign. Obama talked from the theoretical, McCain talked from the experiential. Once I got past the rhetoric of Obama (I still think he is a closet Muslim and aspires to Rev. Wrightesq view of America and only talks patriotically when is to his advantage) and became very satisfied with the decisiveness and relative candor of McCain.
Sorry for the long answer. You are probably sorry you asked, huh?
Thanks for asking! In the next couple of days I am going to deal with this from the small business perspective in my blog.
From a small businessman's point of view and also that of a "normal" citizen, I blows me away to hear the candidates telling us what they are going to do for the economy. As President, by themselves, what can they do?!? NOTHING. They cannot change laws, pass legislation, interpret the Constitution, set up new methods, add or delete departments or determine what government intervention is going to occur tax-wise or economy related. In order to do these things they must cajole, collaborate and work with Congress. IT TAKES LEADERSHIP NOT RHETORIC! Can he add staff, move staff, eliminate staff, sure---below a certain level. Above a certain level that also requires Congressional approval. I mean no disrespect to the President at all. As a matter of fact, I have incredible admiration and respect for the position of President of the United States. Bill Clinton was a terrible person with little or no morals and he was a scheming, conniving and impeached person, but I still respected him in the position of POTUS (President of the United States).
See, all the promises they are making and all the speeches they are giving and all the things they say they are going to do are not worth the air they take up if the person is not honest, of great character and has integrity. Incidental, honesty and integrity are not relative terms. You either are are you are not. Someone told me once that they were "basically honest". That means they were dishonest. You either are or you are not. So, instead of listening to what they say they are going to do. try to determine who is being honest and who has integrity. Who would lay their life down for the country, who would put country first no matter what, who has experience (not experience being President, nobody has that until they get in the office unless they have been President before) in life and who will stand up for "what" is right, not "who" is right when it comes to our national security and our electorates best interests.
Next, basically leave the economy alone. The panic we are seeing in the minds of the Congress is conjured up in order to cast blame on party lines. Are there problems? Absolutely. Does it require government intervention? Possibly but not permanently. Do we need some more regulation on Wall Street? Unfortunately, yes. Without some restraint, GREED takes over. The entire Wall Street debacle that is really hurting Main Street, is as a result of GREED. GREED! Not George Bush or the last 8 years (2 of which had a Democratically controlled Congress remember). What can a guy do who makes $130,000,000 per year that he could not do at $3,000,000. I could easily live on either couldn't you? I am a Free Enterprise person, but the people we trusted in business got GREEDY and it affected us all. That is exactly what is happening to the automotive industry now. GREED but this time not only by the CEO's but by the unions as well. Sure they should want the best for the people they represent, but not a the expense of everyone else in the country and maybe the world.
As Kelly Ogle (Oklahoma City news anchor)would say, "That's my 2 cents"! What do you think?
Well, I would tell her not to panic, first of all. The market will survive and so will the economy. Neither candidate for President can do ANYTHING on their own. Whoever is elected must work with Congress to make things happen. So be very careful who you vote for for the House of Representatives and Senate. The President, by himself, can do nothing!!!
Secondly I would tell her to vote for the person who is telling the truth as best we can determine it. Thirdly, vote for the person who is a proven leader who will keep us safe and will surround themselves with the most experienced people who are not yes men. Lastly, I would vote for someone who has a proven record of working with both parties in the country's best interest. (By the way, Sarah Palin might be the best leader of the bunch!) Someone who is not afraid to pray and allow God to be part of the process.
We should pray for the country right now and for this election. Remember the Bible says that the effective, fervent pray of His people avails much!
I do not have any problem not voting for Obama but I did have a problem voting for McCain! Then I heard his interview with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church early in this campaign. Obama talked from the theoretical, McCain talked from the experiential. Once I got past the rhetoric of Obama (I still think he is a closet Muslim and aspires to Rev. Wrightesq view of America and only talks patriotically when is to his advantage) and became very satisfied with the decisiveness and relative candor of McCain.
Sorry for the long answer. You are probably sorry you asked, huh?
Thanks for asking! In the next couple of days I am going to deal with this from the small business perspective in my blog.
From a small businessman's point of view and also that of a "normal" citizen, I blows me away to hear the candidates telling us what they are going to do for the economy. As President, by themselves, what can they do?!? NOTHING. They cannot change laws, pass legislation, interpret the Constitution, set up new methods, add or delete departments or determine what government intervention is going to occur tax-wise or economy related. In order to do these things they must cajole, collaborate and work with Congress. IT TAKES LEADERSHIP NOT RHETORIC! Can he add staff, move staff, eliminate staff, sure---below a certain level. Above a certain level that also requires Congressional approval. I mean no disrespect to the President at all. As a matter of fact, I have incredible admiration and respect for the position of President of the United States. Bill Clinton was a terrible person with little or no morals and he was a scheming, conniving and impeached person, but I still respected him in the position of POTUS (President of the United States).
See, all the promises they are making and all the speeches they are giving and all the things they say they are going to do are not worth the air they take up if the person is not honest, of great character and has integrity. Incidental, honesty and integrity are not relative terms. You either are are you are not. Someone told me once that they were "basically honest". That means they were dishonest. You either are or you are not. So, instead of listening to what they say they are going to do. try to determine who is being honest and who has integrity. Who would lay their life down for the country, who would put country first no matter what, who has experience (not experience being President, nobody has that until they get in the office unless they have been President before) in life and who will stand up for "what" is right, not "who" is right when it comes to our national security and our electorates best interests.
Next, basically leave the economy alone. The panic we are seeing in the minds of the Congress is conjured up in order to cast blame on party lines. Are there problems? Absolutely. Does it require government intervention? Possibly but not permanently. Do we need some more regulation on Wall Street? Unfortunately, yes. Without some restraint, GREED takes over. The entire Wall Street debacle that is really hurting Main Street, is as a result of GREED. GREED! Not George Bush or the last 8 years (2 of which had a Democratically controlled Congress remember). What can a guy do who makes $130,000,000 per year that he could not do at $3,000,000. I could easily live on either couldn't you? I am a Free Enterprise person, but the people we trusted in business got GREEDY and it affected us all. That is exactly what is happening to the automotive industry now. GREED but this time not only by the CEO's but by the unions as well. Sure they should want the best for the people they represent, but not a the expense of everyone else in the country and maybe the world.
As Kelly Ogle (Oklahoma City news anchor)would say, "That's my 2 cents"! What do you think?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Family business-how is nepotism working?
I have been in several family owned businesses. Some of them good, some of them not so good, some of them bad. No matter what the assignment is that I have taken at the family owned company, almost always, the owners want me to comment (or analyze) how the family is doing ESPECIALLY if they are employing their kids. It is very dangerous for a consultant because seldom do the answers please the owners.
Let me give you my perspective on employing family members in a family owned business. It is threefold:
1. If you do it, do it right. The best way is for the relatives, especially kids, to function in the business is for them to start at the lowest levels in the company and gradually move up. It is really good if they can work is many areas of the company. I was involved with one company where all 3 sons were in the business and all 3 had to work in Sales, Accounting, HR, the warehouse, go out in the field and work all shifts. Soon they discovered who was there to build a career and who was there to get on Daddy's dole.
2. If the family member is getting special treatment, tell everyone up front. When I coached Baseball, I would have a meeting every year with the parents. It was a mandatory meeting. In that meeting I told the parents that although I loved Baseball, I was coaching because I wanted to coach my son. I told them that he would play every game unless he was hurt or ill and if they didn't like that, they might be better served by another team. I coached that team for 13 years and had 8 of the original 14 boys the last year. If your kid (or other relative) is going to get his positions because he is related to you, tell people and then they will learn to live with it. If your kid or relative is a jerk, either terminate them or otherwise remove them. My son understood on our ball team that I expected him to set the example for everyone else. If your kid cannot do that, do not put them in a job of any kind.
3. Blood is thicker than water, as the old adage states. It really is. If you cannot terminate your relative, especially your kids, do not hire them at all. I recently had a client that had children, brothers, uncles, and a grandfather employed. They, except for one, were model employees because they had seen their Mom and Dad terminate relatives who thought that they were entitled to their job and above the rules. The employee manual should apply to everyone including the family or you will loose the good employees and others will just tolerate the family.
What about pay. Pay them according to their need and what you agreed to. Pay them what everyone else in that job would get. If you are going to pay them more or give them more or different benefits, don't brag about it and don't let the relative brag about it. If they are getting an extra few days vacation because they are family, when someone asks why, tell them it is because they are family and being part of the family does have it's privileges. That assumes, of course, that the relative isn't rubbing every one's nose in his being favored. If he does, fire 'em.
So, with that said, it has been my experience to be very careful answering the question about how a relative is doing, especially a kid. But answer I must and I do it frankly and to the point. What I usually try to do unless the kid is a total jerk, is tell them what the relative is doing that is good and what is bad and what can be done to improve them. Improving them might be suggesting that they go to work for someone who is not family and see what the real world is like. Usually relatives coming into the business after having worked at other places are respectful of others and understand their position. If they do not understand how to assimilate themselves, terminate them quickly.
What do you think?
Let me give you my perspective on employing family members in a family owned business. It is threefold:
1. If you do it, do it right. The best way is for the relatives, especially kids, to function in the business is for them to start at the lowest levels in the company and gradually move up. It is really good if they can work is many areas of the company. I was involved with one company where all 3 sons were in the business and all 3 had to work in Sales, Accounting, HR, the warehouse, go out in the field and work all shifts. Soon they discovered who was there to build a career and who was there to get on Daddy's dole.
2. If the family member is getting special treatment, tell everyone up front. When I coached Baseball, I would have a meeting every year with the parents. It was a mandatory meeting. In that meeting I told the parents that although I loved Baseball, I was coaching because I wanted to coach my son. I told them that he would play every game unless he was hurt or ill and if they didn't like that, they might be better served by another team. I coached that team for 13 years and had 8 of the original 14 boys the last year. If your kid (or other relative) is going to get his positions because he is related to you, tell people and then they will learn to live with it. If your kid or relative is a jerk, either terminate them or otherwise remove them. My son understood on our ball team that I expected him to set the example for everyone else. If your kid cannot do that, do not put them in a job of any kind.
3. Blood is thicker than water, as the old adage states. It really is. If you cannot terminate your relative, especially your kids, do not hire them at all. I recently had a client that had children, brothers, uncles, and a grandfather employed. They, except for one, were model employees because they had seen their Mom and Dad terminate relatives who thought that they were entitled to their job and above the rules. The employee manual should apply to everyone including the family or you will loose the good employees and others will just tolerate the family.
What about pay. Pay them according to their need and what you agreed to. Pay them what everyone else in that job would get. If you are going to pay them more or give them more or different benefits, don't brag about it and don't let the relative brag about it. If they are getting an extra few days vacation because they are family, when someone asks why, tell them it is because they are family and being part of the family does have it's privileges. That assumes, of course, that the relative isn't rubbing every one's nose in his being favored. If he does, fire 'em.
So, with that said, it has been my experience to be very careful answering the question about how a relative is doing, especially a kid. But answer I must and I do it frankly and to the point. What I usually try to do unless the kid is a total jerk, is tell them what the relative is doing that is good and what is bad and what can be done to improve them. Improving them might be suggesting that they go to work for someone who is not family and see what the real world is like. Usually relatives coming into the business after having worked at other places are respectful of others and understand their position. If they do not understand how to assimilate themselves, terminate them quickly.
What do you think?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Shake things up!
Really? Not usually. In small and family owned businesses, the owners/senior management are usually proud of what they have done and bring a consultant in to hear that said to them. In my experience these people (especially owners) may have a single problem that has their attention and they do not feel that they will get an objective opinion from the current staff (or they lack adequate staff) so they call me. With a few exceptions, when we agree on what I am going to do, I am almost always asked to "shake things up", "look at what you need to" for resolving this problem and while you are at it, look at the management staff and do not be their friend.
One of the things, among many, that I do well is that I am a quick study. In my last assignment, for example, they wanted a preliminary report in 30 days. They had one in 6 days. We had a plan in place in 2 weeks and were working that plan almost immediately. At the end of 30 days I called a meeting and presented a comprehensive plan that included not only solving the problem and a reorganization plan for that function as well, but also a plan for the future that would help them grow or be ready for growth. The plan was approved and we moved on to the "shake things up" part of the deal. That is where the rub came in. I received accolades, complimentary e-mails and they discussed the possibility of me coming on board as a full time employee. Things were great.
A couple of weeks later I had a meeting with the CEO, President and EVP. I had had individual meetings with each of them and had told them about organizational flaws I had discovered, procedural and policy inconsistencies that existed and little or no real honest to God Sales and Marketing effort (most of which was, ostensibly, being done by the owners kids). Now I was in trouble. I gave them a "shake things up" plan and suggested methods for developing a Strategic Plan supported by certain Strategic Initiatives. It was my opinion that they had built a good business based not on sound business principles, but by the grace of God. Although they responded well to Strategic Plan idea and hired a person to spearhead that effort, they did not like being confronted with decreasing market share, little or no sales training, at least one top manager who was so enamored by his title and power, the CEO had, over the years, taken away all departments reporting to this person except for one. Why? Because no one could work for him. He thought that he was "second in command" and acted like it. Although everyone in the company respected his title, they did not respect him.
So, they decided that I should continue the Interim Executive position until a determination could be made about the person they wanted to take the job. They had actually given him the job and then taken it away from him. I worked with the guy and determined that their criticisms of him (lack of initiative, poor leadership, too much attention to detail, family problems and ability to manage) were only partially well founded. They had provided him no training, had done what Laurence Peter called in this book "The Peter Principle", lateral arabesque by promoting him rather than deal with him. He had tremendous knowledge of their computer system, the departmental functions but had always worked for someone who made the decisions for him. I changed that, worked with the guy, gave him necessary training, made him be involved in all decisions and refocused his view from that of a Supervisor to that of a VP. I taught him to have a company view rather than only a department view. When management asked him a long term question, he answered it with details rather than a plan. Finally, I told their management that this man was capable of being the head of the function. However, they needed to set the example by having company goals and objectives based on Strategic Plan. They needed to invest in him and provide him with the opportunity to be successful not just dutiful.
So much for shaking things up. Remember the e-mail to the President from yesterdays posting? That, coupled with the "shake up" plan did me in. They enjoyed talking about what a great company they had, what hard times they had had, how well known and respected they were among their clients (the 4 largest of which had left for the competition in the last 12 months) and they were perfectly organized as is. End of contract! You know, the fact is that they did have a very good company but not a great company, they had business for the foreseeable future, but they were not built to last and they had some really good people, but many had reached their levels of incompetence (see "The Peter Principle" again). They did not want help they wanted to be stroked. I tried to do all the stroking I could, but, if my objective was a long term deal, I should not have taken the "shake things up" instruction seriously. They will still tell you today that I really helped them and they are doing the things I suggested. I received an e-mail from the President last week saying those exact same things. Amazing.
The beauty of consulting. You get paid whether or not they agree. But, it is hard not to be personally disappointed when you know what you are telling them will work and the reason they do not do what needs to be done is because of ego or just no guts!
What do you thing? Tomorrow number 3!
One of the things, among many, that I do well is that I am a quick study. In my last assignment, for example, they wanted a preliminary report in 30 days. They had one in 6 days. We had a plan in place in 2 weeks and were working that plan almost immediately. At the end of 30 days I called a meeting and presented a comprehensive plan that included not only solving the problem and a reorganization plan for that function as well, but also a plan for the future that would help them grow or be ready for growth. The plan was approved and we moved on to the "shake things up" part of the deal. That is where the rub came in. I received accolades, complimentary e-mails and they discussed the possibility of me coming on board as a full time employee. Things were great.
A couple of weeks later I had a meeting with the CEO, President and EVP. I had had individual meetings with each of them and had told them about organizational flaws I had discovered, procedural and policy inconsistencies that existed and little or no real honest to God Sales and Marketing effort (most of which was, ostensibly, being done by the owners kids). Now I was in trouble. I gave them a "shake things up" plan and suggested methods for developing a Strategic Plan supported by certain Strategic Initiatives. It was my opinion that they had built a good business based not on sound business principles, but by the grace of God. Although they responded well to Strategic Plan idea and hired a person to spearhead that effort, they did not like being confronted with decreasing market share, little or no sales training, at least one top manager who was so enamored by his title and power, the CEO had, over the years, taken away all departments reporting to this person except for one. Why? Because no one could work for him. He thought that he was "second in command" and acted like it. Although everyone in the company respected his title, they did not respect him.
So, they decided that I should continue the Interim Executive position until a determination could be made about the person they wanted to take the job. They had actually given him the job and then taken it away from him. I worked with the guy and determined that their criticisms of him (lack of initiative, poor leadership, too much attention to detail, family problems and ability to manage) were only partially well founded. They had provided him no training, had done what Laurence Peter called in this book "The Peter Principle", lateral arabesque by promoting him rather than deal with him. He had tremendous knowledge of their computer system, the departmental functions but had always worked for someone who made the decisions for him. I changed that, worked with the guy, gave him necessary training, made him be involved in all decisions and refocused his view from that of a Supervisor to that of a VP. I taught him to have a company view rather than only a department view. When management asked him a long term question, he answered it with details rather than a plan. Finally, I told their management that this man was capable of being the head of the function. However, they needed to set the example by having company goals and objectives based on Strategic Plan. They needed to invest in him and provide him with the opportunity to be successful not just dutiful.
So much for shaking things up. Remember the e-mail to the President from yesterdays posting? That, coupled with the "shake up" plan did me in. They enjoyed talking about what a great company they had, what hard times they had had, how well known and respected they were among their clients (the 4 largest of which had left for the competition in the last 12 months) and they were perfectly organized as is. End of contract! You know, the fact is that they did have a very good company but not a great company, they had business for the foreseeable future, but they were not built to last and they had some really good people, but many had reached their levels of incompetence (see "The Peter Principle" again). They did not want help they wanted to be stroked. I tried to do all the stroking I could, but, if my objective was a long term deal, I should not have taken the "shake things up" instruction seriously. They will still tell you today that I really helped them and they are doing the things I suggested. I received an e-mail from the President last week saying those exact same things. Amazing.
The beauty of consulting. You get paid whether or not they agree. But, it is hard not to be personally disappointed when you know what you are telling them will work and the reason they do not do what needs to be done is because of ego or just no guts!
What do you thing? Tomorrow number 3!
Monday, October 6, 2008
Tell me what you think? How to do it.
Probably, my most asked question from a client. Usually clients say three things to me at the outset of an assignment:
1. Tell us what you really think.
2. Shake things up. We are tired to the status quo!
3. This is a family owned business. I want to know about my kids (or other relatives) in
the business and how they are doing.
Very seldom, maybe never, do they really mean that. What they are really saying is:
1. Tell me what I want to hear!
2. Things are just fine the way they are, do not rock the boat.
3. My kids (or other family members) are immune from criticism or evaluation.
I thought that I would give you an example of all three of these from actual experience. Obviously, I have changed the names to protect the innocent. There have been many times that I believe that I have had my contract terminated because I answered these questions honestly and directly. Most of the time I try to "speak the truth in love" (that is from Ephesians in the Bible for you heathens LOL). Does not matter! It is always taken personally and usually dreadfully. Not always though. Some people appreciate not being a "yes man" and those have been really rewarding for everyone.
I wrote a letter to a company CEO that I had heard was having some internal problems. He and his wife owned the company and had done a very nice job of building a company with a great product/service, fair pricing and some pretty good people. The CEO called me and asked me to come in. I did and we agreed that I would be hired as an Interim Executive on a consulting basis. After being there about two months, I received an e-mail from the President (wife of the Chairman and CEO). She asked me to tell her my heart on an issue. I made two mistakes:
1. I should have called a meeting and talked to her face to face. That is what I am known for and what I usually do. But this time I responded via e-mail.
2. She did not want to know my heart, she wanted me to say that she had handled the situation well and everyone else was wrong. I did not do that. She was dead wrong and I told her so.
Should I have been kinder? Maybe. Should I have been less direct? Never. She took my comments as an accusation of misconduct and if we had been face to face, I am sure that what I was trying to get across would have been much clearer and much less accusatory. She could have seen my reactions and body language and I could have seen hers. She was a very direct person too. Usually direct, senior management people do not like being dealt with directly. They say they do, but what they really want is to be stroked for their brilliance or for building such a wonderful business. Usually, they do not like being wrong. In this case, the entire company had a huge problem with their identity as people being tied up in their titles. That is a subject to be dealt with later.
Always tell the truth, always be straight forward, but always do it in person.
What do you think? Tomorrow number 2.
1. Tell us what you really think.
2. Shake things up. We are tired to the status quo!
3. This is a family owned business. I want to know about my kids (or other relatives) in
the business and how they are doing.
Very seldom, maybe never, do they really mean that. What they are really saying is:
1. Tell me what I want to hear!
2. Things are just fine the way they are, do not rock the boat.
3. My kids (or other family members) are immune from criticism or evaluation.
I thought that I would give you an example of all three of these from actual experience. Obviously, I have changed the names to protect the innocent. There have been many times that I believe that I have had my contract terminated because I answered these questions honestly and directly. Most of the time I try to "speak the truth in love" (that is from Ephesians in the Bible for you heathens LOL). Does not matter! It is always taken personally and usually dreadfully. Not always though. Some people appreciate not being a "yes man" and those have been really rewarding for everyone.
I wrote a letter to a company CEO that I had heard was having some internal problems. He and his wife owned the company and had done a very nice job of building a company with a great product/service, fair pricing and some pretty good people. The CEO called me and asked me to come in. I did and we agreed that I would be hired as an Interim Executive on a consulting basis. After being there about two months, I received an e-mail from the President (wife of the Chairman and CEO). She asked me to tell her my heart on an issue. I made two mistakes:
1. I should have called a meeting and talked to her face to face. That is what I am known for and what I usually do. But this time I responded via e-mail.
2. She did not want to know my heart, she wanted me to say that she had handled the situation well and everyone else was wrong. I did not do that. She was dead wrong and I told her so.
Should I have been kinder? Maybe. Should I have been less direct? Never. She took my comments as an accusation of misconduct and if we had been face to face, I am sure that what I was trying to get across would have been much clearer and much less accusatory. She could have seen my reactions and body language and I could have seen hers. She was a very direct person too. Usually direct, senior management people do not like being dealt with directly. They say they do, but what they really want is to be stroked for their brilliance or for building such a wonderful business. Usually, they do not like being wrong. In this case, the entire company had a huge problem with their identity as people being tied up in their titles. That is a subject to be dealt with later.
Always tell the truth, always be straight forward, but always do it in person.
What do you think? Tomorrow number 2.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Owners: Do you want the truth?
I was talking to a small business owner client of mine the other day and he was complaining about what a terrible problem he was having with business falling off rapidly because his customers were so "annoying". I could not believe my ears. They were his customers, CUSTOMERS! Let them be annoying provided they still are customers and provide his living.
So I met with an associate of his and it turns out that the employees look bad, act bad and are condescending to the customers. They cuss, smoke and when they do provide service it is begrudgingly. So, I talked to the owner again. It was time for an attitude adjustment. Guess how the employees got such a bad attitude? From the owner and his management team. They all act like they are doing the customer a favor by being in business.
As usual, the owner asked me to "tell me what you really think". When am I going to learn. What they are really saying is "tell me what I want to hear", which I do not do. So I told him and his staff that they were the problem. They need to be customer oriented and provide the best possible service available. After all, what separates them from the other choices they have for the same service? The level of customer service and the desire for customer satisfaction.
Well it is too early to tell if they are going to take my suggestions or not. The beauty of being a consultant is that I get paid whether they take my advice or not. They appear to have understood and there are changes in process. I just hope it is not too late.
What do you think?
So I met with an associate of his and it turns out that the employees look bad, act bad and are condescending to the customers. They cuss, smoke and when they do provide service it is begrudgingly. So, I talked to the owner again. It was time for an attitude adjustment. Guess how the employees got such a bad attitude? From the owner and his management team. They all act like they are doing the customer a favor by being in business.
As usual, the owner asked me to "tell me what you really think". When am I going to learn. What they are really saying is "tell me what I want to hear", which I do not do. So I told him and his staff that they were the problem. They need to be customer oriented and provide the best possible service available. After all, what separates them from the other choices they have for the same service? The level of customer service and the desire for customer satisfaction.
Well it is too early to tell if they are going to take my suggestions or not. The beauty of being a consultant is that I get paid whether they take my advice or not. They appear to have understood and there are changes in process. I just hope it is not too late.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)