Stan Silverman, Author at Stan Silverman

Always Hire People with Good Critical Judgment and Who Will Do the Right Thing

November 20, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on November 20, 2018

Steve Jobs, the late founder, chairman and CEO of Apple, is quoted as saying: “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”

I would add: You should hire smart people of high emotional intelligence with common sense and good critical judgment who will do the right thing, recognize the brutal facts of reality, are committed to delivering a great customer experience, and will lead with the right tone at the top.

Many mission-critical decisions surrounding the Flint, Michigan, water crisis in 2015 were poorly made and serve as lessons for leaders of all organizations, as outlined in the updated excerpts of a January 2016 article I wrote on the crisis that follow.

To reduce costs, in March 2013, Flint’s mayor and its city council made the decision to switch the long-term source of Flint water from the Detroit water system to the Karegnondi Water Authority, which would construct a pipeline to transport water from Lake Huron to Flint. In April 2014, to save $5 million during the remaining two-year period until the construction was complete, Flint switched from Detroit to the Flint River as an interim source of city water.

The water from the Flint River has a high salt content and therefore is very corrosive, causing lead and other heavy metals to leach out of aging pipes delivering water to homes. The addition of an anti-corrosion agent to high salt content water is a well-established and common practice to reduce heavy metal leaching from water system pipes. The cost would have only been $100 per day, but it was not done.

More than half of the population of Flint is African-American, and nearly half of the city’s population lives below the poverty line. Were the demographics of Flint a factor in the decision to switch to untreated Flint River water, as some individuals suggested? If these government and environmental officials experienced the same type of water coming from the faucets in their homes, corrective action would have been demanded and immediately implemented.

The lead levels in water sourced from the Flint River within some homes were found to be several orders of magnitude higher than what was considered acceptable. It was estimated that as many as 12,000 residents of Flint had elevated levels of lead in their bodies. Many of these were children, who could suffer developmental issues and a range of other health problems.

In a January 2016 Washington Post article headlined, “The poisoning of Flint,” columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote, “When complaints persisted, officials assured residents that the water was safe to drink, repeatedly disregarding clear evidence that it wasn’t. But when elevated levels of lead showed up in children’s blood this past fall, the government was forced to admit there was a problem.

“[Michigan Governor Rick] Snyder’s then chief of staff, Dennis Muchmore, acknowledged the [Snyder] administration’s deplorable response in a July 2015 email, writing, ‘These folks are scared and worried about the health impacts and they are basically getting blown off by us (as a state, we’re just not sympathizing with their plight).’”

Snyder declared a state of emergency in Flint on Jan. 5, 2016. He has also acknowledged his role in this crisis. “Accountability” and “austerity” has been Snyder’s political narrative.

Was austerity partly to blame for the Flint water crisis? Due to the weak financial condition of the city, Snyder had appointed a series of emergency managers to oversee the finances of Flint, and it was one of these emergency financial managers that signed off on the switch to Flint River water. What was he thinking?

The Flint Advisory Task Force appointed by Snyder to investigate the crisis has stated, “The Flint water crisis is a story of government failure, intransigence, unpreparedness, delay, inaction, and environmental injustice. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) failed in its fundamental responsibility to effectively enforce drinking water regulations. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) failed to adequately and promptly act to protect public health.”

What is the current status of the water crisis in Flint? Testing has indicated that lead levels in Flint water have now dropped below federal standards, so bottled drinking water is no longer being distributed. Those responsible for the crisis are still being brought to justice.

Tone at the top and institutional culture play a critical role in the success of any organization. Michigan government and regulatory leaders were horribly lacking in both. They did not fulfill their responsibility — protecting the people of their state.

Whether a government or regulatory leader, the CEO of a company or head of a nonprofit organization, these leaders’ constituents — the public, employees customers or stockholders, are counting on them to do the right thing. The Flint water crisis is a lesson in how not to act as a leader.

Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker, advisor and nationally syndicated writer on leadership, entrepreneurship and corporate governance. Silverman earned a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering and an MBA degree from Drexel University. He is also an alumnus of the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School. He can be reached at Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Follow Silverman on LinkedIn here and on Twitter, @StanSilverman.

#MeToo Lesson for All CEOs: Deal with Issues Before You Are Forced to Do so in Public

November 13, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on November 13, 2018

The #MeToo Movement is having its effect on the culture of corporate America.

Sports-apparel company Under Amour has announced that costs incurred entertaining athletes in strip clubs by company employees would no longer be treated as an entertainment expense and therefore would not be reimbursable.

According to a Nov. 5 Wall Street Journal article by Khadeeja Safda, “Strip-club visits were symptomatic of practices [that] women at Under Armour found demeaning, according to more than a dozen current and former employees and executives. … Some top male executives violated company policy by behaving inappropriately with female subordinates. … Women were invited to an annual company event based on their attractiveness to appeal to male guests, people familiar with the matter said.”

Under Amour Chairman and CEO Kevin Plank said in a statement, “Our [female] teammates deserve to work in a respectful and empowering environment. We believe that there is a systemic inequality in the global workplace and we will embrace this moment to accelerate the ongoing meaningful cultural transformation that is already underway at Under Amour. We can and will do better.”

Looks like Plank has found religion and wants to change the culture that his tone at the top permitted to exist at Under Amour.

In February 2017, Uber’s toxic culture for women engineers became public when Uber engineer Susan Fowler penned an article in which she described a toxic culture of sexual harassment towards women. Fowler wrote, “When I joined Uber, the organization I was part of was over 25 percent women. By the time I was trying to transfer to another [engineering] organization, this number had dropped down to less than 6 percent. Women were transferring out of the organization, and those who couldn’t transfer were quitting or preparing to quit … [in part] due sexism within the organization.”

Within days of publication of Fowler’s blog, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick tweeted, “What’s described here is abhorrent and against everything we believe in. Anyone who behaves this way or thinks this is OK will be fired.”

Like Plank at Under Amour, Kalanick came to the realization that change was necessary. It was Kalanick’s tone at the top, however, that created the toxic culture at Uber.

On Nov. 1, thousands of Google headquarters employees staged a walkout, protesting a culture within the company that tolerates sexual harassment, and a reported $90 million severance package granted to Andy Rubin, co-founder of Android, who faced multiple accusations of sexual harassment from female employees, according to The New York Times.

In an interview with Zoë Bernard of Business Insider, Google CEO Sundar Pichai apologized, and said, “This anger and frustration within the company — we all feel it. I feel it too. At Google we set a high bar and we clearly didn’t live up to our expectations. The first thing is to acknowledge and apologize for past actions. Words alone aren’t enough, you have to follow up with actions.” Pichai said, “I want to acknowledge the women who … [report incidences of sexual harassment],” he said. “It takes extraordinary courage and we want to support them better.”

So, what is the lesson for all CEOs? Those who ignore the #MeToo movement are tone-deaf to the societal change in what is acceptable behavior toward women. Issuing statements about ending a toxic culture without acknowledging that you shape that culture is somewhat disingenuous.

Get out in front of #MeToo and other types of issues that could impact your company when you become aware of them. You don’t want to appear as being complicit by ignoring them. It is better to address the issue within your culture before it becomes news and a social movement like #MeToo forces you to publicly acknowledge and address them.

We Should All Possess the Leadership Traits of Col. Joshua Chamberlain

November 6, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on November 6, 2018

As leaders, how do we win the hearts, minds and confidence of the people within our organizations so that they are fully invested in the organizations’ mission?

There is much to be learned from the traits of effective military leaders. One such leader is Col. Lawrence Joshua Chamberlain.

Chamberlain was a 34-year-old commander of the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment of the Union Army during the Civil War. He was previously a language professor at Bowdoin College, and one of many ordinary people who volunteered to serve their country.

Chamberlain was a modest, determined and understated leader with fierce resolve and intense will – qualities identified in successful leaders by Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great. Chamberlain’s honesty, integrity, ethics and sense of honor made him a very effective leader.

In his classic novel Killer Angels, historian Michael Shaara wrote a historical account of the Battle of Gettysburg extracted from the journals of those who fought in the battle.

Shaara writes of an incident in which Chamberlain is given custody of 120 Union mutineer prisoners just prior to the battle of Little Round Top. He was granted authority to shoot any prisoner who refused to follow his orders. Rather than threaten these soldiers, he took a different approach. He needed them to strengthen his regiment for the upcoming battle.

A prisoner tells Chamberlain, “They been tryin’ to break us by not feedin’ us.” so Chamberlain gives them food and water.

Private Bucklin from the group approaches Chamberlain and says that he was selected to tell him of the prisoners’ grievances. Chamberlain listens intently rather than ignore him.

In a reenactment of Chamberlain’s speech to the prisoners from the film Gettysburg, (YouTube video courtesy of Bill Toth) he says, “I’ve been talking with Private Bucklin. He’s told me about your problem. There’s nothing I can do today. We’ll be moving out in a few minutes, we’ll be moving all day.

“I’ve been ordered to take you men with me. I’ve been told that if you don’t come, I can shoot you. Well, you know I won’t do that. Maybe someone else will, but I won’t.

“The whole reb army is up the road a ways waiting for us… We can surely use you fellows. We’re well below half-strength and whether you fight of not, that’s up to you.

“You know who we are and what we’re doing here… This Regiment was formed last summer, in Maine. There were a thousand of us then. There’s less than 300 of us now. … [We came for different reasons.] Many of us came because it was the right thing to do.

“This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you’ll see [that] men fight for pay … or some other kind of loot. … But we’re here for something new. … We’re an army out to set other men free. …

“If you choose to join us, if you want your muskets back nothing more will be said. If you won’t join us, you’ll come along under guard. When this is over I’ll do what I can to see that you get fair treatment. … Gentlemen, I think if we lose this fight, we lose the war. So, if you choose to join us, I’ll be personally very grateful.”

The way in which Chamberlain treated and spoke to these men had the intended effect. He demonstrated his respect for them and gave them a purpose. All but six of the 120 mutineers chose to join him, significantly increasing the strength of his regiment, possibly making the difference in the July 2, 1863 defense of Little Round Top.

Holding their flank position at Little Round Top against attacks by the Confederate Alabama 15th Regiment was an imperative. Chamberlain was told by his commanding officer, “You cannot withdraw under any conditions. If you go, the line is flanked and they’ll go right up the hilltop and … [attack us from the rear]. You must defend this place to the last.”

A Union loss at Little Round Top could have changed the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg, the Civil War and perhaps the course of history.

Chamberlain’s Regiment held the high ground, which gave it an advantage over the Confederates, but they had suffered heavy losses and were running out of ammunition. They risked being overrun.

In an inspiring, spine-tingling reenactment (YouTube video courtesy of Zandalis) of the battle from the film Gettysburg, Chamberlain says “We can’t run away… We can’t shoot. So, let’s fix bayonets.” Chamberlain decides to take the initiative and go on the offensive.

Chamberlain tells his men, “We’ll have the advantage of moving downhill. [Captain] Ellis [Spear], you take the left wing. I’ll take the right. I want a right wheel forward of the whole regiment… We charge … swinging down the hill. Understand? Does everyone understand?” His officers respond in unison, ‘Yes sir.’”

Chamberlain screams the bone-chilling commands “BAYONETS” and “CHARGE!” With their swords held high, Chamberlain and Ellis lead their courageous men into a fierce bayonet attack down the hill. The Confederates fire at near point-blank range at the charging regiment, but, not being mentally prepared to face bayonets, are overwhelmed and either retreat or surrender. Through a valiant effort, Chamberlain and his regiment hold Little Round Top.

After the Civil War, Chamberlain was awarded the Medal of Honor for his defense of Little Round Top. Chamberlain’s bayonet charge was pivotal in the Union’s victory at Gettysburg and the Civil War.

Why was Chamberlain’s leadership during the defense of Little Round Top so effective? He was a visible leader who led from the front. He communicated to his men the importance of the mission and their role in fulfilling it. His men respected and trusted him because Chamberlain respected and trusted them. They gave Chamberlain their loyalty and maximum effort.

Business leaders will never face the life and death situations that our military leaders do, but we can all learn from the inspirational leadership of Joshua Chamberlain.

How Listening to Direct Reports Can Improve Your Decision-Making

October 30, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on October 30, 2018

Do you have a culture within your company that welcomes input from direct reports and encourages discussion about their views?

In a previous article headlined, “The ABCs of decision-making,” I wrote about the benefits of listening to the opinions of others within the organization. This is an update of that article.

Have you ever worked for a leader who wouldn’t listen to your ideas, or who wouldn’t ask for your opinion? I have. I would verbally share an idea with them and before I could finish, they would tell me that it wouldn’t work.

This type of boss saps the energy out of the organization. Employees turn off any desire to work more effectively, don’t go the extra mile for their customers and don’t put any energy into growing the business. This creates an undesirable work environment, and the best and brightest employees won’t stick around for long.

Learning from this experience, as a young leader, I adopted an open culture with my direct reports that encouraged them to share their opinion and input on any issue, and I expected that they in turn would do the same with their direct reports. I used the ABCs of decision making in order to come up with the best solution to an issue, relying on input from those employees with experience and expertise.

In my leadership roles, including CEO, I would normally ask for opinions on an issue before I shared my own proposals. However, on occasion, I might first propose that we go with solution A on a certain issue. Within our culture, an employee may then share their view that solution B might be the better option. The manner in which I communicated my response would convey how welcome their opinion was, and this would affect their desire to share their opinion on this issue and on future issues.

My approach would be to ask why they thought B was a better option than A. We would then discuss the alternatives for an hour, for a day or for however long was appropriate. We would also invite other employees with expertise on the subject and those with good critical judgment to join the discussion. All opinions were considered and valued before making the final decision.

One of three things would result from this process. I might sustain solution A and thank my employee for suggesting solution B and for creating the opportunity for solution A to be rigorously tested against an alternative. Or, if it became apparent that solution B was the better choice, I would choose B, thank my employee for suggesting it, and make sure they got credit for providing the best solution. This employee would feel empowered because their insights were valued, and their solution was chosen. They would also have a sense of ownership in the solution because they proposed it.

More often than not, however, by going through this process, solution C would emerge — a completely different solution or some amalgamation of A and B — which was far better than the alternatives. This outcome occurred only because we had an open culture that encouraged employees to propose alternatives and work collaboratively to determine the best solution. When we followed this process, we always felt confident that we had made the best decision, and indeed, we found that we rarely made a mistake.

Every employee wants their voice to be heard, to feel valued and have ownership in the decision-making process. The leaders who understand this and empower their employees to be active contributors will set themselves apart with better decision making and higher employee retention.

The same decision-making process holds true for decisions that you have complete authority to make but involve a high level of risk. To mitigate the risk, get other opinions. Many leaders feel that for decisions in which they have complete authority to make, it’s a weakness to ask others for their opinions. It’s not a weakness, it’s a strength.

Remember the ABCs of decision making. Your employees will feel engaged in the decision-making process, you will be a more effective leader and your organization will achieve better results.

Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker, advisor and nationally syndicated writer on leadership, entrepreneurship and corporate governance. Silverman earned a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering and an MBA degree from Drexel University. He is also an alumnus of the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School. He can be reached at Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Follow Silverman on LinkedIn and on Twitter, @StanSilverman.

Dealing with Organizational Bureaucracy

October 23, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on October 23, 2018

How many of us have worked in bureaucratic organizations in which overly-prescriptive policies, procedures and controls approach the point where employees are micro-managed, and encroach on time better spent running and growing the business and providing a great customer or client experience? Unfortunately, too many of us.

Early in my career, I was introduced by the senior leadership of my company to the management tool called “management by objectives,” or MBOs, as it is commonly referred to within industry. This is a system in which employees document their own objectives as well as those that support their boss’ objectives and so forth, up through the reporting structure of the organization, all in support of the objectives of the company. This process was overly time-consuming.

Each year we wrote detailed business plans – documents which not only outlined the objectives of a business, but also outlined detailed strategies to accomplish those objectives. Due to changes in the business environment, many business plans became obsolete after they were written. Perhaps that’s why they often just sat in a desk drawer or in a bookcase in someone’s office until a year passed and it was time to write the next business plan.

Many of us are required to write lengthy reports, communicating to our bosses our activities and results accomplished during the month or quarter. Shouldn’t we only be focusing on communicating what’s important? Is there a better way of informing upper management of this information?

MBOs, business plans and monthly/quarterly progress reports serve a purpose. The question is how can that purpose be most effectively served with the least amount of bureaucracy, and without taking a leader’s time away from operating the business?

To address the issue of burdensome bureaucracy in my company, when I became CEO I reduced written detailed reports sent to me to the minimum, focused on what was important. Written reports consisted of a one to two-page executive summary, not on pages deep within a multi-page report. The amount of verbal reporting was increased. This had the benefit of increasing the dialogue between leaders and their direct reports, and also made for better decision-making and understanding of the issues facing the business.

How many of us have worked in organizations that required approval by the next level up for decisions that we should have been trusted to make? Unfortunately, too many of us.

As I rose up in leadership positions of increasing responsibility in my company, I rebelled against the requirement that I review all travel expense reimbursement submissions of my direct reports to ensure they had adhered to policy. I never performed these reviews – I just signed off so my employees could be rapidly reimbursed for their travel expenses. That saved me a significant amount of time which I spent on more productive tasks.

I had the philosophy that if I couldn’t trust my employees to follow my company’s travel policies, or if they didn’t have the common sense to inform me that they were violating a policy for a good reason, I didn’t want them working for me.

Did a direct report ever ask for forgiveness after an action was taken versus asking for permission before taking the action? Yes, of course. However, if they were exercising common sense and good critical judgment, I would celebrate and not sanction them.

I never held my direct reports accountable for the individual expense line items between the revenue line and the net income line on the P&L statements for which they were accountable. They were free to manage their costs as they saw fit to meet their revenue, net income and growth goals. If they weren’t capable of managing the resources available to them to run their business, they were not the right people in these positions.

Challenging policies, procedures and controls is a good thing. Some policies address issues that no longer exist, and now only increase bureaucracy and hamper the operation of the business. When policies no longer serve a useful purpose, they need to go.

On occasion, policies, procedures and controls are put in place because of actions by an employee that violated a policy. Avoid the one size fits all solution to this type of issue. Deal with the offending individual, but don’t shackle the rest of the organization by adopting policies that impose unnecessary controls that impede leaders from doing their jobs. The less a leader with good critical judgment is constrained by overly burdensome rules and bureaucracy, the better the performance of their unit and the company.

Build a Competitive Advantage Through Servant Leadership & Continuous Improvement

October 16, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on October 16, 2018

CEOs are always looking for ways to differentiate their business from competition to build a competitive advantage. One of the ways to achieve this differentiation is through a servant leadership environment and a continuous improvement culture.

In an April 2013 article in The Washington Post headlined, “Servant leadership, a path to high performance,” Edward D. Hess at the University of Virginia wrote that his research found that “leaders [of high performing companies] were servants in the best sense of the word. They were people-centric, valued service to others and believed they had a duty of stewardship. Nearly all were humble and passionate operators who were deeply involved in the details of the business. … They had not forgotten what it was like to be a line employee.

“They believed that every employee should be treated with respect and have the opportunity to do meaningful work. They led by example, lived the ‘Golden Rule,’ and understood that good intentions are not enough — behaviors count. These leaders serve the organization and its multiple stakeholders. They are servant leaders.”

What Hess found is very similar to the research of Jim Collinsas presented in his iconic book “Good to Great,” in which Collins describes “Level 5 leaders [as those] who display a powerful mixture of personal humility and indomitable will.” Level 5 leaders are not the “larger than life” imperial leaders many of us are so familiar with.

Don’t think that servant leaders and Level 5 leaders hold their organizations accountable to only easily achievable goals. They set tough goals and have high-performance expectations for their employees, empower them to achieve those expectations and hold them accountable for results.

In May 2016 I wrote an article headlined, “Saxbys coffee: How treating your people right can lead to success,” in which I described Nick Bayer, founder and CEO of Saxbys, as an ardent believer in servant leadership. Bayer feels that Saxbys’ culture is the most important determinant of his company’s success.

I asked Bayer, “How do you differentiate Saxbys – why do customers come to your cafés and buy coffee?” He said, “We compete on people, not on product. Most people think that we are in the product business – we are actually in the people business. I realized that I can compete [with other companies] on people and on hospitality. People are at the core of what we do – our team members and guests.”

Bayer and his senior leadership team give significant support to their café managers. He said, “I personally am an absolute zealot of the mentality of ‘servant leadership.’ Organizations work best when they are upside down. Our café managers are the CEOs (café executive officers) of their businesses. All the people at headquarters exist to serve our café managers and their teams. We are here to help them to be better at their jobs. My expectation of them is to be servant leaders to the members of their teams. Their job is to make life better for their guests every single day.”

On the subject of empowerment, Bayer said, “We hire people with good critical judgment and empower them to make decisions. Other employers take power away from their employees. I don’t want to get in the way. I want my people making decisions. I hire people who will develop a sense of ownership in their business.”

A servant leader environment is perfect for establishing a culture of continuous improvement. In August 2014 I wrote an article headlined, “A culture of continuous improvement is no management fad …” and as the then CEO of PQ Corporation, how I used that culture to build competitive advantage.

At PQ, we dubbed our continuous improvement culture “continuous quality improvement,” or CQI. CQI was led by me and the other members of the senior leadership team, but was driven by the employees at every level within the company.

The senior leadership of the company were charged with creating an environment where employees developed a sense of ownership in that part of the business in which they worked. This cultural shift put power and responsibility into the hands of employees to initiate improvement projects, without getting upper management’s approval, which fit a servant leadership model. If an improvement idea was beyond their authority level, employees were empowered to present the idea to the individual who has the authority to approve it.

Creation of a CQI culture required training of all managers to be coaches and counselors to their staff, encouraging them to develop and implement their own improvement ideas. Training was also provided to help employees analyze data to determine the root cause of issues, so proper solutions could be identified.

By adopting CQI, PQ saved millions of dollars from ideas generated and implemented, many by the hourly workforce within our plants, using capital project funds that they themselves could spend on projects of their choosing.

Granting funds to hourly employees to be spent on capital projects brought out their creativity, encouraged them to be more proactive, and showed them in a tangible way that they mattered to the success of the company. This helped us be more competitive, and provided funds to reinvest in and grow our business.

Create an environment of servant leadership and a culture of continuous improvement to build competitive advantage. Companies who do not continually improve will be left behind. Those that do will win the competitive race in the long run.

School Administrators Need to Use Common Sense & Good Critical Judgment

October 9, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on October 9, 2018

All too often, we roll our eyes in disbelief when bureaucrats don’t use common sense and good critical judgment when making a decision on a nuanced issue. Instead, they “follow policy” without making an exception or asking someone with higher authority in the organization to grant a variance.

In the Washington Post article headlined, “Homeless D.C. high school football player kept off field amid questions over eligibility,” columnist Samantha Pell writes about Jamal Speaks, who was ruled ineligible to play football because he did not have a permanent residence.

Due to family issues, Speaks was staying at the various homes of his friends while maintaining a solid grade point average and holding down a part-time job.

According to Pell’s article, due to the lack of a permanent residence, the principal of his school threatened to fire the coach if he let Speaks play.

After receiving support from fellow students, teammates, coaches and fans, Speaks was ultimately allowed to play after a favorable ruling by one of the two governing bodies on athletics within the D.C. school district.

In May 2016, I wrote an article headlined, “What has happened to the use of common sense and good critical judgment by school officials?” What follows is an update of that article.

Often, a school infraction is nuanced, and the prescribed punishment does not fit the infraction. In a May 2005 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Torpy reported on the suspension of a Muscogee County, Georgia high school student who violated school policy by speaking on his cellphone with his mother, who was deployed in Iraq. The student’s father had passed away many years ago, so he was living with another military family while his mother was on active duty.

The student had not been able to speak with his mother for a month because she had been on a mission, and when the student saw that it was his mother who was calling him, he answered his phone. The student’s guardian said, “It’s difficult for families kept apart by the war. There should be an exception [when a parent calls their kid while on active duty]. Moms at war getting shot at want to talk to their kids.”

Did this infraction justify suspension, a punishment that would appear on the student’s transcript and potentially have an adverse impact on future college and employment opportunities, or was an exception warranted?

Torpy wrote, “Wendell Turner, an assistant principal, said the student was ‘very defiant. He didn’t want to listen to what the rules are, like the rules didn’t apply to him.’ Students are allowed to bring cellphones to school, but they must be turned off during school hours.” Perhaps the student was “very defiant” because he was speaking with his mother who was in a war zone. School officials should have handled this situation with sensitivity and common sense.

After the school received a huge amount of criticism from the public, the school board reduced the 10-day suspension to three days. Even the school board doesn’t get it. No suspension should have been given to the student.

After receiving the negative feedback, Torpy quoted Turner as making the obligatory apology, stating that “… many students … have parents serving overseas. We are the school that serves Fort Benning. We’re well aware of students with parents overseas. Some will just call the school if they want to talk to their sons or daughters. We’ll gladly get the kid out of class.” Too bad the school didn’t consider this and use some common sense when this incident occurred.

Schools should learn a lesson from what happened here and examine their own decision-making processes. When the punishment does not fit the infraction, school administrators lose the respect of their students.

How many of us have been stopped by a police officer for speeding or some other traffic law infraction, and only been given a warning? The officer is using his discretion. School principals should also use their discretion in applying school policy, and of course be able to justify their decision so as not to set a precedent for a similar situation in the future.

In organizations where the leaders are ultimately accountable to the public (schools and the local, state and federal government), is there a fear that they will be second-guessed and criticized for using discretion by their bosses, the news media or political opponents? In this environment, before leaders can make the right decision, does there need to be significant public criticism of the original by-the-book decision? Does the right decision need to be approved by an organization’s outside attorney, in order to provide cover for the leader?

These are questions that only leaders who work in these types of organizations can provide. What we do know is that we need to hear less obligatory apologies by school officials for decisions that fly in the face of common sense.

How to Navigate Office Politics

October 2, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on October 2, 2018

I am periodically asked how to successfully deal with office politics. I often share an article I wrote in August 2016 on this subject. This is an update of that article.

Throughout my career, I have watched the game of office politics play out in many organizations, including my own. Office politics can have negative implications for the people playing the game, their co-workers and the organization itself.

Why do people play office politics? They feel that the only way they can advance within an organization is at the expense of others – making themselves look good, while making others look bad. They deflect responsibility and often blame others, both peers and subordinates, for their own failures.

They take undo credit for the success of initiatives beyond their contributions, and misrepresent the facts to cast themselves in a favorable light. They are good at “managing up.” To the senior leadership of the organization, they heap undo criticism on their peers. They destroy trust, and when trust is destroyed, the organization becomes toxic and dysfunctional.

I have often wondered why the boss puts up with the actions of employees who play office politics. Either they are blind to it or think that they will achieve better results than if the organization performed as a high-performance team in which employees trusted each other. They are wrong.

Bosses will often try to counsel employees who play office politics to get them to change, with mixed results. The employee will often deny their destructive behavior. Many times, their political behavior is due to their personality. They won’t change. That is who they are.

I have written extensively on the importance of tone and culture within organizations. Those managers who undercut their peers and play political games are setting the wrong tone and culture, which will be emulated by those within their group, undermining trust with employees in other groups. Silos are created and information is not shared, to the detriment of the entire organization.

As part of every manager’s performance review, tone and culture need to be assessed, including that of the CEO. If the tone and culture are wrong, regardless if the manager is currently achieving results, the results will not be sustainable.

Eventually, employees who play office politics are recognized for who they are and the damage they cause. They are either terminated, or depart on their own when their political gamesmanship has been uncovered and is no longer useful to them at their current company.

So, as an employee within an organization, how should you defend against those who are playing political games to undermine you?

There is an old saying, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer,” ascribed by some to Chinese general and military strategist Sun Tzu in his book “The Art of War” (circa 400 BC), and by others to the 16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli in his book, “The Prince.” This saying can also be applied to office politics.

By keeping your adversaries close, you can get insight into what they are doing and thinking. You also have the opportunity to sway their thinking, and show them that undermining you is not a productive use of their time. You may be able to co-op them, and get them to be one of your supporters rather than a detractor. However, once they violate your trust, you may never fully trust them again. Once lost, trust is very difficult to regain.

On various occasions during my career, I have been the subject of political attacks by others. Did I ever confront the individual? No. I felt that would be counter-productive. Whether or not to confront someone is a personal decision, and depends on each individual situation.

How did I successfully cope with these attacks? I built a strong informal organization through which I got things accomplished. I built alliances with others by helping them accomplish their objectives. Through these alliances, I was made aware of political attacks that were not visible to me. I did the same for those with whom I had developed alliances. Did this strategy work? I was the one who rose up through the organization, not them.

So, how can you rise above office politics? Meet your commitments to others. Build trust with your peers. Develop alliances. Keep your adversaries close. Build political capital. Most importantly, do your job and achieve results, and let those results speak for themselves.

How to Build Your Personal Brand and Achieve Professional Success

September 25, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on September 25, 2018

Business Brands and Personal Brands

All of us are familiar with a business brand. It’s the marketplace recognition of the promise of a company or professional services firm to meet or exceed the high expectations of its customers or clients in the delivery of products or services. Less familiar is a personal brand, which is the recognized promise of an individual to help a client or employer to be successful in their business.

Customers and clients buy from companies with strong brands, such as Nike, Mercedes, Apple, Google and Starbucks, to name a few. These companies have a reputation for consistently offering high-quality products or services and delivering a great customer experience.

Companies with a great brand reputation are often not the lowest price offering in the marketplace but offer perceived value for the price charged. The strength of their brand gives these companies a competitive advantage. They become the preferred provider in their marketplace. They are the companies that customers and clients want to do business with, and they hold a significant market share within their market.

The same holds true for personal brands. Individuals develop a reputation such that clients want to do business with them. Employers want to promote them to their next job within the company or hire them as new employees. They differentiate themselves and develop a competitive advantage over their peers.

Ram V. Iyer of The Business Institute writes, “Personal branding is the intentional identification, packaging and marketing of a person’s mission, strengths, capabilities, talents, background, appearance, etc. as a brand. A big objective of personal branding is to establish a specific image or impression of the person in the mind of others that evokes positive emotions.”

Iyer continues, “If you build a strong personal brand, the benefits could increase your popularity, credibility, prestige, customer loyalty and market differentiation; it could attract new (and the right) clients, partners, employees and build bigger networks; and it could increase your perceived value (ability to charge higher prices) in the marketplace while negating your competition.

“Personal branding involves self-packaging – combining your mission, strengths, capabilities, talents, background, appearance, etc. – to define your uniqueness.”

So, as an individual, how do you build your personal brand?

How to build your Personal Brand:

Do your job and do it well. Develop a reputation within your company,
client base and industry as someone who achieves results, is a problem
solver and facilitator with high emotional intelligence, is an individual
who improves business processes and is someone who brings people
together to find common ground.
Develop your reputation as a thought leader – a recognized authority in
your field of expertise. Get what you have accomplished and are
accomplishing out in front of an audience. Volunteer to speak in front of
groups. Help others be successful.
Write articles or blogs on LinkedIn. Develop a website that can feature
your articles and share your views on industry trends and on how to be an
effective leader. Exercise caution not to criticize the company at which
you work or its leaders and don’t reveal confidential information. Build
an email list of individuals who would be interested in what you convey
and send them what you write.
Develop your networking skills. Attend industry conferences and
network with other attendees. Your goal should not be to hand out as
many business cards as possible at these events, but to develop
relationships with a small number of attendees. Connect people with
common interests or who can be helpful to each other. Become well
known by others within your industry.
Hone your leadership skills. Become known as an individual who creates
a culture in which employees are empowered and encouraged to develop
a sense of ownership in what they do. Develop a reputation for holding
people accountable for results, as well as a boss people want to work for.
Become known as someone who develops future leaders.
Develop a reputation for honesty and integrity. People will not want to do
business with people they don’t trust. If you make a commitment to
someone, be sure to keep that commitment. She may have made a
commitment to others based on your commitment to her.
Always have and project the right attitude. It is a significant determinant
of your success. Develop a reputation for seeing a world of possibilities
and abundance, vs. seeing nothing but limitations and scarcity.
Individuals with positive attitudes move forward in their career. Those
with a negative attitude do not.
Always be on a journey to be the best in the world at what you do.

Follow the above advice to build your personal brand. It will help you advance your career, especially when in transition to your next job. When employers vet potential new employees, they look for the traits identified above.

Follow This Advice When Negotiating a Joint Venture Agreement

September 18, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on September 18, 2018

Over the course of my career, I have negotiated many joint venture agreements. Based on those experiences, in August 2017 I wrote an article on the key questions and issues that need to be considered to maximize the probability of success.

This is an update of the advice I shared in that article.

The time to find out whether the strategic objectives of each party align is before negotiations start. Not having the same strategic objectives is a significant reason that JVs fail.

What would success look like? If you don’t know where you want to go, you will never get there. Is this the right strategic direction for your company?

What are the minimum outcomes you must achieve? If you cannot achieve them, are you prepared to walk away from the table? If not, perhaps you have not yet properly defined your minimum outcomes.

Do you need this deal more than the other party, or do they need it more than you? Are you dealing from strength, or are you in a weaker position? Are the concessions you need to make in your company’s short and long-term best interests?

Every negotiation requires compromise and trade-offs. Therefore, it is important to determine the issues that are deal-breakers for you. Try to determine which issues are deal-breakers for the other side, and decide if you can agree to them.

Spend sufficient time doing due diligence on your prospective partner. Do you and your prospective partner embrace similar values and tone at the top? Do the organizations share similar cultural norms and do they have similar operating philosophies? Will you like working with this partner when the JV is up and running?

If values, tone and culture are not compatible, the time to know is before discussions get too far down the road. End the discussions if the differences cannot be bridged.

Understand the negotiating style of the lead negotiator on the other side of the table. What is their reputation and track record in past negotiations with you and with others? Can they be trusted to meet their commitments?

Listen to the other party and ask questions to further understand what they want to accomplish. Communicate what you want to accomplish. Identify where your goals overlap and where they don’t so you can work to close the gaps.

Will your partner be committed to investing in future operational improvements as well as invest in future JV growth opportunities?

How is your prospective partner financing their portion of the joint venture? How much equity are they investing vs. debt?

If the other party is a subsidiary of a larger company, does the subsidiary have a sufficiently strong balance sheet to meet their financial obligations under the agreement? If not, you should determine if you need a guarantee from the parent company.

I have participated in joint ventures holding majority, minority and 50/50 ownership positions. I prefer majority ownership to ensure operational control of the joint venture, even when the appointment of the CEO rotates between the partners in the JV.

It is not always possible to get your prospective partner to agree to your desire to have a majority ownership position and the best that can be achieved is a 50/50 ownership interest. Or, your partner may insist on a majority interest. If you are going to hold a minority ownership position, ensure your interests are protected by the terms of the JV agreement on minority rights, which you should make as exhaustive as possible.

One reason for structuring the JV with majority/minority ownership positions is due to a difference between the JV partners’ financial capacity to make the initial investment or to fund future growth initiatives.

Once you make an offer, wait until the other side responds with a counteroffer or acceptance. If you put another offer on the table before a counteroffer is made, the other side will view this as a weakness and try to exploit it to their advantage.

To avoid not receiving a counteroffer, ensure that your offer is credible. If it isn’t, the other side may just ignore it and not make a counteroffer, prematurely ending negotiations.

What are the terms governing the termination of the JV? Some JV agreements include a “shootout clause,” in which one party makes an offer that must be accepted or alternatively topped by the other party.

A shootout clause is potentially dangerous for either party and therefore, if included in the JV agreement, it is rarely exercised. In divorce negotiations in which I have participated, the threat of either party using the shootout clause drove both parties to enter into good-faith negotiations with each other and reach agreement on the terms of exit without the use of that clause.

A joint venture permits each partner to accomplish goals that individually they could not accomplish by going it alone. If done right, the partnership is long-lived and successful for both parties.

A CEO’s reflections on the 17th anniversary of 9/11

September 11, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on September 11, 2018

No one can ever forget where they were at 8:46 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Sept. 11,
2001. Two hijacked aircraft flown by terrorists destroyed both World Trade Center
towers. A third aircraft caused significant damage to the Pentagon. A fourth
aircraft was brought down by brave passengers and crew members in a field in
central Pennsylvania before it could reach its target, possibly the White House or
Capitol building.

As then CEO of PQ Corporation, I reflect on how that day impacted me and my
employees. I was at the Greenbrier Hotel in White Sulphur Springs, West
Virginia, attending a board meeting of the American Chemistry Council. After a
staffer entered the meeting and handed a note to the chairman, his face turned
white as he announced that a plane had hit the North Tower of the World Trade
Center.

We all gathered around a TV just outside the meeting room and watched with
horror as a second plane hit the South Tower. It was then immediately evident that
the United States was under attack.

My first thought was for the safety of our employees and those traveling away
from home. Our company operated in 19 countries, and it was not uncommon for
many of our employees to be traveling within their respective countries and
between countries around the world.

I called my executive assistant and asked that she find out if any of our employees
were on those four flights or were visitors to the World Trade Center towers or the
Pentagon that day. I also asked for a list of employees who were on trips to or
from the United States, as well as employees on flights scheduled to pass over the
continental U.S. I knew that it would be days before these employees could reach
their business destinations or home.

I wanted to return to corporate headquarters as soon as possible. Since all flights
were grounded, my wife and I drove our rental car seven hours to Valley Forge.
We stopped twice – once for gas and once to get something to eat.

The genuine concern and connection offered by the people who reached out to us
at both stops was nothing like we have ever experienced. They wanted to know
where we had started our trip and where we were heading. They provided advice
on the route we should take, and long-haul truckers made recommendations on the
best places to eat along the way.

I thought of this as a small slice of America at its best – strangers helping others.
People helping other people in need: It’s one of our country’s best cultural norms.

When I arrived home the night of 9/11, I learned that all PQ employees were safe.
I received a report indicating the location of those employees in travel mode. Our
travel department had already arranged hotel rooms for those who could not arrive
at their destination.

Rental cars were reserved for those who could drive home. Two of our plant
operations managers drove from Los Angeles to Chicago, where one lived, and the
other continued on to Philadelphia. The administrative assistant of our purchasing
manager was on her honeymoon in Europe. Our travel department was able to get
her and her husband on a flight back to the U.S. a few days later.

What do I recall as the “best personal experience” of the horrible tragedy of 9/11
and the days that followed? It’s that we all pulled together as a nation and we had
genuine concern for each other.

I recall the courage of first responders in New York and Washington D.C. – fire
fighters and police who saved countless lives at their own peril. I recall those first
responders who made the ultimate sacrifice and did not return home to their
families.

I recall the two F-16 pilots who took off from Andrews Air Force Base with orders
to intercept and ram hijacked United 93 flying towards Washington, D.C., to
prevent the hijackers from destroying the White House or Capital building. There
was insufficient time to arm the F-16s, so this was a suicide mission for these
courageous pilots. I recall those 40 brave passengers and crew members on that
aircraft who resisted the hijackers and brought the plane down themselves,
preventing an additional catastrophe.

I recall not having the American flag that I had proudly flown off the stern of my
sailboat for 14 years, regretting not keeping it when I sold that boat in August

2001. Flying a new store-bought flag at my home a month later was not the same
to me.

I recall the generosity of PQ employees who contributed funds to help the victims’
families. I recall attending the hockey season’s opening game of the Philadelphia
Flyers in October, where there was not a dry eye in the house when our national
anthem was sung.

I recall visiting the site of the World Trade Center a month after 9/11 to pay my
respects, walking on hallowed ground with thousands of other visitors.

I will never forget. None of us will ever forget.

Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker,
advisor and nationally syndicated writer on leadership, entrepreneurship and
corporate governance. Silverman earned a Bachelor of Science degree in
chemical engineering and an MBA degree from Drexel University. He is also an
alumnus of the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School.
He can be reached at Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com.

What We Can Learn from John McCain’s Leadership and Patriotism

September 5, 2018

by Stan Silverman Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on Sep 5, 2018

I have written many articles describing the traits of effective business and political leaders. The passing of Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) provides an opportunity to reflect on those traits that differentiate McCain from his peers.

Since his death on Aug. 25 after a valiant battle with brain cancer, Americans have paid their respects to McCain, former congressman, presidential candidate and statesman, a true American hero and patriot. He was a man of courage, values, honor, ethics and integrity.

Accolades and expressions of respect have come from a broad array of both Republican and Democratic colleagues. What can we all learn about the leadership qualities of John McCain?

McCain was known as a maverick – a courageous leader and patriot who did what he thought was right, rather than what was politically expedient.

McCain served with honor as a naval aviator during the Vietnam War. He was shot down on his 23rd mission over Hanoi and was captured and brutally tortured while a prisoner of war from 1967 through 1973.

When the North Vietnamese learned that his father was an admiral in the U.S. Navy, they offered to release McCain from prison for propaganda purposes. McCain refused, demanding that those prisoners of war held longer be released first, consistent with the military code of conduct. He courageously placed principle above exposure to further torture and his freedom.

In 2008, when McCain was running for president, he defended his presidential campaign opponent Barack Obama against false allegations that Obama was an Arab and was not born in the U.S. – a common claim among those in the birther movement. At a campaign event in Minnesota, McCain responded to a woman making those allegations by stating, “No ma’am, he’s a decent family man, a citizen that I happen to have fundamental disagreements with…”

In today’s toxic political atmosphere, the defense of a political opponent rarely happens. He did what was right, rather than let the false allegations against Obama stand.

As a legislator, McCain practiced the art of compromise. He reached across the aisle to his Democratic colleagues in the Senate to get legislation passed. He was often criticized by his Republican Senate colleagues for selling out conservative principles. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are increasingly dominated by doctrinaire views. This is not in our country’s best interest.

In August 2017, I wrote an article headlined, “
Trumpcare Was Stopped in Its Tracks. Will the Republicans Now Invite the Democrats to the Table?
”

The Senate bill known as the Health Care Freedom Act, President Donald Trump’s signature legislative health care initiative, came to a vote on July 28, 2017. McCain and two other Republican senators voted “no,” resulting in one vote short of the 50 needed to pass the HCFA.

McCain had deep concerns about the legislation that might ultimately be passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, which the Congressional Budget Office projected would result in as many as 32 million people losing their health care insurance over time due to high cost and insufficient funding going forward. The loyalty of McCain was to his constituents and those Americans at risk for losing their health insurance, not the Republican party, and not the president.

McCain demonstrated courage in voting against the HCFA, unlike some of his Republican Senate colleagues, who placed loyalty to party above the welfare of the people who elected them. They would likely vote for any Republican health care legislation no matter how bad it was.

At his funeral service, McCain was eulogized by both former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

In his remarks, Bush said, “John was honorable, always recognizing that his opponents were still patriots and human beings. … John detested the abuse of power. He could not abide bigots and swaggering despots. There was something inside him that made him stand up for the little guy. To speak for forgotten people.

“Courage and decency defined John’s calling, and so closely paralleled the calling of this country. … At various points in his long career, John confronted policies and practices that he believed were unworthy of this country. … To those in authority, John would insist that we are better than this. America is better than this.”

Former President Barak Obama said, “John believed in honest argument and hearing other views. He understood that if we get into the habit bending the truth to suit political expediency or party orthodoxy, our democracy will not work. That’s why he was willing to buck his own party at times. … [and] champion a free and independent press as vital to our democratic debate.

“John understood, as John F. Kennedy understood, as Ronald Reagan understood, that part of what makes our country great is that our membership is not based on our bloodline [or] … where our parents or grandparents came from or how recently they arrived, but adherence to a common creed that all of us are created equal.”

During her eulogy, McCain’s daughter, Meghan McCain remarked to the applause of the attendees, “The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America has always been great.”

Meghan McCain was sending Trump a direct message. Bush and Obama were more subtle in contrasting the values of John McCain with those of our current president.

The phrase “country before party” comes to mind as John McCain’s legacy to our country. All of our elected representatives should take a lesson. They pale in comparison to him. We will miss you, John McCain. Thank you for your service. Rest in peace.