Leadership at its worse: The FIFA corruption scandal

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 9, 2015

FIFA, the governing body of international soccer, suffered a significant blow to its reputation May 27, when the U.S. Justice Department issued a 47-count indictment against 14 FIFA officials and sports marketing executives.

The indictment charges these individuals with bribery exceeding $150 million, racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering over many years, including bribes to award the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a Middle Eastern country with little soccer infrastructure and where temperatures can exceed 110 degrees. Not ideal conditions to play soccer. Other countries have also launched investigations into 2018 and 2022 World Cup host country selection process.

Football, as the sport is called outside the U.S., is the world’s most popular game, generating billions of dollars in gate fees, broadcast rights and advertising dollars. Rumors have been rampant for quite some time about the corruption within FIFA, which controls the decisions regarding of who financially benefits from the game.

In a statement released by Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney general, she stated, “[The corruption] … spans at least two generations of soccer officials who … have abused their positions of trust to acquire millions of dollars and kickbacks. … Today’s action makes clear that the Department of Justice intends to end any such corrupt practices, to root out misconduct, and to bring wrongdoers to justice…”

Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, was indignant at the indictments. He replied, “The Americans were … [a candidate] for the 2022 World Cup and they lost,” suggesting that the action of the U.S. Justice Department was a result of that loss. He didn’t deny the corruption, only criticized those who brought it to light. Did he think that would enhance his reputation as president of FIFA?

Eric Zillmer, athletics director of Drexel University and guest commentator on ESPN, said, “So here we have the attorney general of the United States, where World Cup soccer is not as popular as it is in other countries, issue an indictment against FIFA officials. It is as if Blatter received a red card by an American referee.”

The magnitude of the money involved makes the sport ripe for corruption. Michael Garcia, the chairman of the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee and a former U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York, investigated the selection process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup host countries. Garcia resigned his position in December 2014 when FIFA refused to make public his entire report. In its place, FIFA issued a summary of the report. Garcia stated, “[The summary report contained] … materially incomplete and erroneous representations of facts and conclusions.” One can only surmise that the refusal of FIFA to release the entire report of its own internal investigator indicates the extent to which FIFA will go to hide the truth of what really occurred during the selection process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup.

Two days after the indictment was handed down, Blatter was reelected as president of FIFA, and then four days later, unexpectedly stepped down. He said he wanted to be viewed as taking the “high road,” stating, “I do not feel that I have a mandate from the entire world of football…” He is planning to stay in his current position until his replacement has been chosen, an event that is months away. Many governing members of FIFA are insisting he step down now, since the corruption occurred on his watch.

Blatter should have taken the high road and withdrawn from the election when the scandal broke. Better yet, he should have responded long ago to the rumors of rampant corruption that has plagued FIFA for years. He didn’t care about the organization’s reputation, nor did those members of the governing body of FIFA who elected him. One wonders the extent to which they financially benefited from the corrupt system.

So, what are the leadership lessons learned as the FIFA scandal unfolds? Tone at the top are the ethical standards by which an organization operates, and it is clear that Blatter did not set the proper tone and tolerated a culture corruption within FIFA. The investigation by the U.S. attorney is not over. It remains to be seen whether Blatter was directly involved in the corruption.

One thing is for sure – as the attorney general conducts her investigation, plea deals will be offered in exchange for evidence against the leaders of FIFA. We have seen only the tip of the iceberg. The facts will eventually come out regarding Blatter’s involvement and the involvement of corrupt FIFA officials and those corrupt individuals with whom they did business.

Blatter’s reputation and legacy have been permanently tarnished, regardless of the findings of the continuing investigation. He practiced leadership at its worst. Leaders, think about your reputation and the legacy you want to leave, and let those decisions guide the tone at the top and institutional culture you want to be remembered for.

Stan Silverman is a writer, speaker and advisor on effective leadership. He is the Leadership Catalyst at Tier 1 Group, a firm of strategists and advisors for preeminent growth. Silverman is vice chairman of the board of Drexel University, a director of Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania and former president and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

CEOs & board members: What are your roles in the development of your company’s strategic plan?

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 2, 2015

One of the most important roles of a CEO and their senior leadership team is to develop and successfully execute their company’s strategic plan. One of the most important roles of a board is oversight of the company’s strategy. To quote a line from “Any Road,” sung by George Harrison, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.”

A strategic plan is a road map, approved by the board, to take the company from where it currently is to where the CEO wants to take it, over a multi-year plan period. It identifies objectives, the strategies that must be pursued to achieve those objectives, the obstacles that must be overcome and the resources needed to implement the strategies.

The strategic plan should be consistent with the vision and mission of the company.

The vision is an aspirational statement – the lofty purpose of the company, a statement that inspires employees. The mission broadly describes the business in which the company is engaged, the markets served and how the company differentiates itself.

The foundations of the strategic planning process are the situation analysis and the SWOT analysis. A situation analysis describes the economic, competitive, technical, regulatory and societal environment in which the company operates and will operate during the plan period. The company has little, if any, control over trends in these areas. During the strategic planning process, strategies need to be developed to permit the company to successfully navigate this changing environment.

A SWOT analysis outlines the company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Strategies need to be developed for the company to build on its strengths, minimize the impact of its weaknesses, take advantage of its opportunities and defend against its threats. Directors should play an active role in reviewing management’s situation and SWOT analyses, offering their own views of each. Both need to be reviewed by the board and CEO on a continual basis to determine if strategies in place are still valid due to changing conditions.

In addition to outlining the objectives that the CEO and his senior leadership team want to achieve during the plan period, the plan also outlines the strategies to achieve those objectives. A strategic plan is not written to be placed in a drawer, until it is time to refresh it. The plan needs to be sufficiently short and to the point, so that it can be easily referred to. An executive summary is a must.

Much has been written about the role of the board in the development of the strategic plan. I believe that it is management’s responsibility to develop the plan with board input. The board’s role is advisory: to pose questions to management to stimulate thought and provide guidance, to assess the risks of the strategies under consideration and to evaluate alternative strategies. This process should take place over a number of board and board committee meetings, so that the directors have time to think about what is being presented before voting on the plan.

The board cannot hold management responsible for achieving the strategic plan if the directors play a direct role in its development. The board’s role is to help management think about issues that may not be on their radar. The CEO and the senior leadership team own the strategic plan. The board’s job is to monitor progress and hold the CEO accountable for results.

A CEO with a strong reputation and many past achievements has built up political capital. A board will take the CEO’s track record into consideration when assessing strategies that are presented for approval. However, strategies presented need to be evaluated on their merit by the board and rejected if they are judged to have a low probability of success, are considered to be too risky, or don’t fit the strategic direction of the company. It takes courage for a director to raise these types of issues. It is their job to do so.

So, what are some of the pitfalls boards need to consider when CEOs present the company’s strategic plan?

Failure to face the brutal facts of reality
As a director, I have sat through strategic planning presentations, incredulous that the CEO and business unit leader were not facing the brutal facts of their reality. In one example, the business unit held a weak market position, competing against companies with superior technology. Revenues and earnings were stagnant. It was very apparent that the strategies presented would not be effective in improving the business unit’s competitive position and initiate growth. The board convinced the CEO that the business should be sold.

Setting a strategic objective without the right strategies to achieve it
Without the right strategies, objectives will not be achieved. Employees will disengage and not feel a sense of ownership in the objectives. Boards play an important role by questioning the CEO to determine whether the right strategies are in place to achieve the objectives of the plan.

Doing the same thing and expecting a different result
Results will not change if strategies that have not been effective in the past continue to be implemented. During the strategic planning process, paradigms need to be challenged and changed. If no strategy is capable of achieving an objective, perhaps the objective is not achievable, and another objective should be chosen.

Underestimating the actions of competitors
As a CEO and board member, I have listened to business unit leaders outline long-term strategies to gain market share with no thought to how competitors might respond. You can be sure that they will. How will they respond, and how will the company defend against their response?

Not shedding a losing strategy
Much can be learned from entrepreneurs and their mindset. Entrepreneurs frequently face the specter of failure. What do they do? They pivot and pursue another strategy, another idea. Why? Because resources are limited, and they are forced to move on. Entrepreneurs shed losing strategies. You should too.

Failure to recognize that some leaders may need to be replaced
Members of the current senior leadership of the company may not have the experience, skills or mindset to execute the strategies or achieve the objectives of the strategic plan. They may need to be replaced with other leaders that are more capable of achieving the plan’s objectives.

CEOs, avoid these pitfalls. Directors, watch out for them. Ask penetrating questions so CEOs and the senior leadership team are more effective at developing objectives and strategies. Monitor progress, and hold the CEO accountable for results.

Stan Silverman is a writer, speaker and advisor on effective leadership. He is the Leadership Catalyst at Tier 1 Group, a firm of strategists and advisors for preeminent growth. Silverman is vice chairman of the board of Drexel University, a director of Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania and former president and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com . Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Don’t micromanage employees – empower and hold them accountable for results

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 27, 2015

By micromanaging employees, you deprive them not only of the opportunity to learn, but to also feel accountable for decisions they make. Employees who do not feel accountable for their decisions will not grow in their jobs. Those with ambition will leave the company and go where they can be held accountable.

Occasionally, employees may need to make a decision within their authority level, but the decision involves high risk or could have a strategic impact. In these cases, employees should consult with their boss, or any other individual who has experience or expertise in the area. Through this process, the reward/risk profile of the decision can be better understood, and ways can be found to de-risk the decision. This is one of the reasons among many that you should always hire people with good critical judgment. Even though a decision may be within the authority level of an individual, they need to sense when to get input from others before making the decision.

Why do some bosses micromanage? They themselves are micromanaged by their boss, who expects them to have all the answers, regardless of how insignificant the issue. This is a sign of poor and ineffective leadership, and a poor organizational culture. The best people leave for positions where they won’t be micromanaged. The mediocre people stay, lowering the performance of that organization.

Staff units, don’t adopt policies that micromanage line or other staff units

Have you ever worked in an organization where policies that were put in place by over-zealous staff groups went beyond what is necessary to ensure uniform practices across the organization and compliance with legal or regulatory requirements? This micromanagement issue is voiced by many readers.

Certainly, organizations must ensure that its core values and operating principles are adhered to. These are derived from the tone at the top and institutional culture, which are set by the CEO and supported by leaders down through the organization. Policies are developed from core values and operating principles.

Effective leaders should ask if some of their firm’s policies are unnecessary, because they have no discernible benefit. Do some policies or practices micromanage decisions that should be within a line or staff unit leader’s discretion? Are some policies unnecessarily restrictive, and impede the ability of line or staff unit leaders to do their jobs?

Policies attract internal auditing resources to ensure compliance. Auditing policies which are unnecessary divert resources away from important compliance or other areas. They also may impede the freedom of leaders of line and staff units from taking action or making decisions. Don’t write policies and procedures unless they are necessary to adhere to a core value or compliance requirement, or ensure consistent practice across the company, such as with human resource policies.

Most readers are familiar with the concept of external and internal customers. The concept states that line units are the internal customers of staff units. I view this relationship between line and staff groups as more mutually supportive. Staff and line units must collaborate and partner with each other to create mutual success.

Should policies and practices that make little sense or impede the success of a staff or line unit be challenged? Absolutely! It is surprising how often this does not occur. Many employees feel “that’s just the way it is.” Not true. Policies and practices that don’t make sense can and need to be changed.

Hire employees with good critical judgment. Don’t micromanage – empower them, and hold them accountable for results. Staff and line units within a company need to collaborate with each other. Policies that don’t make sense need to be challenged and changed. Companies that adopt these principles as part of their culture are the ones that will excel.

Stan Silverman is a writer, speaker and advisor on effective leadership. He is the Leadership Catalyst at Tier 1 Group, a firm of strategists and advisors for preeminent growth. Silverman is vice chairman of the board of Drexel University, a director of Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania and former president and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Amtrak’s Joe Boardman: Out in front when tragedy hits – a lesson in leadership for all CEOs

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 19, 2015

The derailment of Amtrak Train 188 on May 12 in Philadelphia was a major tragedy, resulting in eight fatalities and over 200 injuries. The train was traveling at 106 mph, more than double the speed limit for the section of track going into a curve. The investigation continues as to why the train was traveling at such a high rate of speed.

I was struck by the way Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman was out front and center, the public face of Amtrak. In the official online blog of Amtrak, he wrote, “With truly heavy hearts, we mourn those who died. Their loss leaves holes in the lives of their families and communities. On behalf of the entire Amtrak family, I offer our sincere sympathies and prayers for them and their loved ones. Amtrak takes full responsibility and deeply apologizes for our role in this tragic event.”

Boardman went beyond this obligatory public statement. He has been on the scene in Philadelphia and has made himself available for interviews by the news media. He was one of the speakers at a memorial service held on May 18 attended by the first responders and government officials at the site of the derailment. In a moving speech, Boardman expressed his regret, and extended his condolences to the families of those whose lives were lost. Based on the tone and the emotional way in which he made his remarks, everyone knew he meant it.

In an interview with CNN, he was asked, “[When you] heard the news [that the train was traveling at] 106 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour zone, what was your initial feeling?” Boardman stated, “We knew … that was too fast.” He was asked, “What do you say to people who say if [Positive Train Control] was installed, it could have prevented this fatal accident?” Boardman responded, “Had it been installed, it would have prevented this accident.” According to Boardman, PTC would be installed and operational by year-end. Too late to have prevented this tragedy.

Some CEOs choose to remain in the shadows, relying on their public relations people to handle an event of this magnitude. Boardman demonstrated courage for choosing to be out in front. This is a responsibility that cannot be delegated. Boardman showed he cared by being open and transparent. People will question for a long time why Amtrak had not yet installed Positive Train Control on this section of track. What they won’t question is Boardman’s decision to be the public face of Amtrak.

Will Boardman’s actions have an impact on the ultimate financial payout to the injured and the families of those killed? I will let those who have more expertise than me answer that question.

What lessons can the leaders of all organizations learn from Boardman? When a tragedy occurs due to your company’s action or inaction, its reputation will be damaged. You can help it recover by being the public and human face of your company, take responsibility, show genuine sympathy for the victims and vow to take steps to ensure that a similar incident doesn’t happen again.

Stan Silverman is a writer, speaker and advisor on effective leadership. He is the Leadership Catalyst at Tier 1 Group, a firm of strategists and advisors for preeminent growth. Silverman is vice chairman of the board of Drexel University, a director of Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania and former president and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Turn ‘deflategate’ into a teachable moment about honor, ethics and integrity

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 11, 2015

When I heard about the accusations that the footballs used by the New England Patriots were purposely underinflated in their win against the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship game in January, my first thought was, “Here we go again.” Readers may recall the 2007 incident dubbed “Spygate,” in which the Patriots admitted to stealing signals in their first game that season against the New York Jets.

Last week, the long-anticipated report on “Deflategate” by independent investigator and prominent criminal attorney Ted Wells was released. After the New England Patriots beat the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship game in January, the NFL launched an investigation after allegations were made that the footballs used by the Patriots were underinflated. An underinflated ball would make it easier for quarterback Tom Brady to grip the ball, giving the Patriots an advantage over the Colts.

At the conclusion of his 243-page report, Wells stated, “It is more probable than not that New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the playing rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules.” Circumstantial evidence, based on the actions and the content of text messages of equipment assistant John Jastremski and locker room attendant Jim McNally, led to Wells’ conclusions that both men were involved in underinflating the footballs. Coach Bill Belichick was found not to be involved.

The report also indicated that Super Bowl MVP quarterback and future Hall of Famer Tom Brady most likely knew that the footballs were underinflated, based on the high level of text message traffic and phone conversations, and the content of those text messages between Jastremski and Brady in the days after the scandal broke. There was no text message or phone activity between the two in the months before the Patriots vs. Colts game.

Wells’ report stated, “It is unlikely that an equipment assistant and locker room attendant would underinflate game balls without Brady’s knowledge and approval.” Brady did not cooperate with the investigation – he refused to turn over his text and phone records for examination by Wells and his investigative team, a sign that significantly raises suspicions that Brady had been involved.

In reaction to the report, Patriots owner Robert Kraft in part stated, “To say that we are disappointed in its findings, which do not include any incontrovertible or hard evidence of deliberate deflation of footballs at the AFC Championship game, would be a gross understatement.” Kraft also commented, “What is not highlighted in the text of the report is that three of the Colt’s four footballs measured by at least one official were under the required PSI level. … As far as we are aware, there is no comparable data available from any other game because in the history of the NFL, PSI levels of footballs have never been measured at halftime, in any climate.”

Kraft uses a well-known technique when the evidence cited, whether circumstantial or direct, goes against you. You deflect – you point to other “facts” that may be accurate, but Kraft did nothing to address the circumstantial evidence against Jastremski, McNally and Brady.

Even if Patriots owner Kraft felt he needed to question the conclusion of the investigative report because there was no hard evidence, he should have commented about holding everyone in his organization to high standards of ethics and integrity. His statement does nothing to reinforce these standards. His organization could take this as a signal that it is OK to break the rules as long as you don’t get caught. Effective leaders use these opportunities to reinforce their tone at the top and communicate the culture they want their organization to adopt. Kraft did neither.

Did Kraft order Brady to fully cooperate with the investigation and to turn over his text and phone records? He should have. When Brady refused to do so, that should have significantly raised suspicions that the footballs were purposely underinflated.

In sports, every time a decision is made to violate the rules, the would-be rule-violator weighs how the action contributes to the desired outcome – winning, and the monetary rewards that go with winning, versus the probability and consequence of getting caught – which may involve financial sanctions and a damaged reputation. What is not considered, however, is how rule violations adversely impact others, especially impressionable children.

Elite athletes in every sport are heroes to children. Children want to emulate them. So what lessons are we teaching our children? “Spygate,” “Deflategate,” the Lance Armstrong drug doping scandal, and the Little League scandal in February where the championship team from Chicago was found to have been seeded with players from outside the team’s assigned geographic area, are all lessons for children on what not to do. Parents teach their children to be honorable and ethical, to have integrity, to do the right thing and how to lead a good life. Sports provide teachable moments, sometimes on how not to lead your life. Let’s hope the right lessons are taught – on what and who not to emulate.

Stan Silverman is a writer, speaker and advisor on effective leadership. He is the Leadership Catalyst at Tier 1 Group, a firm of strategists and advisors for preeminent growth. Silverman is vice chairman of the board of Drexel University, a director of Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania and former president and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

The visionary who rescued a key Philadelphia industry

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on February 10, 2015

It was only a few short years ago that the Point Breeze and Girard Point oil refineries owned by Sunoco in South Philadelphia were about to be abandoned. Along came visionary Phil Rinaldi who saw something that Sunoco did not see – irreplaceable assets sitting in the middle of a major metropolitan region whose residents and businesses provided a ready market for the products produced by these assets. The refineries are in an area with excellent infrastructure – two deep-water navigable rivers with ocean access, rail service and interstate highways, and the potential of someday processing Marcellus shale natural gas that is only 100 miles away. With the financial backing of The Carlyle Group, Rinaldi formed a new company, named it Philadelphia Energy Solutions and purchased the two refineries.

During my interview with Rinaldi, he exuded a quiet determination, a sense of confidence in what he and his team at Philadelphia Energy Solutions and other stakeholders were accomplishing by reestablishing this important industry in Philadelphia. He saw possibilities, where others saw obstacles that could not be overcome. He saw the glass as half full, while others saw it as half empty.

Rinaldi spoke of the opinions of the “experts” at the time, who felt that oil refining did not have a place in the “new economy” and that gasoline, heating oil and other refined products could be refined elsewhere and shipped here. Rinaldi stated that there was a view that perhaps the refineries should be bulldozed and the condominiums built on these sites.

Continue reading on The Business Journals.

Why Comcast must walk the walk on customer service

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on February 2, 2015

An incident hit the news late last week in which a Comcast customer in Spokane, Wash., learned his name had been replaced on his account with a vulgarity after he canceled his service. The incident went viral on social media and was widely reported in the press.

Comcast Senior Vice President of Customer Experience Charlie Herrin released the following statement: “… We have apologized to our customer for this unacceptable situation and addressed it directly with the employee who will no longer be working on behalf of Comcast. We are also looking at a number of technical solutions that would prevent it from happening moving forward. We took this opportunity to reinforce with each employee just how important respect is to our culture. …”

A few days prior to this incident becoming public, I interviewed Herrin and Senior Vice President for Customer Service Tom Karinshak to learn more about Comcast’s journey to improve customer experience. I have no doubt that both individuals and the executive leadership of the company view improvement of customer experience with Comcast as an imperative. Given the number and frequency of negative experiences that have gone viral, they have much work to do, to change the perceptions of the public.

Continue reading on The Business Journals.

Setting credible and realistic goals can drive your financial performance

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on January 26, 2015

Setting goals as a business unit leader at PQ Corporation, as the company’s CEO and as a board member approving the operational and strategic plans of other CEOs, I have developed a perspective on the annual and strategic goal-setting process. Done effectively, goal setting drives execution and individual, team and organizational performance.

There are six major factors that determine the credibility of any organization’s operational and strategic plans, and the goals outlined in those plans:

  • Talent and capabilities of the business unit’s management team, and their ability to execute and achieve results
  • Competitive position of the company’s products or services in its markets and the strategies of competitors
  • Availability of capital and operating resources needed to execute the plan
  • Whether upside potentials are balanced by downside risks and if there is an imbalance, how it is addressed in the goal-setting process.
  • Ownership in the plan by the employees who will execute it
  • Effectiveness of strategies to achieve results

Continue reading on The Business Journals.

3 leadership lessons from Oscar nominee ‘The Imitation Game’

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on January 20, 2015

I recently watched “The Imitation Game,” a film that received eight Oscar nominations, including best picture. The film is about Englishman Alan Turing (brilliantly played by best actor nominee Benedict Cumberbatch) and his small team of elite mathematicians and code breakers who broke the “unbreakable” German Enigma code during World War II. This permitted the British to successfully use a captured German Enigma machine to decode military messages and turn the tide of the war.

Film critics gave “The Imitation Game” and its actors high marks in many categories. Not one critic, however, mentioned that three of the themes that ran through the film are great lessons in counter-intuitive leadership, breaking paradigms and the importance of respecting the abilities of women.

 

Don’t discount a counter-intuitive leadership style

 

Turing lacked interpersonal skills and would have failed as a leader in most situations. As a team member, he alienated his fellow code breakers. He was driven, however, by his strong belief that “… only a machine could defeat another machine.”

Prior attempts at breaking the Enigma code by humans using traditional methods were unsuccessful. In spite of having no interpersonal skills, he slowly won his team over with an unwavering resolve that his approach was the only one that would break the code. His team began to develop ownership in Turing’s approach, and threatened to quit when the naval commanding officer who headed the Enigma project wanted to fire Turing because the military had no faith in anything outside of their own narrow inflexible framework for breaking the code.

Continue reading on The Business Journals.

In business, good is the enemy of great

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on January 12, 2015

“Good is the enemy of great” are the opening words of “Good to Great,” the best-selling iconic book by preeminent leadership and management thought leader Jim Collins, on “why some companies make the leap [to outstanding sustained performance] … and some don’t.” If you think that “good” is good enough, you will never become great.

When I became the president and CEO of PQ Corp., chairman of the PQ board Richard D. Wood Jr. gave me a copy of “Good to Great.” I will be forever grateful to Wood, because the book outlined the characteristics of companies that have achieved outstanding sustained performance. Collins’ book served as a guide for leading PQ during my tenure as CEO, and later as an independent board member at other companies, assessing their leaders and organizations.

Collins and his team of researchers poured over reams of data to uncover 11 companies that had cumulative stock returns at least 6.9 times that of the general market over a 15-year period. For perspective, from 1985 to 2000, GE had cumulative stock returns only 2.8 times that of the general market. Collins and his team then studied the characteristics of these companies and the characteristics of their CEOs, versus comparison companies that did not perform as well. Collins identified eight principles that differentiated these high-performing companies from the comparison companies. Here are the four differentiating principles that were most impactful for me:

Continue reading on The Business Journals.

Five key leadership principles that are not 2015 trends, but timeless imperatives

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on January 5, 2015

Every January, thought leaders write about “new trends” for the coming year. It was suggested that I do the same in the area of leadership. What I want to write about, however, are not trends. They are timeless leadership imperatives that are characteristic of all high-performing organizations. We all should remember these as we start 2015.

Communicate the vision, mission and goals for the organization

Your employees can’t help fulfill the vision and achieve the mission and goals of the organization unless they know what they are. Communicate these to them, and why they were chosen. Work to gain buy-in from your employees to make them shared vision/mission/goals. If 2015 is the year to re-write the vision/mission statements, involve employees at various levels within the organization. Set joint goals with your direct reports, so they have ownership in them. Periodically update employees on the progress of the journey to achieve the organization’s vision/mission/goals.

Let your employees know what their role is on this journey. As CEO of my company, I once told an operating division of a mature business that their role is to generate cash flow that could be invested in high-growth businesses in other parts of the company. I also told them that they needed to continue their successful efforts on continuous improvement, and they would continue to receive capital for process improvement projects that had an attractive return on investment. These employees shared with me that it was the first time that they were ever told what their role is in the company’s growth. They embraced their role and fulfilled their job as a cash generator with newfound dedication.

Continue reading on The Business Journals.

The value of giving young, skilled workers a chance

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on December 29, 2014

Writing a weekly column on effective leadership for publication in the Philadelphia Business Journal is a team effort between my editors and me. My editors are two Drexel University undergraduate English majors, Julia Casciato, the former editor-in-chief and managing editor of Drexel University’s independent student newspaper, The Triangle, and Alexa Josaphouitch, a co-chief copy editor of The Triangle. Speaking with both of them over time, I learned how each has gained valuable leadership experience as undergraduates.

In their role as editors, what do Casciato and Josaphouitch do? They are a set of eyes beyond mine. In addition to checking spelling, tense, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure, they check for inconsistencies and ensure that the ideas and concepts I present tie together in a logical way. In addition, they check for AP Style, which is a set of writing conventions for newspaper articles. They comment on the tone of the article and if I am effectively delivering my message to the reader.

I interviewed both Casciato and Josaphouitch to learn about their leadership experiences as undergraduates at Drexel, and what they have learned editing articles for my weekly column. They both shared that by editing my column, they are exposed to leadership issues that they would not normally be exposed to as undergrads.

Continue reading on The Business Journals.