Leadership

This morning I saw posted on Facebook a comparison between a "boss" and a "leader". Although I have long rejected the trend of turning the titles "manager" and even "boss" into pejoratives, the meme contrasted pretty effectively the qualities of a good leader/manager/boss.

Before I get into the main subject of this post, let me define terms as I see them:

• A manager is one who manages, administers or directs. He or she could be a manager of people or an empty warehouse, but the job of a manager is to get things done and to ensure that the people, system or business that is being managed operate the way they are supposed to. 
• A boss is just a slang term for manager, but typically only applies to a manager of people, not systems that do not include people.
• A leader is someone who, simply put, has followers. One can be a religious leader, a political leader, a leader on a sports team, even informally among friends. A leader may or may not have an official title. The guy on the hockey team who rallies the team to victory might not be the quarterback or team captain or coach; the political leader might not be the Mayor or the President, but a grass-roots organizer. At work, that person may or may not be the manager.

While we generally don't hear someone say "He's not a quarterback, he's a leader", because we know that leadership is a quality of being a quarterback; likewise we shouldn't be acting as if a manager and a leader are two distinct things, but recognizing that leadership is a quality of being a good manager. 

After those brief introductory remarks, I don't think that "manager" or even "boss" is the opposite of "leader" or that they're mutually exclusive, but that there are traits of leadership that when present in a manager makes him or her a good manager, or an effective manager.

In the company where I previously worked, leadership was primarily measured by one thing: "The Numbers". A manager who consistently achieved budgeted goals was considered successful and was rewarded with bonuses and with coveted assignments. It didn't matter that some of these "successful" managers mistreated their employees, all that mattered was that "the numbers" looked good. I worked under or alongside several of these bad managers over the years and no matter what they did, as long as their area of responsibility was profitable, they could get away with anything. I'm aware of a department manager, commonly held up as an example to managers in similar positions, who physically attacked another employee, literally choking him until other employees separated them. But the high gross profit in this department rendered him untouchable. I'm aware of a store director who verbally abused his employees, flouted the rules by smoking in his office, saved money by neglecting to repair old equipment, and kept a filthy store, but the bottom line profit was record-breaking. 

A few years ago I won, in a drawing, a management book called "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership". While much of it was recycled truisms and generic advice, one of the "laws" was called "The Law of the Lid". This "law" suggested that an organization could rise no higher than the leadership ability of its top person, the President or CEO. My former company is a great real-life example of this "law".

The company is run by someone who, while a fairly nice guy outside work, is the farthest thing from a leader that one would expect from someone in his position. He is irrational, making decisions based something he saw in a store in another state that was set up completely different from those in his company; he instituted sales plans based on a stop in a convenience store in Hiawatha Kansas at 10pm one night. Very seldom does he think through the consequences of his ideas. He throws around words like "mojo" without giving even a hint about what he means by them. He approves ideas to be implemented and then criticizes those implementing them even though they are exactly what was asked for. He has publicly insulted high ranking managers and executives. Whatever his focus is on any particular day throws his top people into an uproar as they try to comply with his fuzzy directives. But all of this would be fine if someone was actually following him. (Remember, to be a leader, someone must be following you). I have heard members of the executive committee speak disparagingly of him to subordinates, I have heard top executives discuss strategies for circumventing his directives or for interpreting what he says into what he really wants.

This is an organization with no leadership at the very top. No matter how many smart people work for him (and there are very smart and effective people working for him) the company will ultimately be constrained, held back, by this dearth of leadership.

Customer Service Part Three: When Customers Go Too Far

Why do people act the way that they do? In a previous post I discussed the changed dynamic in the customer-retail worker relationship. Businesses have, by their own behavior, encouraged and rewarded people for being assholes. It's become part of "the way things are done", but even allowing for the entitlement attitude and the view that the customer is always right, some customers just go beyond the pale and are especially abusive and especially assholey. I've given a lot of thought to why people act the way that they do, especially in the context of the retail world. I believe that it all comes down to control. People in general like to be in control of their environment, they don't enjoy chaos. There are a variety of reasons why assholes act like assholes, and I believe that there are different "classes" of assholes that vary in their motivations.

The Truly Powerful Person
People who have real power, whether it is in the political realm, the business world, sports, social status or even being physically intimidating are used to getting their own way. Sometimes it comes from being surrounded by sycophants who cater to their every whim. Sometimes it comes from being used to employing the fear of being beat up or shot to get their way. This type of person, in his or her daily life, sees no benefit to treating others with respect or kindness. That doesn't mean that people in power can't treat others with respect or kindness or that they won't, just that there is no social pressure to do so. In everyday interactions, the Truly Powerful Person (TPP) is habituated to giving orders and having them obeyed without question. So what happens when the TPP is in a situation where no one knows that they are powerful or where there power is irrelevant? When confronted by this indifference to their exalted status, the TPP often responds by saying things like "Do you know who I am?" or "I'll have you fired". They are so flabbergasted by the absence of the deference that they are usually accorded that they lash out. The TPP often knows people. Perhaps they play golf with the company president, or have connections at the mayor's office. There's a good chance that they will get what they want and more, just by suggesting that they're going to talk to their other powerful friends. When encountering retail employees their natural inclination is to see them as just another person to provide them without question, with everything that they ask for.

The Conventionally Powerless
Many people have little to no power in their everyday lives. They are far down the ladder of power and authority in their jobs, socially, politically and economically. They may be a persecuted minority, they may be a low skill worker, they may be poor. They spend most of their time being disregarded and treated badly. So what happens when they encounter someone over whom they may have some small measure of power, even if it's only temporary? The slightest slight becomes cause for retaliation, and invoking the motto "the customer is always right". They act in a manner similar to those who have actual power. In fact, I have seen this type of person become  more abusive and eager to throw their weight around than those who have real power. At one of my previous positions we had a guy that we called "hand basket guy". We called him that because he would enter through the exit door and, not seeing any hand baskets (they were usually by the entrance door), would curtly say "hand basket" to whoever walked by. Not, "where are the hand baskets?" or "can you get me a hand basket?", but simply "hand basket". He was a dick. This man, not only raised hell whenever he had a legitimate complaint, but he seemed to come in looking for something to complain about. He would berate checkers when they didn't respond to him in the way that he thought was "correct", but we noticed that when he was shopping with his wife, he was as meek as a lamb. Possibly she had the real power at home and he came to the store to exercise a little control. People in this category are wont to threaten to sue you if you do not comply with their wishes. However, they generally are the kind of people who can't afford a lawyer and haven't the slightest idea of what is legally actionable.

The Person Who Has Authority in a Teeny, Tiny Area
You sometimes see this with people who have been given a small measure of authority: small town police and government officials come to mind, the clerk at the DMV or the guy checking IDs at a popular night spot. Somebody gave them some power and dammit!, they're going to enjoy it! They may not have a lot of power in the grand scheme of things, but they're going to exercise it in their own narrow sphere. Fortunately, these people usually practice their power grabbing assholeyness in their own circle of authority, and rarely take it out on retail clerks. Watch out if you're speeding in their town though.

The Hybrid
A combination of the truly powerful  and the conventionally powerless, this is a person who comes from a typically powerless group, like a racial minority, or is uneducated, or comes from the "wrong side of the tracks". When this person gains power and prestige, either by education, success in sports, music or business, or maybe even in the realm of criminal activity, "respect" becomes very important. Respect is demanded in all situations. When the fantasized level of respect is not accorded to the hybrid, not only will this type of person lash out, like the first category of person, but accusations of bigotry are thrown around as well. This person probably won't sue you.They probably think that they know powerful people, but actually just routinely annoy powerful people. They'll write letters to the editor and flood social media with their view that you are an idiot.

So there's (in my opinion) the why, but what about the how?

The how is pretty simple, people continue to act like this because top management in most retail businesses rarely if ever stick up for their employees. Even if they don't discipline an employee after a customer raises hell, they will still tell the customer what they want to hear and reward them in some manner.

Here are a few examples:

Some years ago a drunken customer asked a cashier about an item that we had on "ad match". This was where we would match the price in a competitor's ad. The result was that, since we hadn't sufficient warning to order enough product, we would run out early in the first day. The cashier knew we were out and told the customer so. He was loud and confrontational and demanded to see a manager (that was me). I also knew that we were out and told him so. He escalated the situation, getting louder and started to use profanity. He "got in my face" and spittle was literally flying into my face as he ranted. When he refused to stop I threw him out of the store. Instead of leaving he walked over to the phone and called the company president. What I didn't know is that this guy had just several days earlier put a new roof on the company president's house and had his home phone. After a disjointed conversation between the drunken customer and the company president, I was handed the phone and told to make it right with the customer.

Just a eighteen months ago I was called to deal with a customer who, through a mix up at the register, didn't get his "points" that he was entitled to. The cashier directed him to the customer service counter where his issue could be quickly and accurately solved. The customer demanded to see a manager (again me). I repeated what the cashier said, but the customer was convinced that we were being racists for sending him over to the counter (I know this because he said so) and refused to go to the counter or leave the store. Eventually he left the store but composed a long email, complaining about me and making false accusations. Despite every employee who had been present backing me up, an "investigation" dragged on. The customer was offered apologies and money, but he still persisted. Eventually, again despite everyone who was present backing up my handling of the situation, I was written up.

These examples are far from unique, and they don't only exist in the company that I used to work for. All over the retail world, company executives require that their employees endure verbal, and sometimes physical, abuse (I was assaulted by a customer during my last month working for my former employer). Never will a top executive of a retail company simply tell a customer: "You can't act like that toward my people; you are not welcome here, we don't need that kind of business". At best the employee is encouraged to ignore the bullying behavior while the customer is apologized to for their own actions and then often financially rewarded with gift cards or free merchandise. At worst the employee is disciplined or fired because the bully complained about the bullied.

As an employee your options are limited, but what about when, as a customer, you see bad behavior by other customers? One thing you can do is complain to management about why they force their employees to endure that kind of abuse. This puts the company higher-ups in a weird position - they have habituated themselves to kissing your butt, and they will kiss your butt, while you are yelling at them to stop kissing customers' butts! It's a genius move! Secondly, call out customers whom you see being rude to store employees. A few years ago I was in a big box store where I observed a customer treating a clerk, who looked like he was on week 2 of his first job, very poorly. So I got his attention and asked him why he was being such a dick to the kid. He responded very loudly, profanely and indignantly, and I really didn't do anything to change his mind, but if everybody did that, all the time we might see a change in customer behavior and a decrease in assholyness.

Entry-Level Position: President of the United States

In this Presidential election cycle, there is an abundance of candidates who have no prior experience running for elected office, or even serving in appointed positions in government. Voters appear to be flocking to these neophyte wannabes more so than usual. You see it farther down the line in statewide elections as well. It's more and more rare to see someone like former Senator Mike Johanns who started his political career as a member of the Lancaster County Board, later a City Coucilman and Mayor of Lincoln. He was elected twice as governor, appointed to the position of Secretary of Agriculture and and ended his political career as a United States Senator. I did not agree with Johanns' politics, but he built his political base and experience in small arenas and gradually worked his way up. One couldn'treasonably claim that he lacked experience. But today, experience seems to be a liability rather than a resume enhancer.

Of course there have always been candidates from paths other than politics who have run for high office. Military veterans and business owners have sucessfully translated their careers as leaders into successful campaigns for elected office. It is arguable that running a large corporation or being responsible for the execution of a war would translate well into being the top executive of a state or even the nation. But it's not really the same thing. In both big business and in the military, leaders are in the position of having virtually dictatorial powers. The CEO doesn't take a vote to determine the direction of the company, the general doesn't hold an election to decide strategy or tactics. Businessman and women who are elected governors have a rude awakening when they discover that their state legislatures,  even when of the same party, are not required to agree with the governor! Heads of large corporations who are elected to the Senate also find things different than they imagined. In the Senate they are just one of one hundred, they may have power and prestige in their own states, but now they are the junior members of an exclusive club. I say governor and senator, because it is my observation that heads of large corporations generally don't shoot for seats in the House of Representatives, almost as if it was beneath them. You didn't see Pete Ricketts running for City Councilman or Mayor or House of Representatives as his first elected office.

For quite a while we have had this trend of people getting elected to the Senate and to Governorships with little experience, but at least a governor is practically forced to start doing something, after all, whether or not you agree with the governor's politics, he or she is now in charge of the machinery of state government. In the legislative branch, especially when you're new and not in the leadership, you're free to be a gadfly, there's no pressure to actually do anything. It's as if a Senate seat, having become an entry-level position, has now devolved into a mere stepping stone to the presidency. Look at a few of our recent candidates. No, first let's go back to Dan Quayle.

Dan Quayle was the Vice President under George H.W. Bush. He was widely derided as being a lightweight, inexperienced and shallow. Yet Quayle had been elected to three terms in the House of Representives and two terms in the Senate before being elected Vice President. How things have changed since 1988. Before his election to the House, he held several positions in Indiana State  government. But his "inexperience" was held against him. Fast forward to the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Also portrayed as having little experience, he had served two terms in the Illinois State Senate, ran for (and lost) an election for House of Representatives, and was elected to United States Senate in 2004. As a presidential candidate he was portrayed as having no experience and that he was using his Senate seat merely as a springboard to the Presidency.

Apparently that's not a problem anymore, since two of the main Republican candidates are first-term senators, one of whom has accomplished little other than antagonizing the rest of the Senate, including his Republican colleagues. On the one hand, supporters of the inexperienced claim that those with experience are not only part of the problem, but are the heart of the problem. Therefore, bringing in the inexperienced will somehow "fix the problem". Unfortunately, many of these amateurs fail to understand that there is a great difference between pointing out the failings of those in power and actually doing something about it. No matter how much we scorn the political class, it is a job and a skill like any other. When you need the cooperation of a majority of your colleagues to advance your agenda, screaming at the top of your lungs and demonizing them doesn't accomplish much.

The so-called Tea Party movement brought a lot of inexperienced people into government, many of those are now being criticized as having "sold out"; others are doing nothing other than complaining about others who they say have sold out. In any political movement there will be those who are attracted by the power and abandon their principles. But inexperience itself is not a virtue. No matter what ones political orientation, someone has to know how to get things done, someone has to have the ability to work with others, even those with whom there is bitter disagreement.

So now, in addition to the newbies populating the legislature, we have a crowd of people who, not only lack any experience, but lack any notion of how to accomplish anything in government. They, to put it not-so-diplomatically, don't know what the heck they're talking about. They make pronouncements about military actions without the slightest idea of the ramifications of military involvement, they prattle on about policy positions without any inkling of nuance. They appeal to the most ignorant among us. They act as if the presidency is an all-powerful position where their very wishes will become truth.

As if the skills to lead our nation can be learned on the fly.

The Retail World Part Two: The Customers Are Not Always Right, But You're Still Expected to Kiss Their Asses

Until recently I worked in retail. On most days I enjoyed my job, I liked the people that I worked with and the customers that I interacted with. The majority of people who walked through our doors knew that respect was a two-way street, they expected to be treated well by me and they treated me well in return. These people were reasonable in their expectations and polite in their interactions. But there was a tiny minority who, out of all proportion to their numbers, made the lives of those whose livelihood is based on customer service, miserable.

It has been my observation that the nature of the retailer-customer interaction has changed over the last generation. At one time this relationship was transactional, i.e. the retailer had something that the customer needed - the product or the service, and the customer had something that the retailer needed - money! The customer, in exchange for their money, had an expectation that the product was of the expected quality (i.e. they knew that a lower price usually indicated a lower quality), and that price, quality, etc were as advertised. While customers had an expectation that they wouldn't be treated in an overtly rude fashion, there was little demand that retailers go over and above and treat them like royalty. The retailer of course expected that they would be paid, but also that customers would comport themselves in a civil manner while in their establishments. In short, any behavior that would be considered rude or confrontational in ordinary discourse, would also be considered that way in the customer-retailer interaction. Retailers' employees were required to be polite to customers, but not required to accept abuse from them. When customers got out of line, it was natural for an owner or manager to ask them to leave.

Somewhere along the line, the retailer-customer relationship became less transactional and more of a master-servant relationship.

I don't know when this happened, but one theory that I have entertained is that Wal-Mart, with its emphasis on low, low prices that no one could beat, forced other retailers to focus more on customer service in order to differentiate themselves. They couldn't match Wal-Mart's prices, but damn it, they'll give you great customer service! Because of this new emphasis on always giving the customers what they want, retailers have trained their customers to be assholes. Asshole customers have always been with us. There have always been overly demanding, rude and overbearing jerks who have wanted special treatment. But now we are rewarding these people for their rudeness. Yell loudly enough and you get what you want.

A few years ago I complained to an executive at the company where I was working that it's not right that we think it's okay for customers to treat us poorly, that the way we operate incentivizes customers to be obnoxious and abusive assholes to the people who have to deal with them. He denied that he thought it was okay for customers to act that way, but he had just got done apologizing to a customer and financially rewarding him after that customer had acted in a disruptive and bullying manner to me and several other employees. This was the way that this company did business: they would say that they valued their employees and that employees were their greatest asset, but time after time customers who treated employees poorly were the ones who were truly valued.

To be fair, most of the time the employees who were the target of abuse by these customers were not fired or disciplined, although some employees (including me) got a bad reputation after several asshole customers complained to upper management.

One subject related to the abusive customer phenomenon is the expectation of "donations". Over the years that I was in retail management I was inundated by "requests" for donations from every church, school and community organization known to man. But it wasn't so much the requests themselves that I found irritating, but the presumption that I would automatically comply with the request. I didn't mind giving some free product or a gift card to a group raising money to help the homeless, or provide for the victims of domestic abuse, or even a Boy Scout troop working on an Eagle project, but fraternities raising money for a party or religious groups wanting to build an addition onto their church or high school kids wanting to go to Europe...I just couldn't see why these people thought that local businesses should be funding their projects.

Just before my separation from my retail employment, a customer stopped me in the aisles to ask about a donation request. But it was more of a demand to know when she could pick up her donation, not if should be receiving one. I was on the fence about whether I should donate, but decided to give her a small denomination gift card. Her response was to complain that it wasn't bigger and to call the company president to demand more. He gave in. No wonder people have an attitude of entitlement.

It's probably too late to expect that we will go back to the old model. Customers are too accustomed to retailers acquiescing to their demands and to believing that they are entitled to treat retail employees like servants. Business owners are too accustomed to acting in a subservient manner, afraid to lose business if they don't kiss customers' asses.