Category: CEO Management


Mourinho directs his troops

Image, ‘Mourinho directs his troops’ copyright Flickr user Ronnie McDonald. Used under Creative Commons.

As a Chelsea supporter the team’s poor start to the Premier League season has been hard to watch.  Having won the Premier League title last season, this season the team stands at 15 out of 20 teams – something unheard of for a team of generally used to be in the Top 3.  They keep on losing and losing badly and the normal action of owners in the premier league when a team’s performance declines precipitously has been to fire the manager.

How things play out in the next month at Chelsea will determine how it will go for the next five years.

A common problem

As somebody who coaches CEOs on both leadership and management the challenges facing the club are commonplace within large organizations.  CEOs have big plans which they expect their managers to deliver.  Abramovich’s vision for the club is one of long-term domination of the game. He has also stated that they must achieve a Top 4 standing in this years league in order to be eligible for the Champions League Tournament the prestigious European Knockout competition for the top clubs.

As in many large organizations the problem is largely one of differing expectations and unclear accountabilities – the vision determines how managers manage, rather than management successes being seen as a means to the long-term vision and when things don’t go to plan the Chief Executive applies pressure on managers to perform, rather than trusting in the talent and creating an environment, in which they can do their best work.

This environment cannot be created while the threat of being shown the door hangs over every performance. Abramovich has demonstrated leadership and set to rest any suggestion that Mourinho’s future at the club is in doubt – at least in the short-term.  He then needs to allow his manager to manage the talent available to him in order to deliver both the short-term league success and the owner’s long-term vision.

Blame the manager

Chelsea have had 11 managers in as many years.  The Club’s board has never seemed to take a long term view and as a result appears despite the huge capital investments made in talented players, is incapable of building an organization with the long term potential to become a world class soccer club – a force to be reckoned with. Does Abramovich support a culture of deliver or die or does he create a culture that enables his manager – a manager with a huge track record of success and is loved by all the Chelsea fans – to be given space to address the challenges of his under performing players.

Chelsea Football Club is a business.  A large business with major capital investments.  Its employees need consistency and stability to deliver results.  Abramovich needs to ensure that the “current storm of losses” can be managed through.  His employees need consistency, stability and clarity if they are going to deliver results.  The last thing he should do now is throw his manager overboard.  He does that and yet again any possibility to build and implement a long term strategy is ashes.

Having done this the confidence this will be achieved, of both the manager and his players, should improve.  As a result, the on-field performances are likely to improve and.  This was unlikely while there was a question over Mourinho’s future.

I think this is the right decision.

Leadership & Management

Solving the problem at Chelsea requires both leadership and management. It requires Abramovich and Mourinho to work together, rather than independently. Turning things around on the pitch needs to be Mourinho’s accountability.  Creating a culture that allows him to do it requires Abramovich to demonstrate leadership.

Reading @AndreaFelsted‘s piece yesterday in the Financial Times about Tesco one year in to Dave Lewis’ tenure as CEO, I was reminded of the piece I wrote on the importance of management in turning around the former UK retail heavyweight’s fortunes.

It is clear that Mr Lewis has failed to manage.  He destroyed the contract of trust by cutting thousands of head office jobs.

A CEO who cuts employees is an abject failure – his/her strategy did not work & employees pay the cost. Mr Lewis inherited this mess, so conveniently he can sidestep the strategy issue, but the fundamental problem remains: that he further strained the contract of trust while negotiating his compensation package.

Why would Tesco expect anything else from their employees but distrust, disconnection, cynicism and low morale?

Learn how to master the craft of CEO management at www.howdareyoumanage.com

One of the highlights of Management Today’s coverage of its #MTLive event recently was hearing from Andy Street, CEO of UK retailer John Lewis Partnership.  Street is, by the publication’s measure, Britain’s most admired business leader.

Reading his comments and, subsequently, a series of articles written about him it’s not hard to understand why he is most admired. But he is, first and foremost, a Manager not a Leader.

In one Management Today piece Street attributes his success to strength of the business model he inherited; a business model created by the founders son in 1929 and adhered to ever since. Street is the steward of this model.  He is accountable for creating and executing a plan that allows the company to prosper.  And, prosper it has.  While many UK retailers have struggled in difficult trading conditions and increased competition from low-price retailers John Lewis’ premium business has weathered the storm better than any other.

How has it done this? Andy Street says he thinks it is in large part down to the culture of the organization. “People trust organizations because of a sort of total peace around the organization. So we want to be perceived as an organization that’s a good employer and has a fair approach to pay, for example”, he told the publication.

John Lewis are renowned for their staff’s morale and engagement. This requires clarity – everybody must know what they are accountable for. This requires direct, truthful, conversations; sometimes difficult ones. This also requires transparency. But, most importantly, it requires management.  Most companies struggle to create a culture where employees are engaged and inspired.  The most common cause is not a lack of a leader – somebody pointing the way – but the lack of a Manager.

The Partnership in the John Lewis name means that all employees share in the profits. You might think that having partners might make direct truthful conversations about corporate and individual performance – and applying consequences – in a transparent way difficult. But, says Street in his #MTlive interview, it makes them easier.  Management and employees at John Lewis are able to have direct truthful conversation that are accepted and understood by all – and this produces significant competitive advantage in innovation, customer engagement and strategy execution.

Creating and maintaining this culture doesn’t happen by accident: it starts at the top – with the CEO and senior management team. Creating it is easy; maintaining it is incredibly difficult. It requires continual management.

I believe Andy Street should be recognized as Britain’s Best Manager – a far greater accolade in my book than the one already bestowed on him. He doesn’t just point the direction, he manages the organization to ensure it achieves its goals for the benefit of every single employee.  I call it CEO management.

Dear Dave,

I know, ‘Every Little Helps’, but that doesn’t include employees pension contribution and pay!

You have too rich a compensation package for the results you’ve achieved so far Dave. Nobody is worth £4m for six months work – especially the six months you’ve had.

Your employees will only thrive under quality management that is fair and respectful. If, as the papers speculate, you’re after their cash, while you and your board squabble over million-pound claw backs and lucrative pay packages the optics will look awful. Not to mention the impact on your employees’ morale.

DON’T DO IT, DAVE! Please.

Nick Forrest

CEO, Dare To Manage

 

A key first step to managing large groups is to be clear on your strategy and be able to quote your Vision and Mission statement from memory. When talking with a group of 25 CEOs last week about how to manage large groups of employees a considerable number of these CEO’s,  to my surprise, could not do this.
I did not expect managers at this level to fail in this exercise.  But am I being naive? How many senior executives have their Vision and Mission statements memorized cold? How many are able to refer to it mentally as a guiding reference for all they do on a day-to-day basis?

The problem is many senior leaders regard their Vision and Mission as window dressing – something they need to have but do not really value.  Take some time to read a few: many are excruciatingly obtuse.  Yet these are the two statements
that are supposed to give context and direction (what businesses we can and cannot be in) for everything done in a company to achieve the strategy.  The apparent failure of CEOs and senior managers to know their Vision and Mission off pat could explain the poor performance of many household brand companies.

I think I stumbled on a real opportunity to improve alignment and corporate performance.  Knowing and understanding the Vision and Mission is the accountability of every manager in the organization.

Have you committed your Vision and Mission to memory?  What about your senior executive team? What role does it play in helping you manage large groups of employees?

Share your Vision and Mission below and I’ll send you a condensed version of How Dare You Manage? 7 Principles Every CEO Needs for Managing Large Groups of Employees.

Last week I read about the sad findings in Gallop’s most recent “State of the
American Manager” Report.  It’s an interesting – if depressing – read.  It got me thinking about the core skills of
management talent.   These are:

* Motivator
* Assertiveness
* Accountability
* Relationships
* Decision Making

According to the report, the majority of managers fail every one.  On the face
of it they do not look that complicated, so let’s examine them and try and see
where most managers are going wrong.

1. Motivator:  They challenge themselves and their teams to continually improve
and deliver distinguished performance.

You’d think that this capability should be found in most management candidates.
It is not hard to see if someone is interested in accomplishment and
improvement.  Just look at their past history and how they have improved
themselves.

2. Assertiveness: They overcome challenges, adversities and resistance.

Have you put someone in a role where they will be overwhelmed?  How big are they
for the role?  You need someone who can get the arms around their management
role.  If they feel overwhelmed they will find it hard to be assertive.

The choice to put them in a role is the sum of their manager’s discretion.
Often this discretion gets undermined by weak objective measurements that
enable shoddy thinking and poor choices.

3. Accountability:  They ultimately assume responsibility for their teams ‘
success and create the structure and processes to help their teams deliver on
expectations.

If you hold a manager accountable for the outputs of their employees you will
get the above.  There can be no “Teflon Management” if a manager is held
accountable for their team’s output.  “There is nobody else to blame for poor
performance so I had better get on with building the best team I can and support
them with the required structure and processes”

4. Relationships:  They build a positive, engaging work environment where their
teams create strong relationships with one another and clients.

All of us know and can judge if someone can build relationships.  How dare you
put managers in charge of people when they don’t like people!!!!   It just a
fundamentally flawed decision that builds dark satanic mills – awful places to
work.  It is unconscionable act of lousy management

5.Decision-Making:  They solve the many complex issues and problems inherent to
the role of thinking ahead, planning contingencies, balancing competing interest
and taking an analytical approach.

They need a brain to do this!  Do not put a manager in a role who is not capable
of handling the complexity the work.  They will be overwhelmed, unable to sort
things out and delegate effectively to their employees.  These employees will
also work out quickly that their manager is “too stupid” for the role and cannot
help or team them much if anything.  It raises the odds of them disengaging from
their work pretty fast.

The truth is that none of this matters much unless the CEO and their Executive
really engage and care about structuring work of their company and staffing it
with right management capability and holding them accountable for effective
performance.  And, while the five dimensions of effective management might
appear common sense, Gallup says that in a whopping 82 percent of cases
organizations choose fail to choose the candidate with the right talent for the
manager job.

This is an abdication of CEO Management.  It is a shame and creates a wasteland
of human talent as described by Gallop in their 2015 report. The sad fact is
that as ill equipped most managers in large organizations are, it starts with a
basic CEO skills gap.

Closing that gap MUST be the priority for the majority of large organizations.

If you’re a manager Gallup’s latest “State of the American Manager” is painful
reading. Our profession is full of incompetent, overwhelmed managers who do not
care for the role they have chosen. As a result, they inflict pain and
suffering on those they are supposed to be managing. Only 35% of managers
are engaged, 51% are not engaged and 14% are actively disengaged.

In his introduction Gallup CEO Jim Clifton pulls no punches. “Most CEO’s I know
don’t care about their employees or take and interest in Human Resources”.  This
disinterest and disengagement costs the US economy $319 billion per year.

The report states that their research showed 1 in 2 – HALF of US employees left
their job to get away from their manager and improve their personal life at some
point in their career.  I can testify to that – it happened to me twice in my
early career. The report says that just 30% of workers are engaged in their
work and connected to their company.

I believe all employees have right when hired by a company to be given work that
grows their self-confidence and feeling of self worth. This is a common sense
and win-win for both the employee and the company. But, it requires managers
pay attention to their employees, manage them with respect, give them work that
interests them and enable them to learn and grow they will get higher levels of
engagement and quality of work.  It requires a framework for managers to acquire
the skills they need to manage large groups of people effectively.

The opportunity for improvement is massive. What CEO’s and their executives
think their management work is I do not know, but Gallup’s report suggests they
need to find out. And quickly!