Old vs. New

I have been rather lax lately in keeping up with my posts. I can partially blame this on my ADD, and partially on the fact that it was the start of the best weather for rock climbing, and have been spending quite a bit of my time the last several months engaged in that in some way. I had considered combining the blogs, but decided against this course, as the two disparate subject matters would not mesh well. So, onward with two separate blogs.

I had made a post on an internet forum several months ago in response to a new manager's inquiry on how to deal with a problem employee. My response saw several other newly minted supervisors to email me and ask for some advice on how to deal with problem employees who were also older than them and had been with the company for a longer period of time. This seems to be a rather common issue, so I figured that I would share my answers here.

The way that this seems to manifest is something like, "Why won't s/he listen to me? I ask them to do their job, and they get snippy/passive-aggressive/combative with me, and they are really dragging morale into the gutter."

The solution, like it is for most problems, is to find out the root cause behind these actions while making sure to engage in a little damage control. This is a situation where simply attempting to assert your authority will ultimately result in entrenched factions sniping at each other from behind cubicle walls.

The first thing I always ask is, "Have you sat them down and spoken with them about their actions?" Most of the time, the answer is, "Yes." The next question is always, "And did the problem go away?", to which the supervisor will usually say, "No." Clearly, your communication wasn't effective. You didn't take the time to not only try and dig to the problem's root, but you did not set a clear expectation of acceptable actions and potential consequences.

Many tenured employees will "act out" for one of two reasons:
1) They feel threatened
2) They feel marginalized

In the first scenario, they may feel threatened by someone younger moving into a position of power, someone who may have shown aptitude in areas that they have not been able to suss out, or that this is a sign of them aging out of the workforce. They may also know that they are not as effective at their jobs as they could be, and this new manager may decide to change things around in a way that will see them have to work harder or be phased out (though this is not limited to older workers, but on all workers who don't do their jobs). In these cases, the worker will act out in a way to stake out their territory, or to infer that they are not intimidated by the new boss.

In the second scenario, there may be a case where they were overlooked for a promotion (possibly the same promotion that you just received), and may feel that their seniority and expertise in the organization is being overlooked. Regardless of whether or not this is true, their perception of events is what shapes how they interact with their workspace, and that perception must be taken into account.

Regardless of the scenario, the answer is always better communication. Take some time to not just speak with, but listen to, the employee. Let them air their grievances and ask them how they would suggest the issues may be fixed. A better solution is to do this out of the office, over a cup of coffee or a hot dog. This is a less intimidating environment and will help put the employee at ease. This will help you tease out the little details that will clue you in to their behavior.

The best solution is to make sure that you include them when making decisions, even if it is for just a little input here and there. If they feel as though they are being recognized for their expertise and tenure, many of the problem behaviors will start to disappear.

However, there is a flip side to this coin: don't let them run the place or run over you. If their behavior is problematic, make sure that you discuss with them what is acceptable action and what is not. Depending on the severity of their behavior, you may need to outline consequences that will occur should the behavior not improve (use a performance improvement process in this scenario, though it does not have to be a grim conversation). Explain to them the position that they put you in when they choose to act a certain way at work, whether it is them going outside of established procedures or talking trash in the break room.

Do not, under any circumstances, talk to them about attitude. This equals death. You cannot, repeat cannot coach attitude. You can, however, coach actions. Focus on their actions, and coach to their best performance.

This is a delicate balancing act, dealing with established employees, especially as a younger or first-time supervisor. I made this mistake when I was a manager at REI. There was a long-time employee in my department who clearly had a disdain for managers. I tried to simply let him do his job and speak to him minimally, you know, just stay out of his way, but this backfired. He felt as though I was not including him on decisions and not appreciating his deep knowledge of the store's inventory and product movement. This lead to him resenting me even more, and my resenting his attitude towards me. When I tried to assign him projects, they would be completed, but not to what I had imagined (though to the letter of what I asked of him), and the cycle continued. I actually tried to coach him because he refused to shake my hand one day.

I think that after that incident that I reactivated my brain and took a different approach. Rather than simply making decisions and communicating them to my staff, I started making a much more concerted effort to ask their opinions before acting. I specifically went to this "problem" employee and gave him free reign to complete the projects that he was best at, and our working relationship, while never warm, improved greatly.

Answering Stupid Questions

A friend of mine recently made a post in their blog about the stupid questions that high school students sometimes ask. The truth as (as is shown by some of the questions the students ask) is that yes, there is such a thing as a stupid question. We only tell people who ask stupid questions that there aren't stupid questions to make them feel better.

As a manager, have you been asked a stupid question? Of course you have. We all have. At a recent position, there was one member of the sales team that routinely asked stupid questions, usually asking me to explain something that I had just spent the last hour training her on.

She definitely got on my last nerve, and though I thought that I his it, everyone around me knew when I was training her just from my change of demeanor. The only saving grace in this was that it wasn't just me...she was this way with everyone, to the point where people cringed at the very mention of her name. She was, without a doubt, in the category of stupid.

And it was my fault.

It wasn't my fault that she was not a relatively intelligent human being; it was my fault that she got a job with this company. It was my fault for not screening her more thoroughly.

In the words of the immortal Mr. Miyagi, "Best way to block punch: no be there." The best way to stop performance issues is to not hire people who are going to be problematic. Simple enough, but rarely followed.

Most managers rely on the time-honored approach of the interview process. This usually begins with screening some resumes. This is followed by a phone interview, and then a face-to-face interview with one or more managers. Sometimes, there will be a second interview. A hiring decision is made, the new hire comes on board, and within six months, the hiring manager knows regret that can only be equated with eating bad Mexican food from a shady sidewalk vendor.

Other businesses rely strictly on testing to make hiring decision. This is excellent for determining a candidate's skill set, but does little in determining a candidate's fit with the company and the team.

The real way to weed out the, oh, let's call them "weird" ones, is to not only use a combination approach (both behavioral-based interview questions and objective testing), but include a sample of their work. For example, in a sales position, ask them for a sample proposal, a demonstration their cold-calling technique, and references from their customers. Any salesperson worth their salt will be able to cold call you, show you their boilerplate proposal, and offer a list of customers who are happily satisfied.

We (one of the other managers and I) did not do this last step. We had the aforementioned candidate interview with both of us and take a test, but did not ask for other proof of her accomplishments. Turns out that she was nothing but a performance issue from the start, one that not only monopolized our time, but did not sell much of anything for 6 months. Had we been more thorough in the interview process using the above techniques, we could have avoided the entire mess, and who knows, hired a salesperson that could...well, you know, sell.

"Patience, young Skywalker"

Random observation: As I'm sitting here in Starbucks, I am wondering to myself: how many covers of Ah-Ha's "Take On Me" do we really need?

I am finding that one of my "pain points", to use an awful sales training term, is being pushed repeatedly as of late: I am not what most would consider a patient person. I have a proclivity for instant gratification, that when I have an idea, I want to see it come to fruition yesterday. As it turns out, starting a business requires some ample amounts of the stuff.

I have the basic frame work laid for Auspex, have started some marketing and some networking, but have yet to see any of these efforts bare fruit. I am trying to take the Jeffrey Gitomer approach and grab attention through networking, but I am finding this an exceedingly difficult chore. Whether this is because I am not terribly good at it, or because it requires some degree of patience, or a combination, I do not know.

One such networking group seemed like it would have helped put Auspex on the right track, but then there was a catch: they wanted $300 for an annual membership, $100 for a start up fee, and $15 per week for the weekly lunch meetings. So, in total, over $1100, plus I would have to turn in a certain number of referrals each week to maintain membership. Not that I'm doubting the efficacy of this approach, but the fact that they wanted the entire membership fee up front, rather than providing for a payment plan, completely put this out of reach.

This has lead me to two thoughts this week about effective leadership:

1. Leaders must be patient.
2. Leader must know when to stop pouring money into something.

The second one is actually much more delicate than one would think, because in some circumstances, such as joining a networking and referral group, the expenditure may be more of an investment, and may pay out dividends much higher than the investment. But, at best, it is still an educated guess with a certain probability of failure. At this time, with no other source of income and with the current expenditures just getting the infrastructure in place, I decided not to drop the additional $400 up front. Perhaps at a later date it will be a possibility, but that kind of spending would undoubtedly have repercussions that resonated beyond the small business and into my personal finances; repercussions that, were the investment not to pay off, would result in a serious problem meeting normal household financial committments.

Its the patience end of things that I need the real work. I need to work on being able to just wait and not expect instant results in certain circumstances. I think that most managers/leaders need to, if they haven't already mastered it, develop this skill and dedicate time to its cultivation. It is one thing to expect projects and tasks completed by a hard, yet resonable deadline; it is another thing entirely to demand instantaneous results.

Where patience plays its largest role is in employee development. This can and will be the most time-consuming task a leader will undertake, and the results will be subtle and gradual. Where most leaders fall short it when, after teaching a new skill or having a conversation about performance, they expect immediate and sustained improvement in performance. In most cases, not only is this not the typical outcome, it is also unlikely that the employee is able to perform to that standard. The patient leader needs to realize that to build real teams, to develop the strongest employees, that there is a certain investment of time, and that requires patience.

2009...or 1984?

In the mid-1990s, political correctness ran amuck. Short people were no longer short, they were "vertically-challenged". It was no longer chairman, it had to be "chair person". The great movie PCU lampooned this brilliantly. The whole purpose of the PC movement was, I suppose to foster greater sensitivity about equality and discrimination; it got away from us for a while. And it hasn't gone way, but only gotten worse.

While our language should, at a certain level, convey sensitivity and equality, it should not hide the true meaning of something. That actually is entirely counter-intuitive to the purpose of language.

For instance, let's look at the term "fired". This is a word that carries meaning, and in no uncertain terms conveys exactly what is happening to someone's job, and all of the issues and problems that go along with it. It has power, and it has meaning.

Now, it may not accurately describe the situation when, for economic or any other reasons, a company is eliminating jobs to improve their bottom line. "Fired" means that you did something wrong and were told that you don't work somewhere any more, and its your own fault. OK, we need something else to describe when its not your fault, to take some of the sting and stigma away. So we have, "laid off".

Laid off has its own connotations, and none are really all that positive, but still, it has a little less stigma attached. Apparently, though, some senior executive somewhere felt that it wasn't watered down enough, especially in a situation where through mismanagement or a simple desire for lowered expenses, positions were eliminated. So this guy, probably from New York (because that's what they do there) came up with a new term that made executives feel better about taking away people's livelihood: down-sizing.

This, too, is not a bad term as it still describes what has happened, but it carries with it that the company may be scaling down production to meet a different customer need. Unfortunately, this is rarely true; this usually means that the people who are left will simply have to work harder to meet the same goals. However, it could be possible that the company was simply over staffed, as is wont to happen.

Some time in the last few years, the terminology took a side-step to a new term: right-sizing. See what they did there? They put a positive word in there: "right". "Its not so bad, is it? We're just making the company be the correct size. Oh no, that size does not include you." Once again, someone added a level of banality to what is a negative thing for the people affected and tried to make it more palatable for public consumption.

Yesterday, I have heard my absolute favorite bastardization of this term: "selected in a resource action". Wow. George Orwell could not have written a better Newspeak term for losing your job. A small sliver of positive thinking buried under a load of nonsensical action. Woo-hoo! I've been selected! Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Its this kind of approach which allows the less-adept (dare I say, "inept"?) leaders to make this disturbing decisions that they make, to not engage in positive employee development as they should. Communication is a tool used to expand and spread ideas, not obfuscate them.

Is there something to be said for directness. Yes. Is there something to be said for taking a more tactful, sensitive approach? Yes. Communication should fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, but if it is ever in question, one should cheat to the direct side a little more. It leaves less up for interpretation and confusion, and I guarantee, the results will be much better. It also shows that you are unafraid to stand by your decisions and beliefs and will face down challenges eye to eye.

And quite frankly, couldn't we use a little more directness from our leaders, now more than ever?

The Value of a Man

Sometimes, someone needs to say what needs to be said. On Wednesday, Gary Ackerman was that person.

There are two things that I love about this video.

1. Representative Ackerman is saying everything that everyone has wanted to say to these people, holding them accountable for not doing their jobs properly.
2. Watching the SEC folks squirm.

Leaders cannot delegate accountability. When you are put in charge, you get many benefits: higher pay, the ability to tell people what to do, maybe a nicer office, and possibly some more flexibility in your work day. But everything has its price, and the price of being a leader is responsibility. Even if a leader chooses to ingore their repsonsibility, it will eventually come back to collect. Every time.

This is not to say that the failings of a team could possibly be "blamed" on a select few, but my response to that is, "Who's responsibility was it to watch that person and make sure that they did their job?" The answer: the manager.

Unless the employee is engaging in illegal or underhanded activities and is either covering their tracks like D.B. Cooper or is a master Machiavellian, the responsibility always falls on the team leader for that person's performance. Leaders do not have the luxury of pointing fingers when things go wrong; when they do engage in that behavior, they look petty and incompetent.

Take Andy Reid, the coach for the Philadelphia Eagles, for instance. Whenever the team loses, the first thing he says (and the line that he sticks to) is, "I didn't prepare this team properly for the game. The fault lies with me." (And unfortunately for Andy, he has had to make this speech too often as of late.) As the leader of that team, he immediately assumes all of the blame for the team's shortcomings. Donovan McNabb, the quaterback, takes the same approach.

Now, this doesn't mean that behind closed doors, Reid doesn't start screaming at the secondary for their weak pass defense or take the receivers to task for not running their routes properly. If he does, though, it is behind closed doors, and then he focuses on fixing the problem. Like him or not (and he does have his flaws as a coach...where's the Eagles parade?), one has to admire his approach to leadership.

So here is the wake up call: remember that the next time your team doesn't perform up to standard, the next time that they fall short of their goals, ask yourself what you did to make sure everyone was performing up to snuff. Flog yourself for a while. Then fix it.

If I was in his district, Gary Ackerman would have my vote.

I am now going to go back and finish printing materials and stuffing envelopes for the Auspex marketing campaign that gets launched on Tuesday. This is a big week...Auspex is going live!

I only make this look easy

As I mentioned in my other blog, getting Auspex off of the ground is taking up a significant amount of my time lately. I didn't underestimate the fact that starting a business, any business, is time consuming and requires focus and dedication, but I don't think I fully appreciated just how many details I need to attend to just to make sure that I have built the best foundation possible. But I suppose that this is the price I pay when I say that I want to put my money where my mouth is. It is certainly a small price.

I'll give you a "for instance". As I was planning my product mix and break-even points in more detail today, I decided to offer an assessment via my website, and this was going to require an e-commerce solution.

As I have been starting Auspex up on a (very) limited budget, I have been searching for as many open-source and free options as possible, provided that they don't detract from the company's image. I was able to purchase my web domain and hosting through Go Daddy and ended paying less than $4 per month. I designed the website myself and created all of the images. E-commerce, though, was beyond my purview to create, so I had to seek some other options.

CoolerSmart uses osCommerce, so I figured that I would check that out. It is open-source and free, so provided that it worked properly, the price was right. I downloaded it and started the process of getting it uploaded, something that I figured would be a relatively pain-free process.

I was wrong.

I'm not sure if it was simply an issue with the way that I uploaded it, or there are issues between osCommerce and Go Daddy, but things did not go as smoothly as planned. I spent the majority of my afternoon trying to get the system up and running (while multi-tasking with more break-even analysis and updating Facebook). I went about fixing it several ways, but to no avail. I think that I will have to bring in some outside help on this one.

As I was trying to suss out the issues with the application, it dawned on me that most people will probably just go ahead and either pay for some kind of solution so that they don't have to think about it, or delegate this responsibility to an out-sourced firm. While I can understand the appeal in this, of getting the additional benefits of more time and fewer headaches (hopefully), I think that from my perspective as a budding entrepreneur that by passing this along to someone else I would miss out on a valuable learning experience. Not to mention, I can keep my bottom line down.

I want, nay, need, to know how things work. Its really the only way that things make sense to me, and if I don't, I feel genuinely uncomfortable. I, at the very least, need to have a basic working knowledge of something to have that discomfort to dissapate.

Part of it is my Type A, controlling side that just doesn't like to cede responsibility or control to anyone, something that I have to attempt to overcome almost daily to be effective. The other side is that I want to be able to have an intellegent discussion with someone should I ever have to have someone take over that responsibility. Its probably a trust issue.

I know, as I attempt to teach all of the managers that take my courses, that one of the tennants of management is being able to get work done through others, through solid delegation. At this stage, however, with it only being me wearing all of the hats, I relish the ability to learn so much about all aspects of the business. I know that eventually, I will probably have to begin begging off some of the responsibility of running every aspect of Auspex (if I don't, then I'm in real trouble); if an when that day comes, I think that I will be better for the experience and be able to avoid other pitfalls later when they could potentially cost more.

Oh, and I still get to keep that bottom line down.

-bw
Auspex Business Solutions

Manager, lead thyself...

First, I am quickly determining that I am really bad about keep up with a schedule when it comes to posting. This is something that I will have to remedy.

About a week before my job with CoolerSmart was eliminated, I had a bit of a brainstorm for running management and leadership workshops. I mentioned this to the wife as something that I wanted to start to develop just in case my training department was lopped off in another reduction in workforce move. Turns out that I was a bit prescient on this, as the job was eliminated a week later.

As I have been making moves for the last month to get all of my ducks in a row, I find that I am startlingly close to seeing my first round of workshops become a reality, something that simultaneously scares and excites me. But all of the standard, emotional drivel aside, it dawns on me that I also have to have a workshop prepared, polished and ready to go.

I have been trying to focus the presentation on hitting some key elements that will both create value for my customers and by poignant, something that is difficult to do given the time frame in which I want to deliver this. This is even more important for one of the workshops I am trying to run, a Greek Leadership Workshop for executive board members of sororities and fraternities.

So what is that one, key point that will really drive home how important it is that leaders take an active role in getting better? In thinking on this, I have come to one conclusion, the most important part of being a successful leader at any level:

You are never as good as you think you are. Get better.

Pretty simple. This is not to say that effective leaders are not confident people; quite the contrary, effective leaders must by very confident people. But that confidence has to be tempered with humility, else that confidence turns into blind arrogance, which is a dangerous position to be in.

This can also be one of the more difficult skills to master. For a leader to be able to check their ego at the door, listen to suggestions from multiple sources, give up credit, and be able to admit when they have made a mistake...well, it is no small feat. And most of us fail at this at least once a day.

The key is not to be perfect, but to realize that our own development will never end, and that we can always get better at our jobs. The only way to accomplish this is to realize that we make mistakes and that we are not God's gift to the world of management.

This was a difficult road for me to start down, but one that has made me much better at my job. I have been called a very confident person, bordering on arrogant at times. My first manager at REI had told me this because my "confidence", as she called it, was proving to be intimidating to some of the other managers and staff. This came as a surprise to me, as I have never considered myself a confident person. In high school, I was the guy who never asked out the girl, never got the phone number unless I was sure that she liked me.

When I first got his feedback, I brushed it aside as my manager being just flat wrong and that there was no possible way that I was arrogant (which is a rather arrogant attitude to take, ironically). Looking back, though, I can see how this was true and how this affected my ability to connect with my staff and be able to take criticism.

I had (and still have) a tendency to bull-headedly push forward when I think I'm right, and I approach most situations from the position that I am right. This, to a certain degree, I think has made me a better leader, because it means I have the stubborn streak to get things done. But what I have found is that when I allow for other possible outcomes, when I allow for the fact that I may be wrong (from time to time), that there is a much better connection with the people that I work with and that people are more willing to cede to my arguments (which, as we have established, as mostly right).

This was a hard pill to swallow, that I wasn't Mr. Popularity, that I wasn't the Patton of retail managers. It turns out that I was less Patton and more Michael Scott. The truth is that most of us, at least from time to time, are prone to reenacting scenes from Office Space. The only way for us to improve to to realize that we are never as good as we think we are. There is always something that we can get better at, and we can find it if we check our ego at the door.

-bw
www.brian-wiggins.com/auspex

Back at the last job, when I had my own office, it wasn't an uncommon site for many of the staff members there to pop in just to hang out for a few minutes and talk about the Phillies. It also was not uncommon to have them come in to get some advice or simply have a sounding board. I usually enjoyed these conversations the most, because not only is it gratifying that people wanted my opinion, but it was great that people were so concerned with their own development and the development of their team that they wanted to be sure that they got it right.

One such conversation occurred during the beginning of my tenure there with one of the supervisors. We were just talking about leadership and management philosophies when I mentioned something about getting the managers to solicit feedback from their teams about their own performance. Her eyes widened when I said this.

"Really?" she asked. "We are going to have to ask them about our own performance?"

"Yeah," I replied. "We are only as good as our numbers and how our teams perceive us to be. If we aren't being effective, it doesn't matter how good of a job we think we are doing."

"I can already tell you that will be the hardest thing for me to do."

And so it is with most managers. Facing your team, hearing your inadequacies revealed for true, and taking an honest look at your shortcomings as a leader can be a daunting task for two reasons:

1. They may not want to give you that information
2. You may not want them to give you that information

They may not want to give you that information. Getting to the information is a trial unto itself. Rarely will a team leader simply be able to ask for an honest critique from their staff and get one. Too often, the team will fear some sort of reprisal, or may not want to hurt their supervisor's feelings, so any information that can be gleaned may be tainted.

There is always the stand-by of the anonymous "Suggestion" box. Personally, I think that these things are a lousy "solution" and a waste of time. Why? Have you ever thought that there may be a reason why there has to be a suggestion box? Its because people don't feel like they can approach the leadership team with their suggestions and comments! Don't you think that this is a larger cultural issue? Don't use this cop-out. You won't be doing yourself any favors.

A good place to start is a 360-degree review. It allows for team members to respond anonymously, but in a directed manner. It also shows that you, the leader, are actively looking for feedback about your performance.

This can backfire, however, if you don't share the results. Once you have collected the reviews, you should share those results with your team (unless, of course, some of the feedback is a little too personal...there is something to be said for not completely baring your soul). Share with them the major findings and your plans to make improvements. Not only will this show them that you are unafraid of their feedback and admitting your shortcomings, but it will also show that your willing to improve. Moreover, they can now be a part of the process; if they see you backsliding on your progress, they are more likely to call you on it. Everyone wins in this situation.

The next step is to continue building on this trust and communication by asking for more feedback, not just about your performance, but about the performance of the team. If you show that you are willing to take and use their suggestions, the two-way communication will grow, and that can only make everyone better at their jobs.

You may not want them to give you that information. The hardest thing a leader can do is look in the mirror and face their own inadequacies. It takes a brave person to actively seek out information reaffirming their insecurities. This is why most managers do not actively seek out this kind of feedback from their staff. The downside is that by insulating themselves with their position and not getting honest feedback, they are actually stunting their own growth. The real issue is that, as they are in a leadership position, they are actively stunting the growth of their team, department, division, etc.

A prime example of this is former President George W. Bush. It has been documented on numerous occasions that he was very insulated from the rest of the world, and thus his opinions and decisions were heavily biased towards a particular agenda. Not that we can lay all of our woes as a nation at his feet (we did elected him...kind of...), but there is obviously a connection between his performance as President and the overall state of the nation. What would the U.S. look like today had he sought out more differing opinions?

This is an extreme example, but it demonstrates the point. Leaders must seek out criticism and critiques of their performance, despite how uncomfortable that may be. Here is the best piece of advice I can give you to help overcome this challenge:

Get over it.

Managers, leaders, cannot be weak-willed. There is no room in true, authentic leadership for those who are weak of heart. We all have challenges that we must overcome, baggage that we carry with us that shapes our attitudes and decisions on a daily basis, but leaders must be able to take the heat. Leaders must be able to put all of that aside and make decisions that are in the best interest of their teams, of their organizations.

So take the dive. Make it a point to actively seek out input about your performance from all directions. You will be a better leader for it.

And the nomimees for the Understatement of the Year, 2009 are...

"This company made massive mistakes."
-George Whalin, in response to Circuit City announcing that it is closing.

Circuit City announced today that it would be closing its doors forever after purging its inventory. Somehow, this just isn't news. Circuit City has been in its death throws for over three years now. They can blame the economy, or Best Buy, or any number of other factors, which I'm sure all played their role. But there is no denying that, like so many other businesses that are shutting down operations, someone on mahogany row was asleep at the wheel.


It was July of 2008, and the company I worked for was expecting to bring on 8 new sales reps. One of my responsibilities, in addition to designing and delivering the sales training, was to get all of the new reps' gear together; this included getting them new laptop computers.



I did a little searching online and after visiting a few different retailer sites, I found a nice deal for a Compaq laptop, something in the area of $600 each, on Circuit City's web site. This looked like the deal we were looking for.



Now, I have some retail experience, and I know that you should always make sure that, if you are going to get the merch at a brick-and-mortar store that you should call and confirm that the merchandise is there first. I can't tell you how many times that a disgruntled customer would have seen a sale item on the web site and then yelled at me when there weren't any of that item left on the last day of the sale. So I call up the Circuit City near the Christiana Mall in Delaware.



ME: Do you guys have 6 of the laptops I see online?
CIRCUIT CITY: "Yep, I've got 8 of them
ME: Great. I'll be paying with a corporate check, will that be OK?
CIRCUIT CITY: Let me check. (puts me on hold for about a minute) Yeah, that should be fine. Just have your driver's license.



This is exactly how the conversation went. Now you, the lay-reader, probably don't see any issues with this transaction. Neither did I. Apparently, there was more to this conversation...there were undercurrents.



Fast forward to about 4:15 pm that same day. I have a corporate check for the sum of close to $3,600 (trying to take advantage of that there is no sales tax in Delaware). I stroll into the store and figure I would take a minute to look at portable DVD players, as we were going to need some of those as well.



There were 4. I should have been suspicious. C'est le vie.



So I walk over the to computer section. And wait. I think I was there for a good 7 minutes before anyone acknowledged my presence, which, in retail terms, is like an eternity. Already I'm starting to question Circuit City's dedication to customer service, being that it wasn't a busy day there.



Around the 7 minute mark, the adolescent proto-human finally comes over and begins our interaction:



SALES REP 1: Can I help you?
ME: Yes, I would like to buy 6 of these laptops.
SALES REP: I can't sell you 6, I can only sell you 1.



Pause for a moment. Did he just really say, I can only sell you one? Certainly, my ears have deceived me.



ME: Did you just say that you can only sell me one?
SR1: Yes. It says so in the flier.
ME: I didn't find this in a flier, its on the web site.
SR1: I can only sell you one.
ME: I need to speak to a manager.



This couldn't be right. I was sure that this child had misunderstood some benign corporate policy, and that the manager would be able to set us on the correct course again.



Another three or four minutes passes by, and I can now see the first sales rep wandering around the front of the store, not getting a manager. As my frustration level starts to grow, another sales rep, this one in his 20s approaches me.



SALES REP 2: can I help you?
ME: Yes, I would like to purchase 6 of these computers for some new sales reps that we have coming in next week, and I have been told that I can only purchase one. Here is the corporate check I have for the purchase.
SR2: Let me check with customer service and see what I can do.



A few more minutes pass by. Who would ever have thought that giving a retailer your money would be such a belabored task?



Now, both Sales Rep 1 and 2 have returned.



SR1: Customer service said that you can purchase 1 today and buy the other 5 through them, and they can ship it too you.
ME: OK, that seems reasonable. When would I get the other ones?
SR2: In 7-10 business days.



OK, hold on a second...7-10 business days? That's nearly two weeks for something that I can see right in front of me! And I have reps starting in exactly 1 week. I once again ask to speak to a manager.



Now, I'm starting to get full hot on the deal. So if I were a parent, and I had twins who were going away to college, what Circuit City is trying to tell me is that they will only supply one computer to one of my children, and the other must suffer.



The store manager rolls up, and I can see by the smug expression on his face that we are about to go to war over this. At this point, I really don't care about the computers, as I'm sure that there are other deals with other companies, but now its about the principle of the matter.



MANAGER: Can I help you?



No, clearly you cannot, but we'll go ahead with this charade anyway.



ME: I would like to purchase 6 of these computers for my incoming sales reps, and I have a corporate check right here for said purchase. I am being told that the only way to get the number that I need is to order them through customer service, but they will not arrive in time for when the reps start. I see that you have 8 right here, can I please purchase 6 of them?

MANAGER: (showing me the flier, the smug expression deepening on his face) Well, as you can see here, sir, the flier clearly states that there is limit one per household for this item.
ME: I didn't read the flier, I found this online.
MANAGER: The web site and the stores are two totally different things.
ME: Clearly.



Yes, you read correctly, and that is an exact quote. Apparently, the Circuit City stores and the Circuit City website are the equivalent of two separate business entities. Now mind you, the stores that are not suffering through this economy in a way that is endangering their business, such as Target and REI, have fully integrated their web site and physical stores so that there is a seamless shopping experience. So, perhaps, this is one of those big mistakes that Mr. Whalin was speaking of.



The conversation continues:

ME: So let me understand you...I want to buy these computers, and you are going to turn away an almost $4,000 sale?
MANAGER: Yes.
ME: What if I bought one now, then put it in my car, then came back in and bought another one? Would that be OK?
MANAGER: Yes. (emphasis added)



Yes. I think that we have finally found the root of Circuit City's problem: they don't want your money! Why would they, as a retailer of discount electronics items, a company born in the very image of capitalism, want your money in exchange for goods and services?




Ultimately, we purchased the computers at a lower price from Staples. And now Circuit City is burning.


There were a few issues here that the leadership team should have addressed years ago:

1. Empower your staff to make smart business decisions. Sure, there are rules and policies, but there needs to be flexibility when it will be a good move for the store. Who cares if 1 person or 8 people get to spend their money on the same item? The revenue would have been the same.
2. Train your managers better. This guy was more interested in being right and lording his (perceived) power over me than in making a smart business decision and delivering stellar customer service. I know that being a manager in retail can sometimes create situations that are a blow to your ego...get over it. That's the job.

Ultimately, Circuit City's downfall is their own fault, as they continued with a business model that was virtually xeroxed from Best Buy, and any college freshman in a business program can tell you that is not the best way to run a business. Years ago, Circuit City was known for having some of the most knowledgeable sales people around...now, its some $7.50 an hour teenager who can barely spell anything not in "text speak". Circuit City sold their soul long ago to make a quick buck, and now, its time to pay the piper.



I'm guessing that my story here is not unique. Its this kind of corporate culture that perpetuates in perpetuity when paired with greed and ignorance that will continue to cause the downfall or businesses.



And it always starts, and ends, at the top.

Where is the horn that was blowing?

I woke up this morning with the radio alarm blaring KYW 1060, as it does every morning, and it just so happened that by the time I was fully awake enough to shut the alarm off (after the first 4 times it went off and I hit the snooze button on autopilot) that the business report was airing. The announcer must not even have to change his script from day to day, because it always seems like the same news: stock market down, unemployment up, bailout package, etc.


Today, a group of economists called the Group of 30 (very dash-cunning of them, those economists) strongly suggested tighter regulation for the banking and credit sector, citing the past abuses of the system that lead to the downfall of the finance giants and the recent Madoff-lead Ponzi scam. On top of that, Obama is calling for the rest of the $350 billion bailout be released, and has promised greater transparency for how it is being spent. (Personally, I am a little perturbed that no one knows what happened to the first $350 billion. Shouldn't someone be looking for that?)


Now, I have my opinions about the bailout, but I'll leave that for another discussion, and I'm not going to blast the familiar trumpet call of, "Where's my bailout?" I tend to interest myself with the root causes of the issues that we face, not just the symptoms. The market crash, the closure of major investment houses, the housing crisis, they are all symptoms. They aren't the actual problem.


So here is the real issue at hand, the one that has been touched upon, but hasn't really been explored: where have all of the real leaders gone?

I don't care how corrupt, greedy, inept, or just plain lazy the rank-and-file employees may be at any organization (note: I am not saying this is the case at any of the affected organizations); the responsibility always, always falls at the feet of the person in charge. Tasks and projects can be delegated, responsibility cannot.


As pointed out in the book Good to Great, great leaders have ambition, but their ambition for their company always comes before their personal ambition. And that ambition for the company always means taking a long-term view and making decisions that will not put the company at the kind of risk that costs jobs or requires Chapter 11.


This is not to say that excellent leaders don't take risk or make mistakes. Great leaders will always take chances and will occasionally make a mistake, but they all realize something: risks should be calculated, and there is an understanding that the higher up on the corporate ladder that these risks are taken, the greater the consequences.


The big issue here is the constant battle cry of "greater regulation". This is only one way of helping prevent a similar meltdown in the future and to possibly stem the flow of the current economic recession. But no matter how hard they try, no matter how carefully they word the legislation, no matter how much power the regulatory body may have, neither Congress or anyone else in government can regulate a manager's ability to lead. And that is what is really missing here.


Take a look at each and every example of businesses and industries that are directly contributing to our economic woes: Lehman Brothers, the mortgage houses, the banks, all of them that are suffering now have all suffered a severe lack of competent, responsible leadership. The ones that are weathering the storm, acquiring their competitors and doing relatively well all have a steady hand at the helm, someone who thinks about the long-term consequences for their companies.


So, to me, the answer is not just more regulation. The real answer is for people to stop settling for the incompetent leaders who have pushed this economy to the brink of disaster. Now, we are not all in a position to have much effect on the presidents and CEOs, but some of us are in a position to make hiring decisions, and all of us are in control of the kind of leader that we will be. This is what I suggest:

• Hire up. Each person you hire should have the potential to leave you in their dust. Don't be afraid to hire someone better than you. Holding that fear will only perpetuate the cycle.
• Be honest with thyself. Take a good look at the mirror, and be your own harshest critic. Take the time to complete an inventory of your managerial style and your own actions. Then assume that you aren't doing as good a job, and focus on being better.
• Screw intentions. Intentions are worthless. Actions are what count.
• Constantly grow. Pick specific things that you want to improve on as a leader, and then work on those things. Read as much as you can, and get as much exposure to other leaders as possible. This kind of "classical" approach will lead you to be a very well-rounded leader who is capable of handling a variety of situations.
• Seek feedback. This can be the hardest thing for a leader to do, but it is essential that you do it. It doesn't matter what you think you are doing, it matters what your team perceives.
• Communicate in all directions. Mentoring is not just a top-down prospect. You can covertly mentor up by offering feedback to your supervisors as well. When is the last time that your supervisor, or his/her supervisor heard, "You are doing a great job"?

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Take this to heart. Its is when we, all of us, choose to allow leaders to act in unscrupulous ways, that we choose to ignore when a decision can potentially bankrupt a company, that we choose to not develop our teams to their fullest potential, that the cycle perpetuates. This is not something that we can rely on the government to fix. They play their part, but ultimately, the responsibility, in whatever capacity it may be, falls on us.

Once more into the breach

I once again find myself in an unfortunately familiar position, that on the receiving end of a downsizing.

This time last year, I was still sitting at home, attempting to pry an opening into the shrinking workforce after being "right sized" by my previous employer. ("Right-sized": who in God's name ever came up with this awful, Orwellian term? Call it what it is... you are firing people.) I had about 3 months notice to that event that finally came to a head in September of 2007, and arrogantly thought that I would land another, better job in a matter of weeks.

As it would happen, life has a tendency to humble arrogance. It took six months (9, if you include the search I started before "D-Day") to finally land another job, and the offer was made the week my last unemployment check was deposited.

This time it came as a bit of a surprise, as they have been continuing to give me large projects up until the week before Christmas. However, today at 3:30, I was informed that the direction of the company was not conducive to employing a full time training manager and that my services would no longer be required. While my previous place of employment was the work-environment equivalent of the hole under an outhouse, I actually really liked this new job. The work was interesting and most days I came home tired and happy. It will be a shame when I clean out my office tomorrow morning.

(Before I go on, I should also say that every manager there offered me their recommendation, so while being laid off still sucks, its nice to know that they respected my work enough to offer that.)

The last time that I was part of the tired, huddled masses, I slowly crept into a depression that really took hold sometime right before Thanksgiving. Partially, this was due to my own inactivity: I had reached a point that I just didn't know what to do any more. It seemed like no one was giving me the time of day, and the first (and only) interview I had for a job that I was over qualified for didn't pan out. Needless to say, my self-worth was taking a major blow, not to mention my ego.

This time around, I have made myself some promises:

• Stay active. Exercise can help elevate bad moods, so I am going to make every attempt to stay active and exercise at least 3 times a week. This should be a bit easier, as I had aleady made that one of my New Year's resolutions. And I'm sure that the dog will love it.
• Write. One thing that I did wrong last time was that I didn't speak to anyone about what was going on, as I have a habit of doing. Keeping negative emotions like that all bottled up cannot possibly be healthy, so this time, I am going to keep track of what's going on right here in the blog.
• Work on the job search every day. I tend to star projects in earnest, but then as time goes on, my ADD kicks in to overdrive and, though I have the best of intentions, I cease to be as committed to the process. I know that I need to put time aside each morning to take on the job search in earnest.
• Stay open to possibilities. I think, for my own sake, I need to look at all of the possibilities open to me. Now is the time that I should look at some of the "out of the box" options, whatever they may be. I'm sure that I will have more on that later.

So the overall plan here is to keep a running update on the whole process. I know that there are literally millions of other people who are in the same predicament as me, at the mercies of a crap economy and failed economic policies, as well as a plethora of other contributing factors, but even if being a single voice in the storm can help a little...well, its worth a shot.