wow, what a busy couple of weeks and i've realised that i haven't posted anything since the end of november. things must be good!
i was having a chat with an ex-colleague the other day and it reminded me of why i didn't miss life at big corp - politically (un)inspired decision making by mid-senior mgmt being one of my biggest bugbears. i swear, if we can make a big success of funky rascal, i shall not tolerate that sort of behaviour. but that makes me think... what is it that fosters that sort of behaviour by people earning big 6 figure salaries? surely they should be big enough to stand by their convictions, it's what they always wanted from us...
it's fear that drives that sort of behaviour and it's certainly fear that i identified as one of the main reasons i chose to leave. everybody was afraid. we were more concerned about what those around and above us would think of our decisions than being able to make and stick by well-informed decision making. "what if the VP doesn't agree?", "i know that's not on his/her agenda", etc, etc.
and that fear only comes from one place - the top, the very top. the CEO was, by all accounts, an intolerably arrogant man. a man who would make decisions and form opinions at a whim, whilst those of us several tiers below would spend weeks and months putting together the rationale as to why we should make a strategic or tactical decision only to see it over-ruled.
all too often, we would hear that VPs and senior VPs would fail to stand by or even make a point for fear that it wasn't what the great chief wanted to hear. how on earth can you run a truly successful business, when fear permeates your entire organisation? it's not exactly motivational, is it? which leads me to my main thought...
several years ago i came across an interview with a very powerful global industry figure, not a man you messed with by any account but not one who ruled by fear and he had a "revolutionary" view of priorities within a business. this man was wendelin wiedeking, then CEO of porsche group and the man who had turned porsche from a niche sports car manufacturer into a company large enough to attempt a takeover of VW audi group. his view (as i remember it) was that if you want to deliver shareholder value, you do not make knee-jerk decisions which will influence the shareprice in the short-term. in fact, he listed shareholders as 4th on the list of 4 groups a company should prioritise and it went like this -
1st - employees - if you don't have happy employees, you're never going to get over the start line, let alone get a look at the finish line.
2nd - customers - happy employees will create happy customers. sacrifice your employee satisfaction for your customer satisfaction and you'll enter a downward spiral.
3rd - suppliers - supplier relations are a core element of a company's success. they can make or break you financially and with respect to your customer relationships.
4th - shareholders - if you keep the first 3 groups happy, then the 4th group will benefit as a direct result. in fact, don't "focus" on them at all, shareholder satisfaction will occur if you deliver success in the first 3 groups on the list.
and that is where my last company fell down. the CEO was (like many CEOs it has to be said) beholden to the shareholders. i'd say is list went more like - shareholders, CEO, customers, suppliers, employees. that resulted in knee-jerk cost cutting announcements and staffing reductions. less staff, more work, increased stress and spineless snr mgmt - i said my goodbyes!
it may seem an overly simplistic view of running a business but really, it shouldn't be that complicated. pay your employees a bit more, listen to them a bit more, give them opportunities to learn and grow, show you value them in a way that means something to them. you could be surprised by the results!
