A633.4.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

Leadership From The Cubicle to the Corner Office

In The End of Leadership Barbara Kellerman (2012) said, “Leadership has a long history and a clear trajectory.  More than anything else it is about the devolution of power—from those up top to those down below” (p. 3).  The sweatshops have closed (at least in the West) and bosses like Donald Trump and Montgomery Burns are fading from front offices.

The past two decades have produced a seismic shift in leadership; more specifically, the core characteristics originally defining leaders—power, authority, and influence—are now rising up from the cubicles rather than the corner offices.  Kellerman (2012) echoes this swing when she writes, “It was presumed until only recently that leaders should dominate and followers defer.  Leaders were generally expected to tell followers what to do, and followers were generally expected to do as they were told.  No longer.  Now followers are sturdier than they used to be, stronger and more independent” (p. xvi). 

The accessibility of knowledge via the Internet has ushered in a new dawn of understanding and accountability.  Corporate leaders are finding it harder to hide poor decisions and as a result, careers are ending before they get started.  Moreover, the speed of technology, the explosion of innovation, and the nanosecond gap between a want and a met need has made every citizen a CEO and every CEO replaceable. 

In 2012, Lockheed Martin’s CEO-elect Chris Kubasik was set to replace Robert Stevens at the helm.  However, an internal investigation revealed Kubasik was having an improper relationship with a female employee.  The board asked and received Kubasik’s immediate resignation.  Previous CEO Stevens said, ““While I am deeply disappointed and saddened by Chris’ actions, which have been inconsistent with our values and standards, our swift response to his improper conduct demonstrates our unyielding commitment to holding every employee accountable for their actions.”

While Lockheed Martin operates under a strong hierarchical organizational structure, they recognize that every employee is responsible to demonstrate the values of the company.  They explain by stating, “Ultimately, every one of us is a leader, because we all control the attitudes and behaviors of at least one person - ourself - and we set an example for our colleagues. Lockheed Martin is striving to establish the tools and reinforce the values that provide everyone with rewarding work in a safe and supportive environment. But it’s up to each one of us as individuals to embrace the culture we’re creating.”

List three reasons that support or refute this position.

Lockheed Martin understands the success of the company lies in the hands of their employees.  As a result, they have created a number of programs designed to facilitate employee growth and leadership development.  For starters, Lockheed Martin created the Institute for Leadership Excellence (ILE).  The ILE offers leadership development and business-based functional seminars which provide opportunities for participants to refresh their leadership skills.  It also creates an avenue for employees and functional leaders to connect and discuss current and future solutions. 

In addition to the larger, more formal programs, Lockheed also initiated a strong mentoring path to develop meaningful relationship and facilitate the transfer of valuable knowledge and understanding from one person to another.  Mentoring at Lockheed Martin empowers employees to manage their own careers, develop their skills, maximize their potential, and improve their performance (http://training.lmaero.lmco.com).

Lastly, Lockheed promotes Operating Excellence; a site that welcomes and encourages suggestions and ideas through Structured Improvement Activities (SIA).  The OE “provides the roadmap and tools to help the company compete and win in the rapidly changing aerospace and defense industry” (http://business.lmaero.lmco.com).  SIA’s are team-based approaches to solving organizational-wide problems through a number of different deliverables.

In addition to the three programs mentioned above—ILE, mentoring, and SIAs—Lockheed has an online employee suggestion program that “Provides a formal and organized approach for developing, evaluating and implementing ideas that will improve the workplace environment.”  Moreover, Lockheed “believes employees are an excellent source of creative ideas because they are in a position to observe and evaluate opportunities for improvement in their departments and throughout the company” (http://home.lmaero.lmco.com).

If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes?  

While Lockheed has strong policies and programs in-place to facilitate employee ideas and suggestions, there still remains a strong corporate feel that rewards and insulates senior leaders.  In an engineering company of over 100,000, creating a climate similar to Google or Amazon would require a white collar earthquake.  And, based on Lockheed’s mission and future, an open culture may not be the best route for Lockheed’s bottom line.  Nevertheless, program managers must recognize that some of the best ideas and solutions may lay dormant in the cubicle of the unknown employee.

What are the implications on strategy?

Lockheed has a strong Strategic Planning department built as an integrated, multi-disciplinary team working in collaboration with other departments to conduct strategic assessments and provide strategic direction.  As I understand it, the Strategic Planning teams collect the information from the three-to-four programs mentioned above and consider the suggestions and innovative solutions when preparing and building strategic plans.  Lockheed has a tremendous amount of data points that are pulled regularly from external competitors, global companies, and market demands.  Focusing on internal leaders and innovative solutions at every level is the best way to remain on top.  According to business analyst David Lieck (2013), “Lockheed is far and away the largest defense contractor in the world with total sales of $36.27 billion.”  Even with their success, Lockheed continues to seek solutions from every level of leadership.

Steve

References:

Fontevecchia, A. (2012). Lockheed CEO-Elect Kubasik Fired Over Improper

Relationship With Female Subordinate. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/11/09/lockheed-ceo-elect-

kubasik-fired-over-relationship-with-subordinate/

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York: NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Lieck, J. (2013). The Ten Largest Defense Contractors In The World. Retrieved from

http://www.therichest.com/business/companies-business/the-ten-largest-defense-

contractors-in-the-world/

Lockheed Martin. (2014). Leadership. Retrieved from

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/leadership.html

A630.4.4.RB_RuggerioSteven

Better Decisions - Better Life

Decisions, decisions, decisions.  From the aural abuse of a morning alarm to sliding under the covers at night, each one of us faces a mountain of decisions every day. Some are reflexive, like blinking and breathing; whereas others are heart-wrenching and hand-wringing.  Both at home and at work, we’re wrapped in a whirlwind of individual and collective decision-making scenarios.  For instance, at home, our Shetland Sheepdog (“Sheltie”) named Cheyenne is over 15-years old.  That’s right, 105.  She sees only shadows and hears even less.  Her hips regularly give out and her bladder is even worse.  She spends her time walking gingerly, albeit aimlessly, around the back yard and through the house.  For the past three months, I’ve been wrestling with the decision of whether to “put-her-down” or let her pass away naturally?  Every day, I speak to my family, seek input from trusted pet owners, and pray for guidance.  By engaging my family in the process, it alleviates all the pressure from me.  It becomes—as it should—a family decision.  So, as of this moment, Cheyenne lives. 

Marcia Blenko argues that decision effectiveness correlates positively with employee engagement and organizational performance. How do you think that employee engagement relates to decision effectiveness?

At work, decisions rain down upon me from the moment I walk into my office.  When I bring up my email, the rain turns into a storm.  Whether at home or at work, managers and leaders are finding there is great benefit in obtaining buy-in; and results improve when employees (or family members, as shown above) are involved in the decision-making process.  In the video interview, How Companies Make Better Decisions, Marcia Blenko connects organizational effectiveness with employee engagement.  One would think this is a no-brainer but unfortunately, there are still many managers of the mindset that they make decisions and employees execute.

Blenko states clearly that “better decisions equal better financial results.”  Drawing on employee experience, fostering creativity and innovation, and providing an atmosphere where employee goals align with organization goals will always outperform a disjointed workforce operating in isolation.  Decision complexity can create a current of uncertainty.  By soliciting the inputs and valuing the expertise of employees, managers can be better equipped to steer the organization toward the future with the wisdom to know what opportunities to embrace and which ones to avoid.

What are some impediments to good decision making?

Making a decision in a complex and chaotic environment is reminiscent of the traditional game of “Pick-up Sticks.”  The game requires both physical and mental skill.  A bundle of ‘sticks’ around 8 inches long are held in a loose bunch and dropped on a table top, falling in random disarray.  Each player, in turn, must remove a stick from the pile without disturbing the remaining ones. 

Like the game, making good decisions requires both physical and mental skill as well.  Too often though, like the game, leaders try to make decisions without disturbing other divisions or work centers.  As a result, inevitably, others are disturbed and conflict ensues.  Rather than approach decisions as static, managers should address the decision from a holistic approach by collaborating and considering all arenas of the organization.

Some of the primary hurdles to good decisions are the lack of communication and clarity.  Without all the facts or only possessing half of the information, employees and managers are ill-equipped to lead and act appropriately.  Add to that mix a lack of skill, talent, commitment, and direction, and managers will spend the bulk of their time managing chaos, confusion, conflict. 

Blenko suggests that there are four elements of good decisions: quality, speed, yield, and effort. In your opinion, is there anything missing from this list?

Yes, repetition.  In their book Decisive, Chip and Dan Heath said, “Much has been written in recent years about intuitive decisions, which can be surprisingly quick and accurate.  But—and this is a critical ‘but’—intuition is only accurate in domains where it has been carefully trained.”  The axiom practice makes perfect applies in decision making as well.  Like the Heath brothers said, “Over time, routine sharpens you.”  By creating a decision making matrix, a thought process to govern one’s choices and decisions, individuals can create a default, habitual, and routine system of critical thinking and analysis.  Leaving decisions to emotions or chance can—and more than likely will—produce ineffective and inefficient results.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

This video and exercise imparts two valuable truths: Create a sound decision making framework utilizing it for an array of different decisions; and, solicit ideas and involve employees, friends, and family in the decision making process as appropriate.  While many decisions can be made “off the cuff,” many—especially those involving work and emotional family moments—should be filtered through a decision matrix that includes a foundation of critical thinking parameters.  Our future is created from the decisions we make today.  We can no longer leave an uncertain future to fate and circumstance than we can make decisions in a vacuum.  Also, success rises and falls on the collaboration and commitment of managers and employees working together with a unified focus.  The same rules apply toward family decisions. 

And finally, in the case of Cheyenne; there is no easy answer.  By sharing the weight of the decision, we grieve together.

Steve

A521.5.4.RB_RuggerioSteven

                                                            A Business of Values

While traveling to Rwanda in June of 2009, Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, visited with the farmers and families partly responsible for producing some of their world famous Arabica beans.  Celebrating Schultz’s visit and his commitment to their continued collaboration, thousands of jubilant Rwandans stood shoulder-to-shoulder hanging on his every word.  In his book Onward, he writes, “Never before had the human side of the equation that guided Starbucks—a commitment to balancing people and profits—been so palpable.  Less than 50 feet away from me were thousands of lives that Starbucks had the power to help—or to hinder” (p. 290).

And the people cheered.

After the deregulation of the energy markets in 1998, Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron employed nearly 22,000 people and were voted America’s Most Innovative Company for six consecutive years from 1996 to 2001 (Yukl, 2010, p. 433).  However, all was not what it appeared.  With the help of accountants and attorneys, top executives created subsidiaries that looked like partnerships and made it possible to sell assets and create false earnings.  Under Lay and Skilling, unethical practices ran rampant.  When the gig was finally up, Enron sunk and thousands of individual hopes and futures went down with it.  It would become the biggest and most complex bankruptcy case in U.S. history (Yukl, 2010, p. 434).  

And the people cried.

Schultz (2011) said, “How leaders embody the values they espouse sets a tone, an expectation, that guides their employees future behaviors” (p. 294).  Ken Lay, shortly after his arrest by the FBI, said he took responsibility for Enron’s collapse but denied that he did anything wrong.  “I continue to grieve, as does my family, over the loss of the company and my failure to save it,” said Lay, speaking forcefully. “But failure does not equate to a crime” (Crawford, 2004).

Peel back the layers of most leadership failures and you’ll find a thin veneer of values.  Behind the fancy suits and corner office are many men and women driven by greed, power, and control.  Incompetence and ignorance, while disappointing and frustrating, can be forgiven.  Malicious dealings and unethical practices done solely for profits cannot.

Hemingway & Maclagan (2004), in their article Managers’ Personal Values as Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility said, “Individual managers’ organizational decisions are driven by a variety of personal values and interests, in addition to the official corporate objectives” (p. 36).

Organizational values start with leadership.  Period.  No excuses.  What leaders say and do flow down to their people.  The ethical value of an organization is a reflection of its top-tiered leadership team.  In the competitive world of corporate business, churches, sports, or retail services, the values of its leaders—at all levels—ultimately influences the depth of its decision making.  Understanding ones personal values and the values of the organization is the starting point for aligning and synergizing those values.

Stephen Denning (2011) identifies four different types of values:

1. Robber barons – firms whose only value is to crush the competition by whatever means.
2. Hardball strategist – these firms avoid illegality, but in all other respects they pursue a single-minded focus on winning.
3. Pragmatist – these firms pursue instrumental values, that is, values that are a central part of the organizations business strategy.
4. Genuine ethical values – firms that identify values as a principle motivating force; values that go beyond what is necessary for the business strategy and that possess a genuine moral basis.

Rather than discover six months or a year into a job, individuals should have a rich understanding of their values and principles.  Highlighting workplace values such as, work/family life balance, truth and honesty, environmental consciousness, stability, and clear advancement tracks can steer potential employees toward a fulfilling position with a pragmatist and genuine ethical organization.

Employees who value competition, strong financial rewards, power, and adventure may find themselves more confortable in an organization led by robber barons or hardball strategist.

Mother Teresa would never work for Steve Jobs.  Billy Graham would never work for Donald Trump. Compatible values between employer and employee are instrumental factors toward an employee’s job satisfaction and an employer’s ability to motivate their workers to increase profits.  Identifying the corporate atmosphere is key to revealing its value set.

Denning (2011) identifies three components of an ethical community and atmosphere.  The first is trust: general expectation among members that their fellows will behave ethically toward them. The second is loyalty: acceptance of the obligation to refrain from breaching one another’s trust and to fulfill the duties entailed by accepting that trust.  And lastly, solidarity: caring for other people’s interest and being ready to take action on behalf of other, even if it conflict with personal interests (p. 132-133).

As an employee of Lockheed Martin, I have experienced each of these components in various forms.  For instance, in my supervisor’s absence, he asked me to fill his position as team lead.  When there have been disagreements about aircraft performance or logistical challenges, each member of our team has been able to communicate and disagree without being disrespectful. 

Lockheed core values identified as “do the right thing, perform with excellence, and respect others” complement my personal values very well.  Dr. Randall Hansen’s values assessment led me to identify my top five workplace values as (1) integrity and truth, (2) opportunities for influence, (3) friendship and warm working relationships, (4) stability and security, and (5) work/life balance. 

Lockheed Martin policies and directives support and enhance my top five values.  In times of tight budgets and leaner organizations, job security can be a factor.  However, Lockheed has shown in the event positions are eliminated, they diligently work to place employees in other positions.  If they cannot come to an agreement with the employee on a job, they offer strong severance packages and transitional assistance.

Denning (2011) said, “Shared values in an organization create trust.  People have confidence that others will do what they say” (p. 149).  With nearly 120,000 people employed at Lockheed Martin, it would seem difficult to ensure their core values persist through every division.  I believe they have been successful because they recognize and reward employees who do the right thing and perform with excellence.  Like any company, there are individuals that test the limits of values, in these instances; the company response reaffirms its commitment to ensuring their values are in tact.

In Built to Last, Jim Collins (1994) debunked the myth that most successful companies exist first and foremost to maximize profits.  He said, “Contrary to business school doctrine, maximizing shareholder wealth or profit maximization has not been the dominant driving force or primary objective of visionary companies.” “Yes,” he added, “they seek profits but they’re equally guided by a core ideology—core values and a sense of purpose beyond just making money” (p. 8)

On April 26, 2013, Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin sent an email to all Lockheed employees that read; “One of the qualities that distinguish Lockheed Martin is our constant focus on the future. We never stop thinking about what’s ahead and how we can make tomorrow’s world better than today’s. Our progress on that front will be measured not just by our balance sheet, it will be measured by the value we create for everyone who’s counting on us, including our customers, our communities, our partners and our shareholders, and you, our employees.”

From what I’ve seen, she means it.

Legacy values.

Steve

References:

Collins, J. (1994). Built to Last. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Crawford, K. (2004). Lay Surrenders to Authorities. Retrieved from

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/08/news/newsmakers/lay/

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons,

            Inc.

Hansen, R. (n.d.). Workplace Values Assessment. Retrieved from

http://www.quintcareers.com/workplace_values.html

Hemingway, C.A. & Maclagan, P.W. (2004). Managers’ Personal Values as Drivers of

            Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33-44.

Schultz, H. (2011). Onward. New York, NY: Rodale.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.