Where do you find prodigal executives? These are the managerial train wrecks that are too painful to keep and too valuable to fire. Many people also know them as derailed executives.
You find them everywhere. Some of my clients have included the CEO of a high tech manufacturing firm, a CEO of a $10 million bio- technology company, the Chief Technology Officer of a $27 billion international technology company, senior executives at a bio-medical research company, and executives from a Fortune 500 bio-medical pharmaceutical company. I also have experience working with organizations that are being blended because of a merger or acquisition. Once I was involved with the integration of the San Francisco Examiner into the San Francisco Chronicle. I have facilitated retreats on strategic planning for The Los Angeles Times, St. Luke Hospital, Century City Hospital, Midway Medical Center, Giga-tronics, and Northrop-Grumann. I have also facilitated offsite retreats for Disney Consumer Products Organizational Development Department and an architectural firm start-up.
Derailed executives are everywhere. The good news is 8 out of 10 can get back on track with the right coaching. Prodigal executives can make it back home.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
When to Fire The Prodigal Executive
You can’t save everybody. Nor should you. Many derailed executives are just daring you to fire them.
One day a CEO said to me, "I just can't get Byron to step it up."
Byron (real story, not his real name) was a director of engineering for a technology company. He was a long term employee. The company, which started off as an entrepreneurial family-based business that grew very fast, handled high amounts of high tech manufacturing.
Now the production lines were getting stuck, the company wasn’t getting product out the door fast enough, and they were having too many returns. Because Byron had been with the organization from day one, the CEO did not want to fire him.
“When you start off with a family-based business like ours,” said the CEO, “there's a strong sense of loyalty.”
A consultant was brought in to help with the engineering and I was brought in to see if I could help Byron improve his leadership skills. The first couple sessions went well and then all of a sudden Byron started changing his appointments. Following that he began to show total disinterest. So I told the CEO that I wasn't sure he was going to be engaged n the process. He might have a different agenda and it is getting in the way. Two weeks later the CEO called me to tell me that he was firing Byron.
What I told the CEO surprised him. “In a few months Byron will call you up and tell you that he's happier where he's at, and everyone will be able to move on. The CEO did hire a new director of engineering that was extremely sharp. Sure enough, Byron found a better job that was more in line with his skills. In truth, this worked out better for everyone.
The moral of the story is that sometimes it's better for everyone to move on.
The focus of my book, The Prodigal Executive, is on the 80% that are able to get back on track after being derailed. However there are 20% of derailed executives who, for a variety of reasons, fail to get enough traction to strike the balance between "too painful to keep" and "too valuable to get rid of.”
Invariably, one of two scenarios transpire.
The first scenario goes something like this. During the assessment process the derailed executive realizes that part of the derailment was an unconscious wish to disengage from the company in the first place. So there's a voluntary departure where the individual says "Because I couldn’t pull the trigger myself and was unhappy, I was alienating other and decided it was time to leave."
This scenario plays out in many situations. Most decide not to go through the coaching process. As coach, if I define it early on I say to the executive, "You don’t need me, you need a replacement consultant or you need a conversation with the CEO in order to work out a smooth transition that's in everybody's best interest. But to make yourself miserable and everybody else miserable really doesn’t make much sense."
The second scenario is rare. This occurs with individuals who, for whatever reason, are recalcitrant to changing their behavior. Many of them are in complete denial and feel the problems are all about everybody else. These executives really are uncoachable. For me it is important to find this out as early as possible, because, as the coach, I'm not there to do outplacement to help people leave, I'm there to help them stay. Often times the company decides this person is causing too much pain, and the risk and investment in the coaching is too high. In this case, everybody would be better off if this person disengaged from the company.
I've only had two of these rare recalcitrant situations. In both instances I think the executive was still in the wrong job. The executive was truly unhappy and didn't see any value for making any substantive changes so they could get back on track. In one case the person rejected the coaching outright. He didn't want to do what it took to increase his ability. So the CEO called and said, "Time for him to leave" and I agreed.
One day a CEO said to me, "I just can't get Byron to step it up."
Byron (real story, not his real name) was a director of engineering for a technology company. He was a long term employee. The company, which started off as an entrepreneurial family-based business that grew very fast, handled high amounts of high tech manufacturing.
Now the production lines were getting stuck, the company wasn’t getting product out the door fast enough, and they were having too many returns. Because Byron had been with the organization from day one, the CEO did not want to fire him.
“When you start off with a family-based business like ours,” said the CEO, “there's a strong sense of loyalty.”
A consultant was brought in to help with the engineering and I was brought in to see if I could help Byron improve his leadership skills. The first couple sessions went well and then all of a sudden Byron started changing his appointments. Following that he began to show total disinterest. So I told the CEO that I wasn't sure he was going to be engaged n the process. He might have a different agenda and it is getting in the way. Two weeks later the CEO called me to tell me that he was firing Byron.
What I told the CEO surprised him. “In a few months Byron will call you up and tell you that he's happier where he's at, and everyone will be able to move on. The CEO did hire a new director of engineering that was extremely sharp. Sure enough, Byron found a better job that was more in line with his skills. In truth, this worked out better for everyone.
The moral of the story is that sometimes it's better for everyone to move on.
The focus of my book, The Prodigal Executive, is on the 80% that are able to get back on track after being derailed. However there are 20% of derailed executives who, for a variety of reasons, fail to get enough traction to strike the balance between "too painful to keep" and "too valuable to get rid of.”
Invariably, one of two scenarios transpire.
The first scenario goes something like this. During the assessment process the derailed executive realizes that part of the derailment was an unconscious wish to disengage from the company in the first place. So there's a voluntary departure where the individual says "Because I couldn’t pull the trigger myself and was unhappy, I was alienating other and decided it was time to leave."
This scenario plays out in many situations. Most decide not to go through the coaching process. As coach, if I define it early on I say to the executive, "You don’t need me, you need a replacement consultant or you need a conversation with the CEO in order to work out a smooth transition that's in everybody's best interest. But to make yourself miserable and everybody else miserable really doesn’t make much sense."
The second scenario is rare. This occurs with individuals who, for whatever reason, are recalcitrant to changing their behavior. Many of them are in complete denial and feel the problems are all about everybody else. These executives really are uncoachable. For me it is important to find this out as early as possible, because, as the coach, I'm not there to do outplacement to help people leave, I'm there to help them stay. Often times the company decides this person is causing too much pain, and the risk and investment in the coaching is too high. In this case, everybody would be better off if this person disengaged from the company.
I've only had two of these rare recalcitrant situations. In both instances I think the executive was still in the wrong job. The executive was truly unhappy and didn't see any value for making any substantive changes so they could get back on track. In one case the person rejected the coaching outright. He didn't want to do what it took to increase his ability. So the CEO called and said, "Time for him to leave" and I agreed.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Prodigal Executives Are Too Painful to Stay, Too Valuable to Go
One hotline call I got was to meet Wayne. Like all names in my book, The Prodigal Executive, his name has been changed. As regional vice president of an international company he managed several regional mangers and was responsible for thousands employees. Wayne’s role model as an executive was a Marine drill instructor barking orders during boot camp. He was known as a loud, intimidating, foul mouthed bully who could make people feel about two feet tall.
Wayne knew he was a bully and was proud of it. He actually felt the more intimidating he could become the more productive. Hostile work environment complaints began to mount and good people began to flee.
“Can you help us?” asked the chief administrative officer when he called in a panic. “We don’t want to lose him. He was once well respected, but he can’t continue here like this.”
So I flew in to see Wayne. As promised, he was crude, rude and had a nasty attitude. He verbally tested me to see if I was tough. For me, Wayne was not that unusual. For 15 years I have been busy with Waynes all across corporate America. They scream at me. They heap abuse on me. They drop the f bomb, the s bomb and every profanity bomb imaginable. They say things like “who the hell do you think you are to come in and coach me?”
Good question. I am an executive coach with a Ph.D. in psychology. Some try to bait me by calling me a company shrink, but I’ve been called worse. Before my work with corporate clients I helped people overcome drug and alcohol addictions. There is an old adage that says people who need help the most seem to deserve it the least.
Actually, I liked Wayne. He was extremely intelligent and articulate. When I told Wayne my job isn’t to terminate people but to help the best to get better, that calmed him down.
“Wayne, why do think I am here?” I asked him.
He replied, maybe people find me intimidating.
“No Wayne, you are intimidating,” I told him. “But you are the best at what you do. Tiger Woods only got better when he went to a coach. Whatever you are doing isn’t working. It is up to you if you want the coaching your company is willing to pay for. Your only hope to stay here is work with me to create a new executive brand for you.”
Wayne knew he was a bully and was proud of it. He actually felt the more intimidating he could become the more productive. Hostile work environment complaints began to mount and good people began to flee.
“Can you help us?” asked the chief administrative officer when he called in a panic. “We don’t want to lose him. He was once well respected, but he can’t continue here like this.”
So I flew in to see Wayne. As promised, he was crude, rude and had a nasty attitude. He verbally tested me to see if I was tough. For me, Wayne was not that unusual. For 15 years I have been busy with Waynes all across corporate America. They scream at me. They heap abuse on me. They drop the f bomb, the s bomb and every profanity bomb imaginable. They say things like “who the hell do you think you are to come in and coach me?”
Good question. I am an executive coach with a Ph.D. in psychology. Some try to bait me by calling me a company shrink, but I’ve been called worse. Before my work with corporate clients I helped people overcome drug and alcohol addictions. There is an old adage that says people who need help the most seem to deserve it the least.
Actually, I liked Wayne. He was extremely intelligent and articulate. When I told Wayne my job isn’t to terminate people but to help the best to get better, that calmed him down.
“Wayne, why do think I am here?” I asked him.
He replied, maybe people find me intimidating.
“No Wayne, you are intimidating,” I told him. “But you are the best at what you do. Tiger Woods only got better when he went to a coach. Whatever you are doing isn’t working. It is up to you if you want the coaching your company is willing to pay for. Your only hope to stay here is work with me to create a new executive brand for you.”
Thursday, February 5, 2009
How To Coach A Failing Executive
As a manager providing coaching feedback to an employee, remember the need and significance of consequence. If the executive that is derailed does not feel that there is a sense of consequence in their behavior continuing, then they’re likely not to be as motivated.
People are either motivated by greed or by fear, and if they’re not afraid that something could truly happen, then there’s really no reason for them to change.
Some derailed executives say they can’t change and reject coaching from an outside coach or their manager. But why? First, let’s tackle that word can’t. To my thinking here’s no such thing as “can’t.” There’s either “I won’t do it” or “I don’t know how to do it.”
In my experience as an executive coach, “can’t” means the person is afraid and just doesn’t know how to change. But even if somebody knows how to change, for them to self-develop and make the change on their own is very difficult. We all need feedback, and we all need support and encouragement. Unless we know what we did and what we need to do and somebody teaches us how to do it, we can’t improve.
People don’t really self-develop. To illustrate, my son and I went to the USC football practice awhile back and were struck by something at the practice field. At every practice there are four cameras set up on stilts that are recording the action. The players are improving by constantly looking at film afterwards with the coaches. Together they look at what they did in a situation and discuss what they should have done differently. In addition there are also coaches at the practice giving the players ongoing feedback on how to improve. If the team doesn’t provide that kind of coaching, players won’t know what to change, and they won’t be inspired to do it.
USC has won the national championship several times in the last few years. So the question is: “Why are they practicing? They know how to play football.” The answer of course is that there is so much at stake they want to rehearse and go over the plays. Likewise, there is so much at stake for these derailed executives. They need to run the plays when it’s not in a game situation. Where else can they do that but with a coach who can give them feedback?
For derailed executives there is a useful theory called the Stages of Change Model about the mind/body stages we go through when we do change. The Stages of Change Model was originally developed in the late 1970s by James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente at the University of Rhode Island when they were studying how smokers were able to give up their habits. According to the model there are a number of steps: precontemplation to contemplation to determination.
The idea behind the change model is that behavior change does not happen in one step. Rather, people tend to progress through different stages on their way to successful change. You first say to yourself, “Well, I don’t have a problem. And if I don’t have a problem, I don’t need a solution.” Then you get information feedback and data, such as complaints, and you begin to say, “Maybe there is a problem.” So you start to contemplate that there is a problem. If you get even more strong data and a coach comes in, then you have to go from contemplation to determination and decide, “I need to do something about this.”
On one hand it is easy to understand why some derailed executives would reject coaching. Many derailed executives don’t understand why they should change because the company has promoted them three or four times for being the way they are. Why is someone coming in now and telling them that what got them to that spot is not going to keep them there? Naturally there is a resistance to change an approach that has been so successful for so long. It is a very legitimate concern to wonder why you should take the leap of faith and change. Will this new behavior prove equally successful?
There is a common idea in the business world that you should stick with what works. There are a number of old sayings that reinforce this, from “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” to “Don’t change horses mid-stream.”
The reality for executives is that when you rise through the ranks of an organization, you’ll find that each individual level has a different set of rules because you have a different function. So what works at a director level is not going to work at a vice president level. The issue is that no one ever sits down and tells you the rules and then tells you how those rules change.
If that doesn’t motivate them, then sad to say you need to work on their exit strategy. This is the time to lay down your cards and fold.
People are either motivated by greed or by fear, and if they’re not afraid that something could truly happen, then there’s really no reason for them to change.
Some derailed executives say they can’t change and reject coaching from an outside coach or their manager. But why? First, let’s tackle that word can’t. To my thinking here’s no such thing as “can’t.” There’s either “I won’t do it” or “I don’t know how to do it.”
In my experience as an executive coach, “can’t” means the person is afraid and just doesn’t know how to change. But even if somebody knows how to change, for them to self-develop and make the change on their own is very difficult. We all need feedback, and we all need support and encouragement. Unless we know what we did and what we need to do and somebody teaches us how to do it, we can’t improve.
People don’t really self-develop. To illustrate, my son and I went to the USC football practice awhile back and were struck by something at the practice field. At every practice there are four cameras set up on stilts that are recording the action. The players are improving by constantly looking at film afterwards with the coaches. Together they look at what they did in a situation and discuss what they should have done differently. In addition there are also coaches at the practice giving the players ongoing feedback on how to improve. If the team doesn’t provide that kind of coaching, players won’t know what to change, and they won’t be inspired to do it.
USC has won the national championship several times in the last few years. So the question is: “Why are they practicing? They know how to play football.” The answer of course is that there is so much at stake they want to rehearse and go over the plays. Likewise, there is so much at stake for these derailed executives. They need to run the plays when it’s not in a game situation. Where else can they do that but with a coach who can give them feedback?
For derailed executives there is a useful theory called the Stages of Change Model about the mind/body stages we go through when we do change. The Stages of Change Model was originally developed in the late 1970s by James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente at the University of Rhode Island when they were studying how smokers were able to give up their habits. According to the model there are a number of steps: precontemplation to contemplation to determination.
The idea behind the change model is that behavior change does not happen in one step. Rather, people tend to progress through different stages on their way to successful change. You first say to yourself, “Well, I don’t have a problem. And if I don’t have a problem, I don’t need a solution.” Then you get information feedback and data, such as complaints, and you begin to say, “Maybe there is a problem.” So you start to contemplate that there is a problem. If you get even more strong data and a coach comes in, then you have to go from contemplation to determination and decide, “I need to do something about this.”
On one hand it is easy to understand why some derailed executives would reject coaching. Many derailed executives don’t understand why they should change because the company has promoted them three or four times for being the way they are. Why is someone coming in now and telling them that what got them to that spot is not going to keep them there? Naturally there is a resistance to change an approach that has been so successful for so long. It is a very legitimate concern to wonder why you should take the leap of faith and change. Will this new behavior prove equally successful?
There is a common idea in the business world that you should stick with what works. There are a number of old sayings that reinforce this, from “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” to “Don’t change horses mid-stream.”
The reality for executives is that when you rise through the ranks of an organization, you’ll find that each individual level has a different set of rules because you have a different function. So what works at a director level is not going to work at a vice president level. The issue is that no one ever sits down and tells you the rules and then tells you how those rules change.
If that doesn’t motivate them, then sad to say you need to work on their exit strategy. This is the time to lay down your cards and fold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
