November 2008 Archives

How to Fire Someone

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was asked recently, "How should I fire someone?" I thought others might find my response of value. I'm not going to address this issue in the context of an reduction in force or layoff, but around a performance related issue.

In a perfect world you shouldn't have to fire anyone, they should fire themselves or be fired by their peers. Short of getting caught with one's hand in the cookie jar, getting fired should never be a surprise. If it is a surprise for the person, then shame on you as a manager. You haven't been doing your job.

What is your job? Among other things, it is facilitating feedback to your employees so they:

  1. Understand what success looks like
  2. Function in a system in which delivering successfully is possible
  3. They have the information, knowledge and skills to deliver successfully
  4. Choose to deliver successfully to their internal customers

Notice I said internal customers, not boss. More about that in a minute. Let's take these one at a time.

Understanding what success looks like isn't necessarily what you think success looks like. Of all the transactions you employee enters into daily, transactions with you may be less than 10%. It's worth remembering that you may know less about your employee's performance than anyone with whom she or he interacts. Facilitating feedback means pulling together your employee's primary internal customers and getting them to define what successful service from your employee looks like. Now your employee has a charter for success. For more information on this see my blog post Performance Review Madness.

If you've studied the quality disciplines you know that all employees work in a system they don't own and don't control. The system is owned and controlled by a manager who doesn't live in that system. Organizational systems are virtually never optimized so that each part effectively supports the well-being of the whole. Employee behavior is usually carefully calibrated to the realities of the ecosystem in which she or he works but may look spurious from the perspective of the manager who is adapting to an entirely different ecosystem. So when expectations are set, you have to be very sure what is expected is in fact possible for the employee to deliver.

A corollary is that your employees have the information, knowledge and skills necessary to be successful. This seems obvious but in fact our employees are dismally ignorant of the basics of business. Few can read a financial statement, fewer still know where the money comes from, what things cost and how business actually works. Further, the ecosystem of business does not support employees being candid about what they know and don't know. Again, you work in a system that is different than that of your employees. You may be assuming your employees have access to the information you do, which may not be the case.

Finally, we come down to brass tacks. Does the employee choose to be successful. If you have done all the above, and your employee is not being successful then there are relatively few conclusions to draw. First, they don't have the capacity to be successful, therefore you have put them in the wrong job. It is your responsibility to move them somewhere (if you can) where they can succeed. Second, they may not want to succeed for any number of reasons. They may be cynical, they may be angry they may have low self esteem, they may just be lazy or they may just not care. At this point, the why's don't really matter. Now you have to do the termination drill. Coordinate with HR. Document the issues, have your come to Jesus meeting, lay out the changes that are needed and by when, document the results, provide ongoing feedback and if no improvement is forthcoming, sit down and deliver the bad news.

Pay whatever severance you can, but get the person off the premises as quickly as decorum will allow. Then get your team together and within the bounds of what is legally and ethically permissible, explain what happened and why. Do not assume they know. Chances are, everyone will be glad the misery is over.

A couple of final thoughts. Keeping someone on when they are failing is not an act of compassion. It is a misery for everyone. Get it over with. Finally, ambiguity is the enemy of healthy relationships. Be clear, create an ecosystem rich in feedback from the right people, provide clarity of expectations, tools and resources to do the job and it should be rare that you find yourself bracing yourself to deliver "the bad news".

Rethinking Energy

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
The current energy debate completely misses a fundamental point.

The conventional wisdom is that alternative energy will not blossom until the cost of fossil fuels exceeds the current (or projected in the relatively near future) cost of alternative energy.  As usual, the conventional wisdom contains no wisdom and is merely conventional.  What is completely missing in this argument is the cost of not switching to alternative energy.  As is so often the case, the stuff that's easy to count gets counted and the stuff that is harder to quantify gets shoved under the table.  

But what is the cost of global warming?  

What will it cost the developing nations to reclaim low lying land from the rising sea?  What will it cost the developed nations to do the same and help countries like Bangladesh which will largely disappear under rising waters?  What will it cost to prevent losing most of Florida and Manhattan?  What will it cost the global economy when category 5 after category 5 hurricanes decimate the Caribbean, Florida and the mid-Atlantic coast, to say nothing of Mexico, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Japan?  When these environmental catastrophes finally break the international reinsurance market that supports the people who insure businesses, buildings, homes and shipping, what will the cost of that be?  What will be the cost of finding and purifying water when the aquifers run out and the rain doesn't come?

And that's just the obvious stuff.  We can't begin to predict the cost of the loss of biodiversity as the polar bears become extinct and the arctic and antarctic ecologies which help regulate the atmospheric temperatures disappear in the summers.  Few people understand that what makes life possible on the planet is that the atmospheric temperature operates within an extraordinarily narrow range (approximately 146 degrees C between the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded). The range on Mars is 300 degrees C, Venus over 500.  What makes that range so narrow is life itself.  When we upset that balance, we put forces in motion that can literally make the planet uninhabitable.  

Let's be clear.  This notion of "Save the Planet" is nonsense.  We don't have the ability to destroy the planet.  We can bang it up pretty badly, but in 100 million years or so, it would all be back.  It would look a bit different, but there is no stopping nature.  The issue is "Save the Species".  We are at significant risk of creating a planet on which we cannot survive.  

What to do.

I don't think this is really that complicated.  

1) Add a $4 per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel (with exemptions for airlines).

2) Tax coal a comparable amount.

3) Use these huge tax revenues to fund alternative energy research.

4) Use them also to support the utility companies retooling the distribution system to be omnidirectional.  The current system is designed to move electrical energy one direction, from the generator to the consumer.  By making the grid omnidirectional you open the floodgates on entrepreneurial creativity so that anyone could become a commercial generator.  (By the way, this was the recommendation of the energy industry's own think tank which of course was ignored by the Bush administration.)

5) Create prizes like the X-prize (www.xprize.org) for alternative energy breakthroughs

6) Use the revenues to fund massive environmental education initiatives in the US and around the world.  Between them, India and China's populations are far larger than ours in the US.  And they all want cars and mcmansions.  If they build their burgeoning prosperity on fossil fuels (which they are doing) we are toast, literally.

7) Let's get over the nuclear fantasy.  Nuclear energy is expensive, dirty and dangerous.  In the fifty years or so that commercial nuclear power has been around we have seen two catastrophic accidents (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) and we got lucky with TMI.  As of this month, there are 439 nuclear plants in operation world-wide.  This safety record is not exactly six-sigma.  As my father taught me, "don't gamble more than you can afford to lose." Ironically, among other things, he designed nuclear reactors for a living and was deeply disappointed at the failure of the nuclear dream.

Electric cars are great, but they require a lot of electricity to make and consume a lot of electricity to operate, the bulk of which is created by burning coal.  I was told recently that a typical coal fired power plant consumes an inland coal barge full of coal (that's 200 feet long by 35 feet wide and 13 feet deep which equals 91,000 cubic feet or 2100 tons) in 18 minutes.  

Offshore drilling?  Please.  The issue is not how to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,  it's how to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels of all kinds, oil, coal, tar sands, oil shales.  We are burning millions of years of ancient sunlight.  It is not sustainable.  Even if we find ways to capture the carbon dioxide, the resources are finite.  Sooner or later we have to solve the problem.  Why not now?

The earth is bombarded with far more solar energy than we could possibly consume.  We just have to get clever enough to figure out how to capture it efficiently and more importantly, store it for use at night and on days of cloud cover.

Given that we have figured out how to make 45 nanometer chips, put men on the moon, plumbed the deepest canyons of the ocean, sent probes to the far planets of the solar system, can there be much doubt that we can solve this energy problem is a sustainable way, once and for all?  

We are going to pay for global warming one way or the other.  Let's suck it up and pay now when we can afford it.  The price tag later is likely to break us. 

Dear President-Elect Obama

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Congratulations.  Not everyone is thrilled with your election, but boy did we need a break from business as usual at the White House.

A couple of thoughts I hope you will find useful.

I know you got a lot of support from the unions and there is a bill pending in congress to allow unions to organize a workplace without a majority secret ballot vote.  I hope you will not support this.  The problem with unions is that they are a symptom.  They are a symptom of the callousness and abuses of managers and owners of companies that forced workers to organize to protect themselves and their interests.  While unions have offered leverage for workers in traditional "us vs. them" organizations, they actually institutionalize dis-integration.  If a more enlightened CEO of a unionized company wants to create an organization that benefits all employees and aligns them behind a common vision, because of the byzantine legal environment unionization has created, it is virtually impossible for him or her to do so.

We can no longer afford to have companies where all employees are not on the same page.  If managers are so foolish in this day and age to abuse their workers, then by all means, give the workers a way to organize.  But the democratic process of secret ballot and majority rule must apply.  Companies that are structurally dis-integrated, will be under a serious long-term disadvantage.  Not because they will be paying union wages, but because the union will prevent them from drawing on the full value employees are capable of bringing to the workplace.  The real enemy is not union wages, it's union work rules.  We need highly adaptive organizations today in which employees can flexibly and rapidly adjust what they are doing to open up production bottlenecks and satisfy customers.

For those companies that are really making an effort to educate, train and orient their employees and build highly adaptive cultures cannot do so by abusing their employees.  They have to pay them well and share the value the employees create through profit sharing and employee equity plans.  It would be criminal to undermine these efforts by making it easy for a disingenuous organizer to stir up just enough trouble to slip a union into a well-meaning company without due process.

Secondly, in the campaign there was a lot of rhetoric about reducing dependence on foreign oil.  This is missing the point.  We have to reduce dependence on oil period.  We desperately need the equivalent of the Kennedy space program for eliminating the need for fossil fuels.  Coal and oil.  The Bush administration has wrung their hands about environmental initiatives costing jobs.  How many jobs will it cost when the international reinsurance industry collapses under the weight of category five hurricanes and massive flooding (predicted by environmental scientists for decades).  How many jobs will it cost if a Miami or a New Orleans becomes uninhabitable due to massive storms and rising ocean levels?  

You have said you see nuclear (and I'm so glad we have a president who can actually pronounce the word correctly) as part of the solution.  How many Chernoblyls and Three Mile Islands can we afford?  Is it responsible to create waste products that are deadly for a quarter of a million years?  Nuclear reactors are human artifacts and subject to human failures.  These are not failures we can afford.  Surely with government leadership and resources, we can figure out how to heat and light our homes and offices, transport our selves and our goods and mobilize our military resources without poisoning ourselves.  It's not clear to me how the rallying cry became "Save the Planet" when the real issue is "Save the Species".  Global warming won't destroy the planet, but it may make it uninhabitable by human beings.  How ironic if the legacy of our species is to create a world in which only cockroaches can survive.

While I'm at it, I suppose I should mention my concern about the civil war raging in Mexico between the government and the narco trafficers.  The war on drugs has failed.  I know you don't dare touch this hot potato with banks falling like flies and the Bush administration working overtime to undermine civil liberties and distribute as much or our tax dollars to their Wall Street buddies as possible before leaving office, but as a country, sooner or later we are going to have to deal with this issue.

If Mexico's government collapses under the pressure of the narcos, we have a very serious problem on our hands.  At this point, it is very possible that any American president or legislator who made any serious moves in the direction of legalizing drugs would be targeted by these psychotic drug lords with virtually unlimited resources at their disposal.  They have proven their ability to corrupt any institution they target.  Are we so pure and idealistic in this country that we are incorruptible?  I think our history belies that notion.

We repealed prohibition and survived.  Does alcohol destroy a lot of lives?  No doubt.  Is anyone suggesting we should stop making and selling it?  No.  Do drugs destroy lives?  No doubt about that either.  And the war on drugs hasn't changed that one bit except to put astonishing resources in the hands of people who are demonstrably not concerned with humanity's best interests.  At least with legalization, we could drastically reduce the cost of drugs, put the narcos out of business, levy enough tax on drugs to pay for rehab programs for those who can't control their use and increase on the job screening and DUI penalties.  Inner city gangs would also find their source of power and revenue gone.

I know no one wants to deal with this, but I hope at least you will make  a priority of publicizing the meltdown that is occurring in Mexico as we speak.  Perhaps this will create enough conversation among the electorate that within a reasonable period of years, Americans will wake up and realize that our war on drugs has cost thousands of lives and untold misery in other people's countries.  The problem isn't even that hard to solve if we can just let go of our cultural dogmas long enough to see the damage our blindness is causing.

Thanks for listening.  Speaking for my family, all our very best wishes are with you.

Lanny Goodman, CEO
Management
Technologies Inc.

414 1/2 Central Ave SE
Suite 4
Albuquerque NM 87102
(505) 884-7300

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from November 2008 listed from newest to oldest.

October 2008 is the previous archive.

December 2008 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages

Lanny Goodman
Lanny Goodman
Lanny Goodman