"The Gulf" Soiled By BP's Greed!

The tragedy in the Gulf is directly attributed to a breakdown in leadership. Now, British Petroleum's leadership finds itself marred by a global conscensus of ineptness in decisioning and the perception of greed. As the company raked in windfall profits, upwards of the 10's of billions, quarter after quarter and year after year; BP's leadership continued to ignore the signs of disaster that culiminated in the platform explosion and the ongoing spill, an environmental disaster beyond the scope of the Exxon Valdez of Alaska.

Leading up to the spill, BP's leadership front broke down like the Maginot line of the Great World War. Like the "visionary leadership" of the French at the time, BP's management operated with a great deal of arrogance, classically displaying a failure of communication rooted in a pompous attitude and disrespect of maintenance communications from the field. This behavior augmented by steady record profits only bostered the authority of management. Stockholders and major investors continued to allow BP's executives to steam-roll their management philosophy to the top, displacing any counter philosophy or intuitive proposals. This silent ownership validated management by bankrolling their performance and offering 100's of millions in bonuses.

If we look at BP's operations, we can see a great deal of their operating philosophy is predicated on oil exploration, drilling, refining, collection and distribution of the product. Very little investment has gone into examining how oil seepage affects the environment or in technologies to advent in case of disaster. This operational strategy is not just unique to BP, rather it is a strategy that defines the Oil Industry. The lack of consistent and meaningful maintenance hallmarks the strategies of most fortune 500 companies, as the view from above is that maintenance is not revenue generating and therefore, should not see equal funding. Disproportionate budgeting of maintenance in Corporate has reached an unprecidented point and so to in government as our nation's infrastructure continues to crumble.

In contrasting the two, I would add that it is much easier to make an unpopular decision and appropriately budget for maintenance in Corporate than in government. I say this recognizing the political stakes of public leadership and red tape of government where reaching a conscensus in congress will represents a huge hurdle for any adminstration. Over the years, political parties have registered their position on industry regulation, "less or more?" I think the answer is obvious, especially as one party which stakes it's economic policy on less regulation attempts to over-criticize the federal government's response to the disaster. As the Republicans have invested much effort in pushing for less regulation (in particular in the Oil Industry), I guess we can say that "you get what you pay for!" Leadership from both the private and public sector failed, and the Gulf is soiled because of their greed!

The Lost Art of Effective Leadership Communication.

The underlying principle of effective leadership is effective communication. As the primary agent of success and personal accountability, communication often "bookends" the expectations a leader has for his staff. The cornerstone of good organizational leadership visualized through effective communication is the use of processes. Any manager, that attempts to undermine the importance of good process is a disorganized mess and is planning to eventually fail. The objective of a leader is to exceed the desired results of major stakeholders. This can only be accomplished by maintaining the focus of subordinates during the life expectancy for a project. Processes provide structure to a project and help guide the performance expectations of leadership. Processes help eliminate ambiguity in expected behavior of support personnel for a given project and thus help reduce variables, improving the probability for success.

As today's organizations, seek to reduce waste becoming more efficient through Six-Sigma initiatives, a greater appreciation of communication and effective process is required. Gaining support from major stakeholders is important when choosing to adopt Six-Sigma where timely and accurate communication of progress hallmark the Six-Sigma way. Increasingly, organizations race to acheive only Six-Sigma branding, failing to completely adopt true behaviors and measures designed to reduce error. Many forget the lost art of "Level-Setting" those that contribute to a project, those that support the project by providing resources and those that benefit from the project. This way one can avoid unreasonnable expected results and can establish an evironment that promotes success.

Corporations: How Strong Is Your Leadership Core?

Today, many would question the strength of most of Corporate America's leadership core. This is especially true following successive Wall Street debacles over the past decade. Must I remind you of Enron, Aldephia, Tyco and MCI-Worldcom etc...Oh, let's not forget about the most recent issue considerably the most profound economic tragedy in our nations history, "the housing bust" caused by credit default swaps. So, were these incidences all attributed to market conditions or what Republican's refer to as "natural market forces" or did these forces work to expose unethical business behavior?

First, let's divest ourselves of this puritest idea of a global economy where "natural market forces" will prevail to reconcile the market, seemingly driving out the weak and vulnerable, and unprofitable businesses ultimately to create a much stronger economy. This concept is intended to be analagous to the accepted idea behind the processes of "mother nature" where the fitness of organism are continually tested with each generation, but nothing can be further from the truth. This is nothing more than a political/power ploy that plays against economic and historical ignorance of the general society. The reality is that there is nothing naturally fair and ethically sound about conducting large-scale business operations where one participates in a national and or global economy. The degree of competition on that scale and the monetary stakes are so high, that the desire of man to win, at all costs inevitably lends itself to his natural inclination to cheat! Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, dishonesty in business, as well as unethical behavior has prevailed and is the predominate reason for government intervention. Markets have never truly corrected themselves without some outside force enabling or in some cases guiding the underlying moral compass of those human elements behind the economic decisioning. So, the only thing natural about the market is how the thrill of competition and earnings potential help bring about the innate desire of man to accumulate great wealth.

So, how did we get from the deluge of market greed to the strength of one's leadership core? Easy, the degree to which management demonstrates a capacity to withstand those unethical behaviors that will provide a competitive advantage, in favor of adopting principles of leadership that help create ideological and cultural diversity has lead to very weak leadership cores. When we make challenges to change the organizational behaviors of corporate leadership, most incumbent leaders would prefer just a cosmetic change in behavior where a seismic change may be required. If we consider the plans for successorship that most organizations put forth, they are primarily authored by the incumbent or "old-school brass!" Longevity in life and profession is innate in all of us and this is especially true of "traditional leadership." This connection with the debacles of Wall Street for the decade is somewhat obvious and somewhat obscure, but there is a strong connection.

The people behind the Enron, Aldephia, Tyco and MCI-Worldcom debacle which lead to the Sarbanes Oaxley Act practiced the same investment principles as those for our current economic crisis. Credit Default Swaps are algorithms, just like the one's used by Enron to mitigate risk in energy and are complex derivatives. These so called "financial instruments" are considered exotic by most financial professionals and are the dream of those who wish to amass great wealth without any effort. What ever happened to all of those young mathematicians of Enron after it's failure and countless others from failed institutions of the same period? When leaders make the choice to go with those who will not challenge wrongful authority and who will just "do what they are told," we all lose. So, let's be careful in how much independent power and authority we vest in our leaders.

HR Conundrum: Hire or Fire?

In the past, HR played a substantial role in the hiring and firing of professionals, from assisting in the search for potential leaders to embodying the organization's efforts to attract top talent. Today, it's no different with a few and very less important responsibilities. Over the years, large companies have drastically reduced the size and importance of HR by relegating their task to supporting leadership's competitive strategy; supplying the company with human capital to outperform the Industry and assisting with the marketing of the company brand. "Sounds familiar" but it's quite different now, as the human element involving personal recruitment, talent evaluation and the subjective interview are now performed by "software!" With executive searches conducted by a select few and high-powered Executive Search Firms, HR's job is to support the written company policy and exepedite restructuring initiatives through the common layoff. Even the mid-level professional manager job posts are off-limits to HR, as Directors and VP's hand-select favorites from a short list of seemingly non-threatening "personal successors." Many of the managerial job openings are posted with the preferred candidate in-mind where HR's role in most cases, is to ensure the formality of the candidate search process. Typically, leaders make candidate selections off-premise favoring and in cases personally developing successors months, if not years prior to the job posting. So, is there a real chance at impressing HR representatives? I would say "yes!" How important is it to do so? Not so much, now-a-days. Someone once gave me professional advice that was very important, he said " Never submit for candidacy for a professional position without knowing someone!" I thought but was immediately provided the answer "they're all wired!"

Are You Leading or are You an Individual Contributor?

High-performance teams are generally composed of a number of professionals with very similar skill-sets. This arrangement is much different from a Group where individual talents can be considerably varied. For either of these organizational and operational units, confusion may arise about the concept of leadership and who among the members is most equipped to lead the consolidated effort. Many would classify the efforts of some of the more vocal members worthy of leadership status; While others would conclude that the occasional great commentary as just "a great idea!" Considering the scenario, it's important to understand the context of the contribution and the position from which it is rendered. Often, teams and groups make the mistake of amplifying a great idea to a sign of great leadership, ignoring the particulars of individual character and behavior. The question that needs to be ask is "Is This Person Just A Great Individual Contributor or Do They Have The Capacity To Lead?" Leaders have a capacity to author great ideas, provide foresight during times of despair when the overall view of the landscape requires clarity. Leaders can recognize great thought and effort from others while properly classifying both without falsely amplifying either to the next level.

When Is It Ok to Talk About Racism In Leadership?

I can recall early in my professional career, during one of my first meetings with an executive where I brought up the subject of diversity within the leadership ranks. The conversation quickly and almost mistakenly migrated to an admission by the VP of a lack of organizational diversity among the management ranks that was even more pronounced beyond the Director-level. At this point, the conversation took a natural route to the probable cause(s) where racism was suggested as the leader. As dogmatic as racism has become in almost every facet of our society, here I was carrying on conversation with another minority, who happened to be a VP of a Fortune 500 company and whose temperament began to drastically change, from an executive mentor to that of a defense lawyer. The earlier zeal that was felt for me as a potential understudy subsided, leaving me with a cold shoulder of quick and very calculated responses. Realizing the error in judgement, I back-tracked attempting to salvage as much as I could from the opportunity. Although, now I was faced with a unwillingness to participate further in this initial session where an overwhelming fear appeared as the culprit. I gathered much from his subsequent statements and newly etched demeanor. He continued to demonstrate a willingness to mentor and we actually had a few more scheduled meetings where I participated half-heartedly. However, I began to realize (especially growing up in Alabama) that acceptance of or assimilation into a system of behaviors that numerically-negotiates the leadership respresentation of my likeness, was not for me. Forgoing any additional meetings, I knew the potential damage but I knew that I could handle it. I walked away but not before formulating a few questions.

When is it ok to talk about racism, especially if we attempt to counter the historically effects with measures to improve diversity? Knowing that Corporate America is a microcosm of society, can we genuinely assume that tremendous strides are being made? How much does the competition for wage (high-wage) contribute to the scaling and significant difference in demographic representation of minorities in executive leadership roles? How well can I depend on fellow minorities to participate in any movement to produce change or are the costs too high considering their position? If we eliminate threats of retribution, can we establish a platform to initiate change?