Leadership

There are many downsides to working for a single company for 36 years as I did, but there are also some unique opportunities to observe things over time. Due to my longevity, I was able to observe numerous people over decades of their career and the way the company regarded them. The phenomenon that I found most disturbing was the early and mid-career “stars” who flamed out over time.

These were individuals who were regarded early in their careers as productive, high potential and great fits for the assignments given them. Later, they were regarded as mediocre and even dispensable. Often they left the company and then regained their productive trajectory in another company. Why? Being that the genetics of individuals do not change that fast, why did they go from high potential to low performers?

I had numerous situations where I had worked closely with a team of individuals and then got transferred to another job assignment and, therefore, would lose touch. It was uncanny that it was in those situations where significant time passed and the changes in reputation were not incrementally slow, but rather were startlingly transformed when I revisited them.

I also thought it was bizarre how the “what have you done for me lately?” attitude prevailed rather than any appreciation of past results and accomplishments. A history of success did not seem to carry very far. Often the new supervisor is more concerned about “what have you done for me?” versus “what have you done for the company.” As a result, past “stars” usually were starting over with each new boss. This leads to a situation where what was high potential under one leader can become a disappointment quickly under a new job […]

There are many traits that a leader must have and, certainly, among the most important are integrity, philosophical foundation, vision, quick learning ability, consistency in decision-making and emotional maturity. But the one characteristic I believe is critical to leadership is knowing when to engage personally with presence versus delegation.

The challenge with this issue is that you could err on either side. Engaging in trivial matters is wasteful leverage and undermining for subordinates. Failing to engage in large matters that affect the reputation and brand of the company is failing to do the job. I call the times when you personally engage and get out in front as “going into the fire.” I have also heard it referred to as “being on the coal face.”

The times when personal involvement is most appropriate can be best be described as true crisis. There is real risk to the company and its leader in these moments. If the leader does not fix the issue, there is no fall back. We saw this in the Exxon Valdez and BP Gulf Coast oil spills, when the CEOs went into the fire and did not perform well. In fact, they made things worse.

Most conservative corporate legal teams will advise against the top leaders engaging, both in the interest of protecting them and putting them in reserve. If a subordinate takes on a crisis only to aggravate the problem, there is room to disavow and reverse, if you have a leader in reserve.

On first glance, this looks like a topic for CEOs, but frankly it applies to all levels of leadership. The only thing that changes in lower levels is the severity of the crisis. For instance, in a project, if a client […]