We came prepared that evening with several funk-flavored 70′s and 80′s TV show theme songs.  Our initial thought was to weave them into a fun nostalgic medley.  However, as we practiced the familiar theme from the hit show “Night Court,” our bass player had an idea.  Instead of including the song in a medley, why not drop it in the middle of “The Chicken” (a song by former James Brown saxophonist Alfred “Pee Wee” Ellis that we’d learned over the summer)?

At first, I wasn’t sure I liked the idea.  Why take a perfectly good song and mess it up?  But the other guys thought it was worth exploring so I went along.  After a few attempts that didn’t quite work, we found a way to incorporate the “Night Court” theme song into “The Chicken” in a way that was clever, surprising, and totally unexpected.  It was a small triumph, to be sure, but one that struck me as having implications for organizational leaders.

Strategizing and planning are, of course, critical to any organization.  But despite our best efforts, planning for the unknown is hard.  That’s where improvisation comes in.  As leaders, sometimes we have to ask “What if…” and open ourselves to new possibilities.  In other words, just as improvising musicians are musical “voyagers” (to paraphrase jazz vibraphonist Gary Burton), so must leaders learn to accept that life has no script.  In other words, plan thoughtfully…but allow enough freedom and flexibility to explore and experiment.  Effective leaders are able to walk this line with courage and optimism.

Perhaps film director Guy Ritchie said it best: “I like to think that we’ve got a plan, so let’s stick to it. That said, once we’ve stuck to it, we’re allowed as much improvisation as anyone cares to indulge themselves in.”  You know, sort of like what we did with “The Chicken.”

I recently came across that provocative sentiment in the essay “The Underworked Solution: Women and the Talent Crunch.”  The essay was one of several in a report titled “Entering the Human Age: Thought Leadership Insights” produced by the consulting company ManpowerGroup.  In the essay, the author makes the case that, although more women in the workforce would have multiple benefits, there are many barriers to their participation.  While some of these barriers are cultural, “many are structural — vestiges of an age when the five-day, 40-hour week was the norm, men were the primary wage earners and few women sought work outside the home.”  This model is simply unfeasible for many women today.

The author suggests that a new, more flexible work model is needed if more women are to enter the workforce: “Many women cannot be office-bound for eight consecutive hours Monday through Friday.  They need work that lets them choose where and when they get their jobs done.”  This means “[allowing] people to set their own schedules and escape the office if that’s practical…If [companies] want to bring more women into the workforce, this practice must become the rule rather than the exception.”  While this may be true, the very thought scares the heck out of many companies.  They imagine that allowing employees that degree of freedom will lead to chaos.  In my experience, however, the opposite occurs.  Employees are actually more productive, more engaged, and more loyal to the company.

Of course, many women around the globe have taken matters into their own hands.  These “women business owners are rewriting the rules of work and reshaping economies, especially in developing regions.”  But the fact remains: for countries and companies to remain vital and competitive, women must play a bigger role in the workforce.  It’s time to rethink 20th century labor practices and develop new paradigms that afford this crucial demographic the flexibility it needs for today’s organizations to thrive.  It will certainly be interesting to see which leaders are up to the challenge in the years ahead.

Ulukaya grew up in Eastern Turkey.  His family was involved in sheep and cow farming and yogurt and cheese making.  Although Ulukaya was not deeply involved in the family business, he says he learned from his father that “your reputation is your asset.”  He came to the U.S. in 1994 to learn English and attend business school but didn’t finish.  When his father came to visit, the elder Ulukaya told his son he should start a cheese business.  Initially skeptical, the younger Ulukaya followed his father’s advice and started a feta cheese company in 2002.

In 2005, Ulukaya opened a piece of mail that read: “Fully equipped yogurt factory for sale.”  He threw it away but later retrieved it.  Kraft was closing the plant and getting out of the yogurt business.  Despite his friends’ advice, Ulukaya followed his instincts and purchased the factory.  He hired a few Kraft employees and hired a “yogurt master.”  According to Ulukaya, “It took a year and a half to make a perfect cup of yogurt. Then we put our sales strategy together…We went to the big chains and said we wanted to put it in the regular yogurt section.”

The first 200 cases of Ulukaya’s yogurt proved popular with consumers.  The company branched out to BJ’s Wholesale Club in 2009 and Costco after that.  “We were overwhelmed and humbled,” says Ulukaya, “but not surprised.  Deep down we knew we had something really good.”  That’s an understatement.  By the middle of next year, Ulukaya expects to have more than 1,200 employees in New York, plus another 400 at the company’s new plant in Idaho.  “The yogurt story in this country is just getting started,” he says.  “We feel that as long as we stay true to who we are – quality, good-tasting products that are priced fairly and honestly positioned – our growth is limitless.”

Ulukaya offers several words of advice to leaders and business owners regardless of industry:

Trust your instincts.  “We won’t compromise.  All this growth has happened at the worst time this country has faced economically. But I trusted my instinct, and I designed the company to support it and support the growth.”

Keep direct contact with consumers.  “I don’t believe in ‘customer research.’  We just listen directly to consumers.  All feedback on our website comes directly to my BlackBerry.  Complaints are not a bad thing.  Complaints are an opportunity.  In fact, I have a lot of people who work for the company who started out as consumers.  Our head of marketing was a consumer.”

Keep ‘em happy.  “Nobody’s job is more important than anybody else’s.  The person who was answering calls is now the head of purchasing.  We interact very humanly with the farmers, the consumers, and the suppliers.  There is a spirit in this country I’ve not seen anywhere else in the world.  We don’t make work a stressed place; we make it a fun place.  You should have joy together.”

Seek perfection.  “I mean that I have to enjoy it.  It has to be nutritious, have real fruit, probiotics, and be low in fat or no fat, all natural, and hormone-free.  It has to be accessible in price for everyone, not just high-end consumers.  The market might go up and down, but as long as we keep up the quality, we are okay.”

Sounds like a tasty recipe for success.

• “This is a great, great country that has gotten a little soft…” – President Obama
• “Americans have tended to avoid the hard work that overcoming challenges requires.” – Mitt Romney
• “Part of it is the culture of people just having no work ethic.” – Paul Ryan
• “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”  – Herman Cain

To refute these claims, Begala cites The State of Working America, a compendium of economic data published by the Economic Policy Institute.  The statistics are sobering:

1. Americans have the fewest guaranteed vacation days and holidays of any major industrialized country.
2. Americans work more weeks per year than any industrialized country except Japan.
3. Americans work more hours than any other Western nation.
4. The productivity of American workers is world-class.

Obviously, the notion that Americans aren’t hard-working isn’t supported by the statistics.  Beyond the numbers, however, my experience working with my own clients support Begala’s argument.  The people I meet – whether they work in finance, manufacturing, retail, technology or health care – are not lazy.  Far from it.  Despite the lack of raises, bonuses, and other perks that have been severely cut back (or eliminated), the vast majority of employees I encounter are diligent, industrious, and proud of the work they do.  I would imagine this holds true for most workers.

It’s time to stop bashing the American work ethic and celebrate the consistently fine accomplishments of the American worker.  While America certainly faces its fair share of problems, laziness isn’t one of them.

Khan suggests that, although passion is the “leadership software extraordinaire” when it comes to inspiring performance, few leaders are able to define it.  More importantly, many leaders assume that inducing passion in others is exceedingly challenging due to the ambiguous and unpredictable nature of emotions.  However, the author points out that “passion is most natural in everything we do as adults”: from sports to politics to art, passion is abundant.  Except, it seems, at work.  The real problem, then, is not how to create passion.  It’s to discover and eliminate what kills passion.

Companies kill passion in many ways: by criticizing too often and praising too infrequently; by failing to establish clear goals; by inconsistent treatment of people; by failing to coach effectively.  This is a short list, of course.  So what can leaders do to fire up passion in their people?  Khan, who has worked with the likes of 3M, Motorola, Microsoft, Ritz-Carlton, and Johnson & Johnson, has some answers.

The first so-called passion liberator is Intimacy.  “By intimacy,” Khan writes, “I mean that people invest themselves in sharing who they are and in learning about their colleagues.”  But simply spending time together won’t create the type of intimacy required for passion to ignite.   Team leaders should start by asking questions of their people to get a sense of where people feel most misunderstood.  “Such discussions…remove unnecessary and stifling layers of psychological resistance and misunderstanding that otherwise give rise to unhelpful and often inaccurate perceptions of each other,” says Khan.  “The result is more intimacy and fewer barriers in working together.”

The second passion liberator is Creating a Visionary Purpose.  Khan suggests that typical corporate visions (“We want to be the best in the world at _________!”) usually fail to excite anyone except senior management because they’re too broad and ambiguous.  Visionary purposes must possess certain characteristics to have the desired effect.  For example:

• Corporate objectives must be clear and compelling
• People must know how they can contribute to achieving the objectives
• People must believe the objectives can be met
• People must believe their growth in the company is related to achieving the objectives
• People must feel they would be proud to achieve the objectives

The third passion liberator is Claiming Accountability.  Khan suggests that lack of accountability is a great passion killer.  We’ve all heard the excuses for why something wasn’t or couldn’t be done: lack of time, a lousy boss, difficult employees, etc.  But how often do we really do everything within our power to make a difference?  Not often enough, asserts Khan: “Taking ourselves off the hook might temporarily ease our anxiety and frustration.  However, it also diminishes vitality and engagement…Such a tendency to assume accountability and take action is perhaps the quintessence of leadership — a can-do determination that translates into results.”

The fourth passion liberator is Living Vitality.  Khan suggests making a “to-don’t” list, i.e. a list of things that sap our time and energy without adding value.  Is a useless weekly meeting taking up precious time?  How about a monthly report that no one reads?  Eliminate two of these items a month and watch your productivity and energy rise.

The fifth passion liberator is Appreciating Potential.  This liberator involves encouraging and maximizing talent.  Interestingly, Khan suggests that instead of focusing on areas we need to improve, we should “concentrate on building on our strengths first…As a manager, you should spend the bulk of your time nurturing your company’s best performers, rather than correcting those who require the most help.”  While this is sometimes easier said than done, the sentiment is on target.  Furthermore, managers should “challenge talent to move toward real excellence and ongoing evolution, rather than just coasting along its current plateau.”  While not everyone wants to be challenged in this way, it’s important that leaders identify those who do and support them accordingly.

The sixth and final passion liberator is Coaching for Passionate Growth.  This liberator has to do with authenticity.  If we coach, support, and praise people for the purpose of getting people to obey, says Khan, they will see right through us.  Supporting and encouraging others to develop must be done because we take joy in the success of others, not because we want people to carry out orders more diligently.  Provide coaching and feedback with the right motives, and desired performance will naturally follow.

According to Begley, “People who aren’t good savers are neither stupid nor irrational – but often simply don’t accurately foresee the consequences of not saving.  Rewire the brain to find pleasure in future rewards, and you’re on the path to a future you really want.”  In one classic experiment from the 1960s known as the “marshmallow experiment,” scientists at Stanford University offered 4-year-olds a marshmallow and left it in front of them.  The kids were told that if they waited to eat the marshmallow until the experimenter left and re-entered the room, they could have two marshmallows.  The experimenter then stepped out of the room.  More than a decade later, the kids who waited scored higher on the SAT and were less likely to be obese, addicted to drugs, or divorced.

Now in their 40s, the original marshmallow kids were tested again.  Scientists examined differences in brain activity among those individuals who were good at delaying gratification and those who preferred instant rewards.  In those individuals adept at delaying rewards, the parts of the brain responsible for thoughtful, rational decision-making were more active.  Not surprisingly, the “emotional brain” (limbic system) that responds to instant gratification was more active in poor delayers.

Identifying the parts of the brain responsible for over-spending is one thing; controlling them is another.  Scientists are currently exploring new technology that “revs up” or “shuts down” specific areas of the brain responsible for certain behaviors.  Although this technology is in its infancy, don’t despair.  “Being unable to delay gratification is not something we’re stuck with for life,” says psychologist Walter Mischel.  Willpower and patience can be achieved through disciplined practice.  “If you defer gratification,” says neuroeconomist Paul Zak, “the payoff can be greater than with immediate gratification.  But your brain has to learn that.”

Of course, today’s culture of instant messaging and one-click Internet shopping isn’t helping our brains.  “Instant gratification is fun,” says psychologist Warren Bickel, “and that’s what today’s technology is teaching us.”  My advice?  The next time you crave an expensive watch or costly handbag, practice restraint by treating yourself to a small dish of Häagen-Dazs instead.  You’ll enjoy the same endorphin-fueled “high” that typically accompanies big purchases but without the “buyer’s remorse” and/or potentially catastrophic damage to your bank account.

To a large extent, the success of these initiatives depends on how employees are hired, treated, compensated, retained, motivated and rewarded.  After all, employees who are unhappy and apathetic are likely to perform poorly, while those who enjoy their work and feel trusted and appreciated are likely to contribute to the company’s success.  In this way, organizational culture — encompassing employee attitudes, norms, and behaviors — is directly impacted by the kinds of HR practices in place.

Likewise, organizational culture can influence the choice of HR practices.  For example, in order to be the low cost provider, Southwest needed to maximize productivity, reduce turnaround time, and keep customer satisfaction high.  To accomplish this, it fashioned a culture emphasizing teamwork, fun, customer service, and a family atmosphere.  From this unique culture grew a set of HR practices that simply wouldn’t make sense at another company.  Clearly there is a symbiotic relationship between organizational culture and HR.

I believe a critical weakness of many organizations is the failure to recognize HR as a competitive advantage and strategic partner.  Today, a highly trained, committed and motivated workforce is at least as much of a competitive advantage as the latest technology — and arguably more so.  The role of HR in creating such a workforce is undeniable.  Yet, too often, many companies don’t see the connection.  They view HR as “soft, fluffy” stuff and HR employees as paper pushers consumed with tracking vacation time and tardiness.  Such companies not only fail to include HR in the formulation of organizational strategy but fail to understand how those strategies could be facilitated through the implementation of effective HR practices.  When top management relegates HR to routine employee matters or expects HR to adapt to strategies already in place, the company as a whole can suffer.  Sometimes, such short-sightedness can be fatal.

To ensure organizational performance, HR decision making should, first and foremost, align with the overall strategy of the company.  In order to accomplish this, HR must be an equal partner in the development and implementation of organizational strategy.  From gathering and analyzing data on competitors to gauging internal employee attitudes to sharing information on new legislation, HR can play a critical role in the formulation of strategy.  Similarly, HR can contribute to the execution of strategy through training, performance management, and other initiatives.  The point is that when HR is treated as a vital strategic partner and HR decisions are viewed as integral to the overall health of the organization, everyone benefits.

When asked for examples of bad corporate decision making, Mui cited the near death of Kodak.  Kodak invented digital technology but “sat on it” because it didn’t match their business model.  The company was doing very well with its traditional film business and didn’t see how the world was changing to embrace digital photography.

Mui also cites Netflix’s recent decision to break the company up into two companies – Netflix for streaming movies and Qwikster for DVDs through the mail – and then reconsider the entire scheme.  According to Mui, Netflix did the right thing.  While Kodak was “complacent, Netflix panicked” by forcing customers to make a lot of sacrifices quickly (such as moving back and forth between different websites).  The customer resisted and Netflix stepped back.  Although Netflix received considerable criticism, Mui suggests that it ultimately made the right choice.

Mui cites Motorola as a company with visionary leadership.  They had a popular cell phone in the RAZR which was primarily designed for making calls.  In other words, it was not a smart phone.  When it became apparent that smart phones were the hot new technology, the head of Motorola cancelled the RAZR projects and “bet the ranch on the Android.”  Doing so, Mui suggests, “saved Motorola.”

You can learn more from Mui’s book:

http://www.amazon.com/Billion-Dollar-Lessons-Inexcusable-Business/dp/B003156BE0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319474483&sr=8-1

You can also hear the interview here:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/10/141215963/what-can-we-learn-from-business-failures

In Stage One (Dependency and Inclusion), there is typically a great deal of anxiety, tension and fear among group members.  Most people, after all, are uncomfortable with new situations, new relationships and new experiences.  Consequently, group members are highly dependent on the leader for direction, structure and guidance.  They assign qualities such as benevolence, competence and omnipotence to the leader, even though these qualities may not be wholly accurate.  In Stage One, group members are eager for approval from the leader.  Like meek children, they rarely challenge him/her; rather, they willingly express their desire to be led.  The leader is treated with utmost respect and deference.  Not surprisingly, leaders tend to exploit their elevated status and use power tactics more readily than other group members at this Stage.

In Stage Two (Counterdependency and Fight), the group begins to define itself and the roles of its members.  This leads to conflict between a member (or members) and the leader.  At this Stage, the group is less willing to accept the leader at face value and wishes to liberate itself from the perceived control of the authority figure.  An interesting phenomenon occurs at this point – coalitions start to form for the first time in the group’s existence.  One coalition may attack the leader as overbearing and unfit to lead, while another may doggedly defend him/her as benevolent and competent.  Such friction results from the group’s need for increased interdependence and desire to clarify roles, decision making, power, status, etc. among its members.  A consequence of this friction is that the power associated with the leader’s role is reduced, allowing other roles to emerge.  Naturally, the leader may resist since the ultimate power he/she recently enjoyed is quickly decaying.  If dissension regarding the leader’s role continues, the group may remain in Stage Two for a long time.

Groups that move into Stage Three (Trust and Structure) have, by definition, redefined the previous relationships between members and leader.  In this Stage, the leader’s earlier “superhuman” qualities are stripped away.  He/she is now less a deity than an all-too-human group facilitator and coordinator with a job to do.  The group, having survived the conflict of Stage Two, experiences high levels of cooperation, satisfaction and individual commitment to mutual goals.  No longer anxious and fearful, group members now feel more secure and trusting of each other and the leader (although the leader may feel “defeated” as a result of his/her loss of power).  The stage is now set for accomplishing real work.

Regarding Stage Four, the following question arises – what style of leadership increases group productivity?  Some theorists suggest that a leadership style low on both task and relationship is most conducive to work.  This style can be equated to that of the parent of an adult child.  Like the parent, the leader at Stage Four is less crucial to the success of the group.  By now, the group should be capable of working with little input from him/her.  These theorists claim that a more directive leadership could interfere with productivity.  In my experience, a leadership style that is medium on task and relationship (rather than low on both) is the best choice.  Leaders should work to remove obstacles to productivity while providing encouragement and support.  At the same time, they need to provide teams with autonomy and independence.  It can be a difficult line to walk.

Stage Five (Termination) is perhaps the least researched Stage of group development.  However, some authors have suggested that teams take time to explore feelings of separation, exchange feedback, and deal with unfinished business.

Advice to a New Leader

Based on the above discussion, there are several recommendations I would make to the leader of a new work team:

• The new leader should acquaint him- or herself with the group development model before assuming the leadership role.  Familiarity with each stage will help him/her better anticipate and adjust to the shifts in perspective that occur naturally throughout the process.  The leader should also be prepared to modify his/her leadership style over the course of the group’s development, rather than cling to a single style.

• The leader should be careful not to exploit the group’s feelings of anxiety and fear in Stage One.  Because groups in this stage feel vulnerable and defenseless, they ascribe omnipotent and benevolent qualities to the leader.  They may even want the leader to be forceful and commanding.  In the face of such glorification, the leader’s ego could easily spiral out of control.  The leader may even utilize coercive power to maintain or enhance his/her position.  An effective leader will keep these tendencies in check for the good of the group, using his power to reward rather than punish.

• The leader should understand that attempts to diminish his/her power in Stage Two are natural.  He/she must not interpret these efforts as personal attacks, but accept that the group is carving out its identity and developing according to plan.  The leader must retain an open mind in Stage Two and not cling to power at the expense of the group’s progress.

• The leader should not feel “defeated” in Stage Three following the inevitable diminishment of his/her power.  Rather, he/she should feel pleased that the group is finding its footing.  As challenging as it may be, the leader should suppress his/her ego and embrace his/her new role as facilitator/consultant.  As a child matures, it is difficult for a parent to switch roles from an all-knowing “demigod” to a trusted advisor.  But that is exactly what the leader must do to ensure the group’s continued progress.

• In Stage Four, the leader should refrain from being too overbearing or commanding.  A more subtle form of leadership is required here, one that gently pushes the group members to higher and higher levels of performance.  The leader should fight the urge to “just do it myself.”  This is a counter-productive message to send at this stage.  Instead, he/she must trust in the abilities of the team and delegate responsibility with utmost confidence in the team’s competence.

• The leader should be aware that the Termination stage brings with it a wave of emotions.  He/she should be prepared for an emotional roller coaster and sensitive to members’ feelings of resentment, sadness, abandonment or apathy.  To combat these negative feelings, the leader should: a) emphasize the group’s accomplishments while b) assuring members that their individual strengths and abilities will serve them well outside the confines of the group.

A recent Newsweek article on Jobs by Alan Deutschman paints the CEO as “the ultimate willful leader, forging his singular vision through a combination of inspiration, unilateralism, and gut instinct.  Jobs didn’t just create products that instilled lust in consumers and enriched his company.  He upended entire industries.”  An accompanying feature by Leander Kahney titled “The 10 Commandments of Steve” sheds some light on exactly how Jobs was able to accomplish this.  While your company may not be in the tech field, there are lessons here that all leaders, regardless of industry, should consider.

#1 – Go for perfect.  Jobs’ perfectionism and incredibly high standards garnered him a reputation as a bit of a tyrant.  While cruel criticism is not customarily an effective way of motivating employees, it apparently worked in Apple’s case.  Ideally, leaders should expect employees’ best efforts and provide frequent feedback when performance is lagging.

#2 – Tap the experts.  Jobs hired legendary graphic designer Paul Rand to design Apple’s NeXT logo and recruited former Gap CEO Mickey Drexler to Apple’s board.  Jobs recognized where he needed help and wasn’t afraid to seek it out.  Today, such actions are increasingly viewed as wise strategy rather than signs of weakness.

#3 – Be ruthless.  Jobs was known for “cannibalizing” his products, i.e. making one product obsolete by introducing a different product.  For example, Jobs basically turned the wildly successful iPod into a free app for the iPhone (yet Apple still sells plenty of iPods).  He also killed a Palm Pilot clone when he realized cell phones would overtake PDAs.  Taking calculated risks is a hallmark of good leadership.

#4 – Shun focus groups.  Jobs trusted his own instincts, famously saying “People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”  While focus groups are still a valuable way of collecting data, leaders should not rely solely on them.  Intuition can play an equally (if not more) valuable role in product development.

#5 – Never stop studying.  While contemplating the case for the first Mac, Jobs walked around Apple’s parking lot studying the bodywork of German and Italian cars.  His goal?  To be inspired by the cars’ beautiful lines and details.  The ability to draw inspiration from diverse sources is crucial to visionary leadership.

#6 – Simplify.  Jobs wanted the iPod to be outrageously simple to use, so he told its designers to lose all the buttons – including the on/off button.  Designers responded by developing the scroll wheel we all know.  The lesson for leaders?  When in doubt, simplify.

#7 – Keep your secrets.  “Nobody at Apple talks.”  By keeping his cards close to the vest, Jobs was able to generate “frenzied interest” in his products and keep Apple stores packed with enthusiastic customers.  Leaders need to recognize when circumstances call for collaboration and sharing and when they require a “less is more” approach.

#8 – Keep teams small.  The original Macintosh team consisted of only 100 people.  When teams are small, communication flows more freely, there is less political posturing, and trust is more easily developed among members.

#9 – Use more carrot than stick.  Although Jobs occasionally resorted to Machiavellian tactics to incite his troops, he also exhorted his employees to “make a dent in the universe.”  This singular vision kept Apple focused on making a meaningful difference in people’s lives and resulted in ferocious employee loyalty.

#10 – Prototype to the extreme.  Continuous prototyping at Apple aligns with Jobs’ perfectionism.  It allows employees to root out flaws in their designs so that when a new product is finally released, it’s the best it can possibly be.  Prototyping requires leaders to increase their level of comfort with failure; however, it can lead to creative breakthroughs that would otherwise never have occurred.

Steve Jobs

1955-2011