Work Matters

Tag: leadership

  • BP: Why can’t they say they are sorry and trying to make sure it will never happen again?

    As I read The new York Times and Wall Street Journal every day, I ended-up reading BP's huge "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response" ad twice today.  I suspect it was written by their legal department, as there are things it does not contain that really bug me and will bug others and — by the way, are bad crisis management, if you believe the best studies on what leaders can do to protect the reputation and long-term financial performance of their firms when the shit hits the fan (I talk about some of this research here and in links within it).

    1. There is not a hint of human compassion, it is cold, carefully crafted language. It simply lists facts, it offers no sympathy to the people who died, none to those whose livelihoods will be affected, and none about the animals who are dying.  The language is utterly without a hint of warmth or empathy for anyone.  This gives me the creeps and I believe reinforces the perception they are a cold heartless company with executives who care about no one but themselves.

    2. There is not a hint of an apology or admission of mistake.  The language is very indirect and legalistic. They say: "BP has taken full responsibility for dealing with the spill.  We are determined to do everything we can to minimize impact.  We will honor all legitimate claims."  Perhaps they can't apologize or admit error, but look at research on executives and firms that weather crises more effectively (a great example is Maple Leaf Foods, see the CEOs apology). Researchers who study errors or setbacks have shown that the problem with this strategy of pointing fingers at others and not accepting blame is that when you talk as if you are a hapless victim of a problem caused by others or by forces that no one can control (as BP seems to be doing), you also are seen as lacking the power to fix it…. it amplifies the perception that you are out of control and don't know what you are doing.

    3. Finally, and this is also consistent with research on how to deal with a crisis or failure, I see not even a hint in this statement that BP is doing everything (or anything) within its power to learn from this horrible spill so that it is unlikely to ever happen again, and if it does, so they will be able to respond more quickly and effectively next time. This kind of language and attitude is crucial for both perceptual and objective reasons.   From a perceptual standpoint, it conveys more compassion and also that all those people and animals will not have suffered in vain.   From an objective standpoint, clearly, there are many lessons from this fiasco, and any competently ran company learns from mistakes — indeed, I think all of us wonder what they might already be doing differently in their many other drilling platforms.  I think that talking about that would help them.

    There is plenty of blame to go around here, and I am sure that BP does not deserve all of it.  But I think they could handle both the optics and objective elements of this crisis far more effectively (And I wonder if in the end the lawyers' advice will cost them more money, as so many politicians and prosecutors will be motivated by their heartless response to go after them with special vehemence).

    No doubt, there are many facts I don't know about what is really happening.  But these omissions disturb me and, if you are a leader, you might want to use this as an opportunity to think about how you would handle such a PR nightmare if it hit your organization.  It is a lot cheaper and easier to learn from BP's errors than it your own.

  • The Power of the First Follower

    Check out this fantastic 3 minute TED video.  Derek Sivers provides a brilliant brief conceptual analysis, touching on points including:

    1. Leaders are over-rated, if someone does not follow, they are just lone nuts.

    2. The first follower is the one who creates a leader.

    3. The leader had the wisdom to treat the first follower as an equal, which encouraged him to join and stay.

    4.  The people who come after everyone's doing it are interesting, as they rush to get there soon enough when it is still cool but safe because a lot of people are doing it.

    5. At some point, it may spread so far that people will risk ridicule for not joining.

    6. Leaders are over-rated, early — especially first followers — followers provide an underrated form of leadership.

    I would add, as a small addition, that another way to think about the leader here is he succeeded because he was sensitive to what would motivate the first follower and the other early followers. 

    This is a case of influence by someone without authority.  But just think if you had authority and also applied these principles. That is what great leaders — and first followers — do, it seems. 

    P.S. A big thanks to Scott for sending this my way.

  • Front Stage Vs. Backstage Behavior: A Cultural Lesson?

     I try to understand and respect the differences among cultures, what they mean for how I should behave, and the implications for how well — or badly — management practices from one culture apply to another.  But trying to understand them does not mean that I quite know how to deal with differences as I encounter them in the moment, or even if what I THINK are cultural differences really are differences — or just reflect the usual variation in organizational cultures and human personality that are always present. But I might have learned something in Singapore last week that is a cultural difference — and I would appreciate any comments about if I am right or wrong, and that add nuances that I no doubt mixed. 

    I had the privilege of spending three days in Singapore last week working with leaders in industry and the government on leadership and innovation issues.  In one of the workshops I helped lead, I reviewed various studies and examples showing that constructive conflict is linked to group performance and, especially, creativity and innovation.  If you read this blog, you will see this theme pretty often, as I write about having strong opinions weakly held, fighting if you are right and listening as if you are wrong, fast fights at the Stanford d.school, and this was big theme in the interview we did a couple years ago with Brad Bird of Pixar. All these studies, however, are (I believe) conducted in western countries.  One of the folks I was working with in Singapore commented that open — even if constructive — conflict is something that westerners do, but Asians tend not to do (and indeed although I engaged in some open disagreement, especially with a fellow American academic, there was not much other open disagreement in any of the workshops).

    BUT I am talking about in open — if small — public forums.   In contrast, I spent a lot of time in one on one conversations engaging in quite active debate and (polite) two-way constructive criticism.  Indeed, I would say that I engaged in more argument in one-on-one conversations than I would with a typical American business crowd.   I would also add that these backstage conversations — for the most part — helped improve the workshops and sharpen my thinking.  So here is my hypothesis, that as the famous sociologist Erving Goffman emphasized, there is always a huge difference between front stage and back stage behavior in organizational life… and in this case, the amount and quality of constructive conflict I experienced was similar to what I would expect from a U.S. organization, but the difference is that it all happened backstage.

    My tentative hypothesis here is that there is just as much constructive conflict in Singapore and perhaps other Asian countries as in western countries, but more of it happens in one-on-ones and otherwise behind the scenes.  I suspect that a lot of you out there will say "duh" in response, but I am curious to hear if this seemingly obvious truth is, well, true.   And if it is wrong or partly wrong, why — and any other related insights. Thanks.

  • Leaders get the behavior they display and tolerate

    I was at a gathering of HR managers and executives yesterday held at Pixar, and one of the participants made this observation at one point. Frankly, there were a lot of people and we kept rotating among groups, so although I write it down quickly so I wouldn't lose it, I got so lost in thought about it that by the time I looked-up, we were all rotating to different groups and I lost rack of who said it.  I will try to figure out who it was — yes, it is an oversimplification, but one of the most compelling ones I've heard.  I especially like that word "tolerate" as it conveys the subtle notion that there are often many things that happen in the workplaces that bosses don't try to discourage or stop because they have so much other stuff to do, they don't know how to go about stopping it, they believe they have more pressing matters to deal with, or they just don't have the emotional energy to deal with. 

    Then,  I started thinking about this quote again when I was watching The Office last night and saw how the tolerant Jim (now co-manager) brilliantly dealt with a level of defiance and screwing around by Ryan that he couldn't tolerate by assigning him to an office in closet (see the episode here on Hulu).

  • When is the change going to be over?

    An executive my wife knows reported one of her people recently asked her this question.  The last couple years have been tough on all of of us, and especially tough on people who had assumed that the future would be an imitation of the past.  Of course, the answer is that the change will never be over. More so than ever, a boss's job is to prepare his or her people by developing expectations that there will be constant change, while (as I wrote in HBR), providing as much prediction, understanding, control, and compassion as possible.

    I wonder, what else can a boss do to help people anticipate, cope with, and flourish in the face of change?