Finding the Supportive Path

I’m fortunate to have such positive and productive relationships with my colleagues at Strategic Communications Group (Strategic).

Yet, I am not a friend or a cheerleader.  I don’t spew inspirational quotes.  And there is no gold star at the end of the day for a job well done.

That’s because I respect each of my colleagues professionally.  My job is to create an environment in which they are each set up for success, and be clear and consistent about expectations for performance.

It is then up to each individual to define and deliver on their own career path.  For the truly talented, this empowerment is motivation enough.

However, it is absolute requirement for me to be publicly supportive and stand behind each of my colleagues in client interactions.  Any disagreement I may have is shared in private for their consideration.

I raise this last point because of an article I recently read about a talk given by former Washington, DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee.  Lamenting the failure of the US educational system to adequately prepare children for a globally competitive world, Rhee placed much of the blame on parents who tell their kids they are great when they aren’t.

“My two girls play soccer, yet they suck at soccer,” Rhee said, as her young daughters sat mortified in the audience. 

Referring to the trophies and medals they’ve received for participation, Rhee continued, “We are so concerned with making children feel good about themselves.  But, we haven’t put in the time to make them good at anything.  We’ve managed to build a sense of complacency with our children.”

While I actually agree with Rhee’s contention about the harm done by this “everyone is a winner mentality”, I do take issue with the humiliation she chose to dump on her own daughters.

What possible purpose could that serve?  Will it make them tougher?  Inspire them to succeed?

Probably not.

The challenge in management is to find the path that allows you to be supportive, yet still set realistic expectations related to performance and professional growth.

Shades of Gray with Former Employees

It is well accepted in executive ranks that it is poor form to speak ill of a former employee.  This sin creates a negative work environment and leaves those around you pondering how they might be trashed should they elect to move on.

This guidance is easy to follow with high performers.  Yes, there are feelings of disappointment and loss, yet you are ultimately thankful for their contributions to the success of the organization.

The picture is less clear though when it comes to the mediocre and those who have been asked to move on.  While it's best to refrain from comments that could be perceived as a personal attack, there is risk in failing to acknowledge the shortcomings of a former staffer.

For starters, it potentially creates the impression that you are out of touch with the day-to-day pulse of the company.  Most workers recognize the weak links and can be frustrated by management's inability to act.
   
Granted, a termination clearly demonstrates that ineffective performance won't be tolerated.  But, what about a less than stellar employee who chooses to resign?  Should an executive refrain from acknowledging what everyone else already knows?

There is also the issue of lessons learned.  I've personally experienced this one. 

Years ago, a senior level staffer was unsuccessful managing client engagements.  This person moved on and perhaps the sole value they imparted on the organization was a collection of things not to do.

How do I share this failure to enhance our success today?  We're a small business...everyone knows who I'm referring to.

Corporate decision-making is defined by shades of gray.  It's easy to make a sweeping policy statement like "never bad mouth a former employee."  Yet, in practice, policy can be tough to follow. 

Time to Lawyer It Up

Although I hail from a family of attorneys, I am no fan of the legal system and how it retards corporate innovation and ingenuity. The litigious inclination of today’s corporate executive is a true blight, limiting the global competitiveness of US-based companies.

Consider the vicious circle that engulfs many firms. They devise an offensive legal strategy to strangle and distract competitors.

Concurrently, they employ a defensive legal front to fend off investors, customers, partners, and…yes…even their own employees who claim they’ve been somehow wronged.

I could easily play the legal card. Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) owns the trademark for the phrase “Network of Relationships.” Undoubtedly, each quarter I receive an inquiry or two from a law firm with an offer to seek out and take action against violators.

“We will happily do all of the research and handle the legal filings for a modest 60 percent of all fees collected,” one firm recently wrote in an Email.

My answer is always the same: “Thank you, but no.”

While it is an important part of Strategic’s value proposition, this trademark (and the business concept it represents) is not core to our success. As such, I’d rather focus my time on more meaningful activities that create value for the organization.

With such fervent views on this issue, you’d think I would be mortified by Starbucks recent legal suit to block the hiring of a former marketing executive by rival Dunkin’ Donuts.

Well…not quite. In fact, I stand 100 percent behind Starbucks’ right to enforce an employee agreement that included an 18-month non-compete provision.

I do respect the right of every individual to seek employment at their company of choice. Plus, it’s absolutely appropriate for an executive to carry their experience to a new position, especially when it provides a competitive advantage to their employer.

Yet, in this specific case Paul Twohig freely elected to sign an agreement at Starbucks that barred him from working for a competitor for a specific period of time. And now he has to live up to and meet those conditions.

Strategic’s own employee agreement includes a section that prevents the solicitation of clients should the staffer resign from the firm.

The employee must also agree not to take steps to influence a colleague’s standing with our company. Simply put, they can’t recruit away other agency staffers to their new place of employment.

Only once in 15 years have I had to ask our corporate counsel to remind a former worker of these obligations. He chose to ignore his commitment. That wasn’t OK.

Embracing the Jerk

Esther Steinfeld has me thinking about what it means to be jerk.

Steinfeld, who handles corporate communications for Internet retailer Blinds.com, created an entertaining Web site and online community to showcase the altruistic endeavors of top corporate executives. Comprised primarily of user generated content, Steinfeld encourages CEOs to upload anecdotes, photos and videos that demonstrate how they contribute to society, community and family in a positive and meaningful way.

The genesis of “Not All CEOs are Jerks” is quite personal for Steinfeld. “My dad’s a CEO and he’s not a jerk,” she writes on the site’s homepage.

While Steinfeld’s endeavor validates that most CEOs are community and family oriented, it does nothing to disprove the perception that we tend to be jerks. In fact, I’ll go so far to suggest that jerk-like qualities are a must-have trait for success in the executive suite.

Let me expand on this a bit. Once Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) began to take shape as a viable company I learned two things fairly quickly:

1. My most important responsibility is to make difficult decisions that impact the professional and personal paths of the people who work for me.

2. I am not personal friends with anyone who is a colleague at Strategic. As such, there is no emotion or favoritism that influences my thinking.

For these reasons, I can come off as a jerk in meeting the requirements of my position. Here’s an example. If someone from Strategic arrives unprepared for a scheduled internal meeting I do not hesitate to point this out in front of their peers. I’m not abusive, yet rather make it clear that this lack of professionalism is simply unacceptable.

As you can imagine, my approach on this issue has created angst for a number of employees (all of whom are former). They expressed irritation and even outrage for this slight in front of co-workers.

To this, I simply suggested they make it a priority to come prepared to meetings.

Redefining the Employee/Employer Bond

It’s a shame that a shifting economic climate changes the dynamic of the employee – employer relationship.

When market conditions are pristine and employment is low, the power sits firmly with employees. Companies stressed to deliver on the goods and services sold increase compensation, deliver a broad array of benefits, and serve up promotions even if the title exceeds the employee’s competency.

Despite these lavish efforts to retain, employees are often quick to jump to a new opportunity even if it only modestly increases their take-home pay.

In today’s trying times, its management that stands in a position of strength. Those wonderful benefits? Tabled for budget reasons. Salaries? Frozen and, in some instances, reduced. All the while the specter of layoffs hangs across the organization.

In the past few months, I have read numerous articles and blog posts in which corporate executives suggest their employees should be thankful to simply be on the payroll.

Rather than defining this situation as dysfunctional, I will take it a step further and argue that there isn’t (nor should there be) a relationship between an employee and their employer.

Relationships involve intimate emotional connections that thrive even during periods of stress or turmoil. Personally, I have a relationship with my wife, my two children, my family and a select set of friends. I stand with them 100 percent…regardless of life’s variances.

With the people I employ at Strategic Communications Group (Strategic), my goal is to maintain a productive business agreement defined by shared interests and expectations. My responsibilities are straightforward:

--Maintain an environment in which they are set up for success
--Provide a reasonable level of support and resources
--Deliver an honest assessment of performance, even if it is not what they want to hear
--Strive to provide fair compensation

In return, I expect each member of the Strategic team to: embrace the organization’s core values and standards for performance; to represent themselves and the company in an acceptable manner; and, ultimately, to care about their development as a professional.

If I fall down on my part or the employee perceives that their needs extend beyond what Strategic can provide, then it’s understandable for them to seek other opportunities. In fact, I encourage it.

Yet, it’s also important for employees to recognize that difficult decisions often must be made based on the macro needs of the organization. Yes…I have fired people. And we’ve been forced to cut staff. It’s never personal.

No one at Strategic should ever be thankful they have a job. Their employment is well earned and, as long as they deliver on their responsibilities, my commitment to their professional success is resolute.

There’s no moral obligation about it. It’s simply a business agreement.

Employees Betrayed?

As the president/CEO of a professional services firm, an issue that is consistently top-of-mind is how to most effectively communicate with Strategic Communications Group’s (Strategic) senior team, employees and network of high-caliber consultants. It is their expertise, market knowledge, skill set, capabilities and passion that helps us deliver on our philosophy – great work for great clients.

I came to learn very early on in my experience running Strategic that my priorities related to personnel management are fairly straightforward:

--Put people in a position in which they are set up for success
--Provide an environment which is engaging
--Recognize and reward those who take ownership of their careers and consistently perform at a high level
--Be consistent in messaging

To deliver on this promise to colleagues I’ve tried to implement an open, honest and straightforward communications style. This is especially important when addressing issues or topics related to corporate developments or individual performance. A person may not like what I have to say, yet it’s better to know where things stand.

I suspect entrepreneur Cheryl Amyx shared this philosophy about internal communications and employee relations. In less than a decade, her government services firm established a high growth and profitable niche in the defense market, ultimately being recognized by Washington Technology magazine as one of the fastest growing firms in the region.

Yet, when Cheryl went through the process of positioning and then selling her company she chose to keep the matter private, fearful of employee defections due to the uncertainty that comes with new owners. She even elected not to inform her senior team.

This morning at an ACG National Capital (http://www.acgcapital.org) event which featured an inside look at the sale of Cheryl’s company, I asked her if employees felt betrayed once they learned of the sale. She acknowledged that some did and a few elected to leave the company. Yet, the new ownership moved quickly with a transition strategy that involved in-person meetings to reassure employees and customers.

While I respect Cheryl’s decision about how she managed employee relations during the M&A process, I would have counseled her to be upfront and honest once it became apparent that a sale of the company could possibly go through.

Most employees invest their time, energy and effort to build a company of value. They’ve earned the right to know about major corporate initiatives, even if it makes them nervous.

The Amey Group, Inc. Acquires Amyx, Inc. (1.18.08)
http://www.amyx.com/download/AcquisitionPressReleaseAmyx.pdf

High Performer Promotion

It’s no secret that success in business results from attracting and retaining high-caliber people, and then creating an environment where they can establish productive, mutually beneficial relationships with external and internal audiences. This is much easier said than done.

Like most public relations consultancies, Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) has had its struggles with the people issue. The typical agency model is to surround a senior team with a group of more junior-level staffers, requiring everyone to work extended hours in a high-stress environment. We followed this path during much of our 12 year history.

Recently, we’ve made significant changes to our business model which has led us to embrace a number of innovative employee programs, such as a highly flexible work environment and a blended staffing methodology. Everything is predicated on empowering the individual to perform and then holding them accountable for the results they produce for clients.

Something that remains a struggle for me though is when to promote. I am fortunate to have wonderfully talented colleagues who would most likely accelerate their professional development if put in a more advanced position. And I am certainly not a believer in some unwritten tenure requirement. (I launched Strategic when I was 24 years old.)

Yet, it is important to always set people up for success. It’s not fair to them, us or a client to have an employee in a position in which they are destined to struggle.

Jack and Suzy Welch’s recent column in BusinessWeek has me thinking about this issue. Their views on what constitutes superior results and how to evaluate whether an employees’ values align with organizational priorities is a must read for any business owner and employee.

High Performers Won’t Wait
BusinessWeek
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088104704732.htm?chan=magazine+channel_opinion