As an applicant interviewing for a new position, are you prepared to address the following areas?
9 ways to build trust within your organization
Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on August 6, 2019
Given the importance of trust in enabling organizations to thrive, this article
updates my April 2016 article, “How to earn employee trust to build a high-
performance team.”
Have you ever worked in an organization where there was a low level of trust
among peers, or where direct reports did not trust their boss or the CEO of the
company? This type of organization has a toxic atmosphere, which significantly
reduces its effectiveness.
What is “trust?” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines trust as a “belief that
someone is reliable, good, honest and effective … one in which confidence is
placed.” Wouldn’t we all like to work within organizations where all employees
feel this level of trust in their leaders and peers?
Stephen Covey, the late motivational speaker, writer and advisor, once wrote,
“Without trust we don’t truly collaborate; we merely coordinate or, at best,
cooperate. It is trust that transforms a group of people into a team.” When people
don’t trust each other, there is an invisible elephant in the room, which may
adversely impact the effectiveness of the decision process.
Whether you are CEO, a mid-level manager or an individual contributor with no
direct reports, trust needs to be earned. So, how do you earn the trust of others?
Be consistent and readable by those within your organization
As a CEO or other leader, there should be no misunderstanding as to your tone at
the top – the values to which you hold yourself and your employees accountable,
and the type of organizational culture you are nurturing. Employees trust and want
to work for an organization with high ethical standards, and work for a leader that
lives by those standards.
As a leader, ensure your expectations are understood. Situations will arise when
decisions need to be made by your employees for which there is no operating
procedure or precedent. Employees will fall back on their good critical judgment
and proceed in a way consistent with your expectations, tone and culture.
Meet your commitments
Don’t make a commitment you cannot keep. If the situation changes and you find
that you can’t keep a commitment, notify the individual immediately. She may have
made a commitment to others, based on your commitment to her.
Don’t blame other people for your mistakes
If you make a mistake, own it and share how next time the issue will be handled in
a different manner. You don’t create trust by blaming others for your mistake.
Employees that do this never last long within the kind of organization in which we
all want to work.
Allow your direct reports to share with you a contrary point of view
I have worked for bosses who were not interested in contrary views. This did not
engender trust. As the leader, compare other’s opinions on how to proceed on an
issue with your own view. Through discussion and debate, you may accept their
view, or may discover a third alternative path, better than either of the first two
paths. Follow this process and you will rarely choose the wrong way to proceed.
Create an environment that allows employees to share the brutal facts of
reality
As a leader, you want your people to feel safe in sharing bad news. Don’t shoot the
messenger. You can’t solve a problem unless you know what it is. You want your
people to have trust and confidence that you will listen to them.
Help employees develop a sense of ownership in what they do
Empower employees, don’t micromanage. Show your employees that you trust
them by letting them decide how to accomplish an objective. This will help your
employees develop a sense of ownership in what they do. When this occurs, you
can rely on them to drive results.
Be accessible and transparent
Create opportunities for all employees – not only your direct reports – to talk with
you. Walk around the office or factory floor. Ask how people are doing. However,
avoid telling them what to do. If an issue arises that needs to be addressed, talk with
your direct report responsible for the area. Hold town meetings to talk about the
business and respond to employees’ questions. Be as transparent as possible,
realizing that there are things that cannot be publicly shared.
Before making a decision, hear both sides of an issue
No matter how compelling an argument is presented by an individual on one side of
an issue, there is always the other side, which may be more compelling. Hear both
sides before making a decision. The individual on the losing side of the issue won’t
like your decision, but will respect the fact that you went through a fair process and
heard both sides.
Live your values
Living your values engenders trust. As CEO of PQ Corporation, I experienced a
minor OSHA recordable accident while traveling on business. I insisted that the
accident be written up, and for that quarter, I was one of PQ’s safety statistics.
Word was spread to our 56 manufacturing facilities around the world that the CEO
called an OSHA recordable accident on himself. This demonstrated that I held
myself accountable to the same standards as I held our employees.
The best talent will want to work for companies where there is a high level of trust
with the senior leadership and among fellow employees. These are the companies
that have the lowest turnover and achieve the highest long-term returns to
shareholders. This is the type of company at which we all want to work.
Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker,
advisor and nationally syndicated columnist 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.
CEOs need to be open to novel solutions
Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on July 29, 2019
How many of us have been challenged to accomplish an objective where the path to
success was not clear? How many of us found a way to get it done? This is a challenge
that we face many times during our careers.
In August 2015, I wrote an article headlined, “AT&T’s lesson in leadership: How
to break paradigms.” Given the importance of breaking paradigms, this is an
update of that article.
In the 2001 film “Pearl Harbor,” soon after the U.S. declares war on Japan following the
attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt orders the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
strike back by bombing Tokyo. These military leaders offer reasons why it can’t be
done—the U.S. long range bombers don’t have the necessary range from the nearest U.S.
base on Midway Island and Russia won’t let the U.S. launch from Russian territory.
Roosevelt says to them, “Do not tell me it can’t be done.”
What Roosevelt did was challenge the existing paradigms of his military leaders.
Paradigms are an established and accepted set of beliefs. Roosevelt wanted them to be
innovative and think out of the box. It took the assistant chief of staff for anti-submarine
warfare to do so, an individual you would not necessarily expect to come up with a
solution to this challenge. He proposed that B-25 bombers carrying extra fuel be launched
off an aircraft carrier that would sail within aircraft striking range of Tokyo. After the
planes launched, the carrier would turn back, and after the bombing run, the planes would
fly to China and land there.
This bombing mission over Tokyo is enshrined in history as the Doolittle Raid, named
for Army Air Corps Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle. Even though the mission did
little damage to Japan’s military capability, it provided a needed boost to American
morale, and at the same time showed the Japanese that they were within the reach of
American bombers.
When “something can’t be done,” there is usually a creative path forward that can
achieve the result desired, or a similar result that might serve the purpose originally
intended.
Your corporate culture must encourage out-of-the-box thinking and risk-taking for this
process to take place. Collaboration among people from different technical disciplines
and operating units are sometimes needed to find the path forward, as when the assistant
chief of staff for anti-submarine warfare came up with the idea of how to bomb Tokyo.
Rebuilding the phone system
As manager of operations planning early in my career at PQ Corporation, one of the most
impactful lessons I learned was the imperative of breaking paradigms.
Our CEO, Paul Staley, asked Russell Ackoff, then professor of management at the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, to talk with the senior leadership team
at PQ about applying his idealized design approach to our manufacturing technologies to
break our paradigms. As a mid-level manager, I was very fortunate to be included in
these sessions.
Ackoff described a meeting that he attended in 1951, consisting of engineers and
scientists at Bell Labs, a division of the phone company AT&T, in which the facilitator
abruptly announced to the meeting participants that the phone system in the U.S. was just
destroyed. How would they not only rebuild the system, but reimagine and improve it?
The only criteria that they needed to meet were that the new phone system design had to
be technically feasible and operationally viable. The facilitator was asking the meeting
participants to break their paradigms and think out of the box.
In the process of establishing the specifications of the new phone system, the participants
realized that given the expected growth of phone usage, continued use of the rotary dial
phone system in use at the time was not practical. Touch-tone dialing cut 12 seconds off
the time it took to dial a phone number and required much less investment than the
capital-intensive mechanical rotary dial system.
At that moment in history, the touch-tone dial system became the technology of choice
for the future phone system. Little did the participants know the significant impact that a
reimagined phone system based on touch-tone dialing would have on our lives in the
future.
The ideal plant concept
A number of years later as president of PQ’s Industrial Chemicals Group at a meeting
with our plant managers, I posed a similar question to the one that was posed at Bell
Labs. I told the group that our Augusta, Georgia manufacturing plant, built many years
ago, was just destroyed. How would they reimagine, redesign and build the plant to fulfill
the product needs of the plant’s customers? The only criteria were that the redesign
needed to be technically feasible and operationally viable.
We identified new manufacturing approaches we wanted to include in the new plant
design. We subsequently estimated the cost to build and operate the plant and found it
would be significantly less using these new technologies.
Our approach to reimagine this plant was called our ideal plant concept, similar to what
Ackoff called his idealized design. Whenever capital additions were made to our plants,
we considered the risks involved in adopting new technology, and whether we needed to
de-risk the decision by applying and testing out the new technology before putting it into
commercial practice.
Of course, what is the latest state of the art today will be surpassed by new innovations
tomorrow. In addition, this approach fit with our commitment to the continuous
improvement of our manufacturing plants, as well as other aspects of our business
operations.
Leaders, create a culture focused on breaking paradigms. This is a way to differentiate
and create a sustainable advantage over your competitors. And remember, when you hear
from employees that something can’t be done, respond with, “Don’t tell me it can’t be
done. Find a way to do it.”
Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker,
advisor and nationally syndicated columnist 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.
6 ways for a CEO to think like an activist investor
Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on July 22, 2019
CEOs of many public companies raise their guard when they receive a phone call
from an activist investor wanting to discuss how their company can improve its
performance and shareholder return. This is not necessarily the right reaction. In
April 2015, I wrote an article on this subject. This is an update of that article.
Activists invest in underperforming companies and push for improved shareholder
return through cost reduction, a change in business strategy or leadership, or the
pursuit of strategic options. If shareholder return cannot be improved through other
means, the activist might push for outright sale of the company or one or more of its
operating units.
If unsuccessful in convincing the CEO and board to implement their proposals to
increase shareholder return, an activist may threaten a proxy fight to seat their own
director slate.
All outside directors have a fiduciary duty to be independent, even if nominated by
an activist and seated through a proxy fight. These directors need to make their own
independent decisions based on what is best for the shareholders after board
deliberation, not what is best for the activist who nominated them.
Some activists are interested only in making a quick return, with no concern for the
potential of a company to generate much higher returns for its shareholders over the
long term. This adds to the pressure of companies to sacrifice the long term in favor
of quarterly results. The interests of short-term oriented activists may not be in the
best interests of most of the company’s shareholders. Other activists are in it for the
long term, as are many shareholders, and their proposals need to be heard and, if
valid, seriously considered.
Dealing with activists who are adversarial is a distraction to the CEO and the board
and takes time and focus away from the business. A proxy fight puts the CEO and
the board in the public spotlight. How do you lessen the likelihood that your
company becomes an activist target?
Think like an activist when formulating and executing strategy
Companies that outperform their peer group are usually not targets of activists,
because the potential for improvement is less when compared to companies that
underperform. Outperforming your peer group should be your objective regardless.
The board needs to hold the CEO (and themselves) to high-performance standards
Activists like to target under-performing companies that have a weak CEO and are
governed by a weak board. I have served as a director of three public companies.
When a new director joins our board, the last thing my fellow incumbent directors
and I want is to be viewed as not having held the CEO to high-performance
standards.
Ensure decisions are made based on what is best for the shareholders, not the CEO or board
What is in the best long-term interests for the shareholders should be the focus of
the CEO and the directors, not what is in their personal best interests. After an
evaluation of the alternate strategies to improve financial performance and
shareholder return, if selling the company is in the best interests of the shareholders,
this is the strategy that should be pursued by the board, recognizing that the CEO
might be replaced and the directors will step down after the sale.
Guard against complacency
The directors of a company need to guard against complacency, which may set in
due to the growing relationship directors have with the CEO over time. Independent
directors are just that – independent. The most important responsibility of directors
is to hire the CEO and determine the CEO’s compensation based on results. The
board of directors must also be capable of terminating the CEO if warranted.
Engage with large shareholders
In his February 2015 letter to independent directors, F. William McNabb III, former
chairman and CEO of Vanguard, the world’s largest mutual fund company, wrote,
“We’ve observed that the best boards work hard to develop ‘self-awareness,’ and
seek feedback and perspectives independent of management. They ask the right
questions to understand how their company may be different than [their] peers, and
whether those differences are strengths or vulnerabilities.”
McNabb continues, “We believe boards that provide such context to investors are
less likely to be surprised by activists or proxy votes, and more likely to have strong
support of large long-term shareholders.” Wise advice.
If you do receive a phone call from an activist, listen
Activists spend a significant amount of time studying industries and the companies
that comprise those industries. Many times they know more about the industry and a
company’s competitors than the company itself. They are a source of valuable
information, and can provide a prospective different than that of the CEO or
directors of the company. The strategies they suggest to increase shareholder
performance may have validity, and change the paradigms of management and the
board.
In addition to public company CEOs, much of the advice above is also valid for the
CEOs of private companies. CEOs, think like an activist. Boards, hold the CEO to
high-performance standards.
Recognize that the company is there for the benefit of the shareholders and guard
against complacency. Engage with large shareholders, but be careful not to violate
SEC Fair Disclosure rules against providing inside information to selected
shareholders. When an activist calls, listen to their ideas to increase shareholder
value. These are the best defenses against activists, who will go after lower-hanging
fruit.
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.
Can Philadelphia’s refinery be saved?
Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on July 15, 2019
Critical decisions regarding the future of the Philadelphia Energy Solutions oil
refinery will be made in the coming months. These decisions will have a lasting
impact on the people and city of Philadelphia.
Just after 4 a.m. on June 21, a series of explosions rocked one of the two alkylation
process units at the refinery in South Philadelphia, which produce high-octane
blending components for gasoline. Three days later, PES CEO Mark Smith issued a
statement, saying, “Today, Philadelphia Energy Solutions made the difficult
decision to commence shutdown of the refinery complex. … The company will
position the … complex for sale or restart.”
Ryan O’Callaghan, the president of United Steelworkers 1-10, which represents
over 600 PES refinery workers, stated, “The impact of the closure will be a massive
blow to the local economy.”
In September 2018, Christina Simeone wrote a report for University of
Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy headlined, “Beyond bankruptcy:
The outlook for Philadelphia’s neighborhood refinery.” Simeone points out the
refinery is outdated compared with other, newer refineries, placing it at a
competitive disadvantage. Simeone also points out some of the complex issues of
remediating the site caused by over a century and a half of refining operations.
In a July 2 opinion piece, WHYY reporter Susan Phillips raises the question of
whether restarting the refinery is economically viable and if a buyer for the refinery
can be found.
The issues raised by Simeone and Phillips can only be addressed by the
marketplace. Assuming the current owners want to exit the refinery business, the
process of finding a buyer needs to move forward. The refinery declared bankruptcy
in 2018. This does not mean the refinery is not financially viable with the right
capital structure.
In a July 8 opinion piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer headlined, “Even after
Philadelphia refinery closes, the environmental damage won’t disappear,” geologist
Breana Hashman of Clean Water Action expresses the opinion that the refinery
should not be restarted, and states, “If our city values public health over corporate
profits, the future of this property should not be in the fossil fuel industry. Renewable
energy creates more jobs per money invested that fossil fuels. We can’t stop the
layoffs of hundreds of workers from the PES facility, but we can create more
employment opportunities in the future for skilled laborers like these by growing the
renewable energy market.”
What Hashman doesn’t acknowledge is that those refinery workers who are laid off
need to find employment now. She has suggested that the refinery site be converted
to a solar energy farm. This would be at least a decade or more away due to site
remediation, if in fact it’s the best place to site a solar energy farm and the private
sector is willing to make the investment. For years, the site would lie fallow and not
be a source of employment or a contributor to Philadelphia’s tax base.
I agree with Hashman that we need to continue to move away from carbon-based
energy to clean, renewable energy technology. The private sector is already driving
this, based on market demand and the opportunity to earn a return on investment.
Whether the refinery operates or not has no bearing on the move toward renewable
energy. The continued adoption of solar energy and the continued operation of the
PES refinery are not mutually exclusive.
The reality is that fossil-based fuels used to heat our homes and fuel our cars will
continue to play a significant role in our society for many years to come. We can
produce those fuels here, employ thousands of people and collect taxes to fund the
operation of our city, or import gasoline and heating oil from other U.S. refineries
or overseas, in effect exporting high-paying jobs and the tax revenues that oil
refining generates.
There are those who believe that the refinery should not be restarted because it is in
fact the largest source of emissions in the city. This is due to the massive size of the
refinery operation.
In her article, Hashman expresses concerns over the health risks posed by the
refinery. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculates a Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicator (RSEI) score that measures the impact of various
environmental hazards on human health.
The RSEI score for the PES refinery in 2017 was 62 times that of the median of all
refineries in the U.S. Clearly, for the refinery to operate responsibly, a significant
reduction needs to be made in its RSEI score. This will take significant investment
by a new owner.
Emission regulations need to be enforced, so violations are not viewed by a new
refinery owner as an insignificant cost of doing business. The cost of these fines
plus the investment needed to lower the refinery’s RSEI score will lower the
amount a potential investor would be willing to pay to acquire the refinery, but does
not adversely impact the refinery’s financial viability.
The liability to remediate the refinery site falls to previous owner Sun Oil
Company, now owned by Energy Transfer Partners, so the financial burden of
remediating legacy site contamination will not be the responsibility of a new owner.
If the refinery is not restarted, 1,000 high-paying highly skilled refinery jobs will be
lost, not to mention the loss of many thousands of jobs at outside contractors,
service providers and those who support the refinery and its employees in so many
ways. In addition, Philadelphia stands to lose significant tax dollars if the refinery is
not restarted.
The people who are employed there and the ancillary businesses that depend on the
refinery are counting on its restart. Those who live within the shadow of the
refinery are hoping it is not restarted and if it is, significant investments are made to
reduce the environmental impact of the facility.
Can the PES refinery be saved? Time will tell.
Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker,
advisor and nationally syndicated columnist 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.
How to use the goal-setting process to achieve great performance
Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on July 9, 2019
Setting an organization’s annual financial goals has importance beyond financial considerations. If the probability of achieving the financial goals is low and in most years the goals are not achieved, employee morale suffers and the ongoing funding of growth initiatives critical to the long-term success of the company is jeopardized.
I have written articles on this subject, in January 2015 and in December 2018. This article shares some additional perspectives on the goal-setting process.
Setting goals at PQ Corporation as a business unit leader, then as the company’s CEO and later as a board member of other companies approving the financial goals of their CEOs, I have developed a perspective on the annual goal-setting process. Done effectively, goal setting drives execution and individual, team and organizational performance.
As a business unit leader, I worked for CEOs who set stretch financial goals for the company. Upside potentials were not balanced against downside risks. These CEOs believed that actual performance with stretch goals would exceed the performance that would have been attained, had the goals been set more realistically.
However, since there was a relatively low probability of achievement, many employees did not take ownership in these goals, and most years the company fell short of achieving them. The board of directors held management accountable for achieving what they said they would achieve, and when performance fell short, the board was not happy.
After I was named CEO of PQ, I changed our annual financial goal-setting approach. Each business unit set goals that were reasonably attainable, based on strategies that provided a path toward achievement. However, I set the expectation that the financial goals should be exceeded by the greatest extent possible, and our employees should have fun doing so.
The higher the financial performance, the higher the bonus payment for that portion of the bonus tied to financial results. We were completely transparent by sharing with the employees the bonus pool formula, and they were energized as their results increased the size of the pool as well as their own possible bonus payment.
PQ business unit leaders occasionally wanted to build a reserve (i.e. commit to a lower earnings number) in their goals, if there were downside risks in their business plans not offset by upside potentials. I permitted them to do so. Adding up all the earnings of the business units, I would consider whether the corporate earnings goal was reasonably attainable. If not, I would build a president’s reserve into the company’s earnings goal. This is not common practice among many CEOs.
As the months passed, employees developed and executed strategies to exceed their goals. With this new approach, PQ’s earnings grew from $14 million (adjusted for an adverse material competitive situation) to $43 million over five years which included 9/11 and the severe recession of 2002.
After 2000, we never had a down quarter. As measured by revenue growth, earnings growth and return on assets, we moved from fourth quartile performance to first quartile performance, compared with 17 public peer companies within the chemical industry.
I did not achieve these earnings results — the men and women who operated our businesses around the world achieved them. I focused on tone at the top, corporate culture, ensuring we have the right people in senior leadership positions, and corporate strategy.
My approach as CEO of PQ — setting reasonably attainable goals that resulted in achieving earnings growth — was endorsed by Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary. At the 2018 Disruptor 50 conference in Philadelphia, O’Leary discussed the factors that influenced the return of capital of the 37 companies within his venture portfolio. O’Leary said, “A study showed … 90 percent of the [cash] returns came from companies run by women.” Why?
O’Leary said, “Companies run by men hit their quarterly sales targets 65 percent of the time. … Women-led companies hit their targets 95 percent of the time. … If you are on a winning team in any sport, … you have a winning culture. Winning cultures have different metrics than just financial reward. Being part of a winning team is powerful. These [women-led] teams are constantly hitting their targets.”
O’Leary talks about his views in a March 2018 CNBC article headlined, “Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary: Women-run businesses make me the most money – here’s why.”
In this article, O’Leary says, “If employees aren’t meeting their goals … frustration can lead to turnover, which is particularly costly for small operations. Women are better at avoiding this pitfall.
“When you meet your goals 95 percent of the time, you change the culture of your business. People feel they’re working in a winning organization. That’s why women are doing better in business — they keep their people. The staff are sticky. They want to work there because they’re hitting their goals. … You don’t have to reach for the stars, you want to win 95 percent of the time. That’s the secret sauce.”
The shareholders of the company don’t know what the annual financial goals of the company are and don’t care. They only care if the financial results exceed previous year’s results and exceed the investment returns of similar companies within the industry.
The goal-setting process is a means to an end — great performance. As leaders of our respective organizations, we should change our paradigms about goal setting. Financial goals should only be an intermediate target, and exceeded by the greatest extent possible, in an environment where employees are rewarded handsomely for doing so.
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.
How courtesy and conversation can help heal our political divide
Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on July 1, 2019
Due to the continued political polarization in our country as evidenced by the rancor over illegal immigration and so many other areas , I thought it might be useful to share a Dec. 11, 2018, article that describes an email exchange I had with one of my readers that I think is instructive for all of us.
In an earlier article, I criticized President Donald Trump for discounting the CIA’s conclusion that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salam of Saudi Arabia was responsible for the murder of U.S. resident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and for not holding bin Salam accountable. Trump said, “Do people really want me to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs?” in reference to the business the Saudis do with the U.S.
I wrote, “What about reaffirming America’s commitment to human rights values, a question asked by both Democrat and Republican lawmakers?”
A reader of that article, Dennis Hathaway, of San Antonio, Texas, wrote an email to me disagreeing with what I wrote. Through a number of email exchanges, we closed the gap in our views – a lesson in civility that we can all learn from. My December 11 article contained excerpts from our email thread:
Hathaway: Thanks for the article Stan. I have to disagree with you though. I doubt any other president would have done much different. Remember the 9/11 hijackers all came thru Saudi Arabia and nothing was done then to sanction Saudi.
Other presidents may have said they were going to do something, but it would have been PR talk. Trump, I believe, is only speaking reality here. May not like it or agree with it, but it is what it is.
I’ve about had it with the “it’s not who we are” statements. It’s a good line that is used by the Democrats and liberals to criticize the conservative side of American politics. We as a country, are who we are.
Silverman: Thanks Dennis, for your comments on my article yesterday.
Yes, you’re right. Saudi Arabia was not sanctioned after 9/11. I assume no sanctions were put in place because there was no evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia was involved in the 9/11 attack, unlike the CIA conclusion that the Saudi government was involved in Khashoggi’s murder.
You write, “I’ve about had it with the ‘it’s not who we are’ statements. It’s a good line that is used by the Democrats and liberals to criticize the conservative side of American politics.”
Dennis, for the record, I am a Republican and have been my entire life (Author’s note: I have since switched my voter registration to Independent). I am not a Democrat or a liberal and never will be. What I am is a patriot, who strongly believes in country before party.
And, it is who we are as a nation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY.) has taken the same position as I have, as reported in a news article headlined, “McConnell: Saudi actions ‘abhorrent’ and warrant ‘response.’”
Quoting McConnell, “What obviously happened – is basically certified by the CIA – is completely abhorrent to everything the United States holds dear and stands for in the world. Some kind of response to that certainly would be in order and we’re discussing what the appropriate response should be.”
I have many fellow Republican friends and colleagues who do not support Trump and many of his policies. They are insulted that the far right calls them liberals. They are anything but!
Hathaway: Thanks Stan. I too believe in country before party. Don’t know that I can agree with your statement of not knowing if the Saudi government was involved in 9/11. I just firmly believe we would not have taken action against them because we need them for various military staging areas, and at that time, for oil to carry out our actions against Al Qaeda.
I will retract my liberal statement and just have it apply to Democrats. Because I truly believe the Democratic Party has shown itself to not have any ideas except to attack Trump.
I don’t like all that Trump does, but one thing you have to give him is that he has pushed the policies he said he would if he got elected. More than we can say for most of our elected leaders. We have had such terrible candidates from both parties lately. Bob Dole, Hillary, McCain and Gore. Is this the best we can do?
Bill Clinton started the politics of personal destruction. Now it’s pervasive in the political arena from both sides. I’m afraid that has led us to a point where we will see Trump types on both sides, from now on.
Silverman: Hi Dennis. Except for our differing views on whether the Saudi government was involved in 9/11 and some of the individuals on your list of “terrible candidates,” I basically agree with the points in your latest email. If the Democrats run an Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders type candidate, they are foolish. The country will fully reject that type of candidate and Trump will win a second term.
I want to share with you an article that I write each year on the anniversary of 9/11. Glad we are having this exchange of ideas and views.
Hathaway: Very well-written article, Stan. I was on a flight from Baltimore to Mississippi during that event. One of my best friends was a NYC fire fighter with Rescue 3. He was off duty headed home and turned around to come help his brothers. He was lost when the towers collapsed.
My wife was across the river from the Pentagon and right across the street from the State Department. She spent much of the day coordinating Navy medical response.
My son was and still is in the Army. He was in the first raid with the Army Rangers into Afghanistan. Thankfully, he has managed to complete 55 months of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan with just a few scars.
I think you are correct, that’s who we really are as Americans. We just can’t seem to hold that reality once things “settle down” again.
Silverman: You and your family have been touched in so many ways by 9/11, Dennis. I am so sorry for the loss of your courageous friend. A hero in every sense of the word. Glad your son remains safe (with a few scars) during his time in the military. We are all in debt to him for his service.
Hathaway: I have no problem with discussing differing views, with anyone who can provide a different set of facts, or another way of looking at the problem. You get better solutions to problems that way.
I think our email conversation narrowed the gap in our views because we listened to each other and acknowledged each other’s points even when we did not necessarily agree with them. We also started to dialogue on a personal level.
I shared the above email thread with friend and colleague Ray De Hont, who generally expresses the political views of Hathaway. De Hont wrote the following to me:
“I truly believe what you and Dennis have done is what is missing in our society today. To close the divide in our country, we need to allow a friendly exchange of viewpoints without name calling, severe criticism, or turning people off all together.”
“Love of Country Leads” is the motto of the Union League of Philadelphia, where I am a member. The League was established in 1862 as a patriotic club to support President Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War. This motto applies to both sides of the political divide in our country.
We are all patriots. We need to talk to each other and not at each other on issues impacting our nation, not only via email, but more personally, through face-to-face conversations.
Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker, advisor and nationally syndicated columnist 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.
Shooting the messenger does not change the facts
Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 24, 2019
Last week, President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign committee fired three pollsters after the results of an internal Republican poll showed that he was trailing five of the leading contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
If the pollsters were the source of the leaked internal results, the campaign was right to fire them. This should have been private information. However, if they were fired because the poll delivered “bad news,” a cardinal leadership rule was violated – never shoot the messenger. Shooting the messenger does not change the brutal facts of reality.
At first, Trump’s campaign committee denied that the negative polling data even existed. In a turnabout, campaign manager Brad Parscale then acknowledged that the polling data did exist, and stated, “All news about the president’s [internal] polling is completely false. The president’s new polling is extraordinary, and his numbers have never been better.”
Parscale did not present the results of any new polling to indicate that his claim is factual. He hurts his credibility by not doing so. Why would people believe him? He would have been much more credible had he originally acknowledged the results of the internal poll, and said they were from polling back in March.
I can only imagine how the mid-level and junior campaign staff feels as the narrative keeps shifting. This is certainly not how to run an organization in the private or public sector. It paralyzes decision-making and employees question the tone at the top and toxic culture of where they work.
Every effective leader knows that their actions are carefully read by the people who work for them. If by sharing the facts they feel that they might get blamed for delivering bad news, they are much less likely to do so now and in the future. This is not in the best interest of the leader or the organization. You can’t address issues unless you know what they are.
History is replete with examples of failed leaders not facing the brutal facts of reality because it was withheld from them or they failed to listen. The most effective way for a leader to shut down communication is to criticize the bearer of bad news.
In his best-selling iconic book Good to Great, management thought leader Jim Collins writes “why some companies make the leap [to outstanding sustained performance] … and some don’t.”
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. Collins and his team then studied the characteristics of these companies and 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. You can find these eight principles in an article I wrote in January 2015 headlined, “Good is the enemy of great.”
One of the eight principles is “to confront the brutal facts.” Collins writes that “productive change begins when you confront the brutal facts [of reality]. Every good-to-great company embraced what we came to call ‘The Stockdale Paradox’ – you must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time, have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”
Organizations that think they are great can be blinded and not see the brutal facts of their reality. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t acknowledge it. When the problem becomes glaringly apparent, it is much more difficult to fix, or perhaps becomes unfixable.
Effective CEOs don’t want surprises from their direct reports, and board members don’t want surprises from the CEO. Employees already know where the problems are and want to know that their CEO knows about them, too. If the CEO does not acknowledge the facts, the employees feel that either the CEO doesn’t know about them, or the problems are so bad the CEO is afraid to tell them.
Leaders lose credibility when problems are not acknowledged and addressed. Recognizing the brutal facts of reality and then acting on them is a key characteristic of high-performance leaders and their organizations.
In the words of renowned Brazilian novelist, Paulo Coelho, “If you want to be successful, you must respect one rule: Never lie to yourself.” So, as a leader, recognize the brutal facts and get to work fixing the issue. That’s what your employees and your board will want you to do.
Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker, advisor and nationally syndicated columnist 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.
In retirement, engage the world in a new way
Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 17, 2019
In May 2018, I wrote an article headlined, “Rethinking traditional American retirement.” This is an update of that article, based on many recent conversations I have had with friends and colleagues on this subject.
The prevalent cultural norm within American society is to work hard for some 40 or 45 years and then retire and enjoy life. But retire to what? A second career doing something else? Pursuing a life-long interest or hobby? A life of day-long leisure without responsibility nor a care in the world?
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines retirement as “withdrawal from one’s position or occupation or from active working life.” I would like to suggest an alternate definition: “The opportunity to renew oneself and to pursue new interests, engaging the world in a different way.”
Some people retire with no plans beyond traveling and playing golf and are happy doing so. Others start out this way, but find something lacking in their lives – a purpose, a mission. Their identities were tied to what they did and accomplished during their working years. In retirement, without a purpose, that has all changed. This has caused some to go into depression for which they seek professional help.
Many articles have been written about retirement. One of the most instructive is an April 2016 article in the Harvard Business Review by Neil Pasricha headlined, “Why retirement is a flawed concept.”
Pasricha writes, “We don’t actually want to retire and do nothing. We just want to do something we love. And I’m not talking about endless days of back nines, fishing, and sailing into the sunset. While we might want some time to do those things, you’d be surprised to learn how quickly the bloom can come off of that type of rosy retirement.”
Pasricha cites a study of the people of Okinawa who have one of the longest life spans, seven years longer than Americans. Within Okinawan society, there is no concept of retirement from work. Life is a continuum, where people move through life’s phases.
Pasricha writes, “They don’t even have a word for … [retirement]. Literally nothing in … [their] language describes the concept of stopping work completely. [Their lexicon] has the word ‘ikigai,’ (pronounced ‘icky guy’), which roughly translates to ‘The reason you wake up in the morning.’ It’s the thing that drives you most.”
So, does having a “reason for being” spell the difference between some people suffering from depression and others living a fruitful life, not only in retirement, but through the years before retirement?
Pasricha identifies four elements of life that significantly contribute to one’s happiness and well-being in retirement. He has dubbed these as the four S’s. Quoting Pasricha, they are:
- Social: Friends, peers and coworkers who brighten our days and fulfill our social needs.
- Structure: The alarm clock ringing because you have a reason to get up in the morning, and the resulting satisfaction you get from earning time off.
- Stimulation: Keeping our minds challenged by learning something new each day.
- Story: Being part of something bigger than ourselves by joining a group whose high-level purpose is something you couldn’t accomplish on your own.
I agree with Pasricha. I believe that all four elements enhance not only retired life, but also life prior to retirement.
I stepped down as CEO from my company 14 years ago upon its sale. I didn’t “retire.” During my second career, I served on a number of public company, private company, private equity company and nonprofit boards, including chairman of the board of Drexel University’s College of Medicine and vice chairman of Drexel University.
I am currently in my third career as a nationally syndicated columnist on leadership, entrepreneurship and corporate governance for the Philadelphia Business Journal and its 42 sister publications across the U.S., having never been a writer or trained as one.
I will begin my fourth career later this year when my book is published based on the more than 250 articles I have written for the Business Journal. The working title of the book is, “Be Different! The Key to Business and Career Success.”
The adages “you need to get out of your comfort zone” and “you never know what the future will bring” are true. You never know what opportunities might come your way or what opportunities you can create for yourself. At the Drexel University College of Medicine commencement each year, this is the message I share with the MD, PhD and masters graduates.
Everyone is different. Some people will be happy pursuing a life of leisure after they retire, while others will pursue second careers. Many will pursue an interest that makes a difference in their lives or in the lives of others. One should think where along the retirement continuum they want to be and do what makes them happy and content.
Many of us will not know until well into retirement which path we will want to pursue. So, have a plan as you enter retirement. You can always change it. What you don’t want to do is be caught with no alternative to do something meaningful to you in your post retirement life.
Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker, advisor and nationally syndicated columnist 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.
Not getting what you need from a corporate staff unit?
Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 10, 2019
As I came up through the ranks of PQ Corporation, a company with multiple
business units operating around the world, the issue of the support that business
units receive from corporate staff units was always a subject of discussion. The
saying, “I am from corporate and I am here to help you,” and the occasional
negative reaction from business units is familiar to many.
The most frequent complaints from business units about corporate staff units are: I
am not getting the support I need; the support I am getting is not worth what I am
being charged; and I can buy the same service on the outside cheaper. These
complaints will always be a subject of discussion.
Companies in multiple lines of business are organized by business unit, in which the general
manager of each business unit reports up through a hierarchy to the CEO. These
general managers are held accountable for the bottom-line results of the P&L
statement of their respective businesses. Business units receive services from
corporate staff units, which also report up to the CEO, but through a different
hierarchy.
At smaller companies, there are no business units. Line operating units and staff
units all report up through their respective hierarchies to the CEO, who has
responsibility for the P&L statement of the entire company.
Business units are the internal customers of corporate staff units. Occasionally,
some staff units don’t realize this and don’t give the business units the support
they need. Staff units should be doing everything they can to be responsive to the
needs of the business units they serve and give them what they need to meet their
goals. Business units and staff units must partner and collaborate to achieve
success of the business units and the company as a whole.
A critical issue arises when a business unit is not getting what it needs from a staff
unit to drive its growth, bottom-line goals or strategic initiatives. Business units
can always add the needed resources from outside the company and pay for it
themselves. This brings focus and close alignment to functions that are mission-
critical to the business unit.
If you are the general manager of a business unit, you are held accountable for
your business unit’s bottom line. Because of this P&L responsibility, if you can’t
get what you need from a corporate staff unit to help you meet your bottom-line
goals, you need to tell the leader of that staff unit that you are not getting the
support you need from them. If that doesn’t work, take the issue to your boss and
if necessary, eventually to the CEO of the company.
I would not be bashful in taking this issue up the organization for resolution. Just
do it in a politically sensitive way. Your goals are one element of the CEO’s goals,
and the CEO is evaluated by the board on the results of the entire company. The
CEO will want to help you get what you need to achieve your goals.
Stan Silverman is founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a speaker,
advisor and nationally syndicated columnist 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.
Here are the principles effective negotiators follow
Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on June 4, 2019
During my career, I have negotiated many types of deals and have observed
negotiating styles and skills of other senior leaders. In August 2017, I wrote an article
in which I shared advice on how to be an effective negotiator. This is an update of that
article:
Know what you are trying to accomplish
What would success look like? If you don’t know where you want to go, you will never
get there.
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.
Develop a game plan before negotiations start
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 not in your short or long-term best interests?
Every negotiation requires compromise and trade-offs. You are not going to win on every
issue. 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 can you live with
agreeing to them?
Study and understand your counterpart
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 negotiating table commitments?
Listen to the other party and ask questions to further understand what they want to
accomplish. Communicate to them what you want to accomplish. Identify where your
goals overlap and where they don’t so you can work to close the gaps.
Work toward a win-win
If you have an ongoing relationship, it’s important for a win-win result. If one party feels
they were treated unfairly in a negotiation, the relationship between the parties could be
damaged and may affect future negotiations. Maintaining a good relationship in the long
run is more important than a win-lose result.
If this is a one-off negotiation, you need to decide how hard you want to take advantage
of your perceived strengths and drive toward a “win-lose.” You could run into the other
party again in a different situation where you may not have as strong a position. People
have long memories.
One of the objectives of a negotiation, through the process of give-and-take, is to find
more overall value for both sides, perhaps not apparent before negotiations start.
Avoid bravado and strong-arming the other party if they won’t agree to your terms
If strong-armed by you, so as not to lose face, other party will be forced to raise the
stakes and retaliate against you rather than capitulate, which forces you to respond in
kind. This is a dangerous game. Where does it stop?
You and the other party are playing to your respective constituencies, and no one wants
to appear to have caved in to the other side. Avoid being backed into a corner where one
or both of you will lose face.
In sports, you never want to enrage the opponent by making statements that inflame
them, which makes them play harder. This principle also applies to negotiations.
Avoid negotiating with yourself
Once you make an offer, wait until the other side responds with a counteroffer. 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.
React strongly to an untrustworthy party at the negotiating table
I once was the lead negotiator for my company in a negotiation to sell our ownership in a
joint venture to our partner. After the second time the attorney for our partner
misrepresented what we had negotiated in the agreement he was drafting, my team and I
abruptly stood up and announced we were leaving the table and would not return until my
counterpart replaced that attorney.
Two days later, my counterpart apologized and informed me he was appointing a new
attorney to record our decisions, and negotiations resumed.
Don’t misrepresent what was previously negotiated. It damages your credibility.
Remember that it takes two parties to negotiate or renegotiate a deal
If either party feels it is not in their best interest to do a deal, they won’t. Even if you
perceive you are in a position of strength and you feel you can force the other side to
acquiesce to your terms, they always have other alternatives, which if pursued, might hurt
you in the long run.
Before entering a negotiation, be well prepared. Know when you are willing to walk
away. Understand your situation and that of the other party, including strengths,
weaknesses and alternatives. If at all possible, avoid a win-loose result. People have long
memories.
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.
6 rules for being an emotionally intelligent leader
Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 28, 2019
As one who has served in leadership roles and continues to observe many types of leaders, my view of the importance of emotional intelligence has grown. In celebration of my 250th Business Journal article, this is an update of the article I wrote in June 2018 on the importance of emotional intelligence as a key leadership trait.
Is emotional intelligence (emotional quotient) more important than IQ in one’s success? Are street smarts more important than book smarts?
In a 2004 Harvard Business Review article headlined, “Leading by Feel,” University of New Hampshire psychologist John D. Mayer wrote, “Emotional intelligence is the ability to accurately perceive your own and others’ emotions; to understand the signals that emotions send about relationships; and to manage your own and others’ emotions.”
In a 1998 Harvard Business Review article headlined, “What Makes a Leader?” Rutgers University professor Daniel Goleman wrote, “The most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: They all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. It’s not that IQ and technical skills are irrelevant. They do matter, but mainly as ‘threshold capabilities’; that is, they are the entry-level requirements for executive positions.
“But my research, along with other recent studies, clearly shows that emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership. Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive, analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won’t make a great leader.”
Based on my own experiences, working for and observing effective and ineffective leaders, I would agree with Goleman that without emotional intelligence, “a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive, analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he [/she] still won’t make a great leader.”
In his article, Goleman identifies five components of EQ. These are:
“Self-awareness: The ability to recognize and understand your moods, emotions and drives, as well as their effect on others.
Self-regulation: The ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods … to think before acting.
Motivation: A passion to work for reasons that go beyond money or status.
Empathy: The ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people. Skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions.
Social Skill: Proficiency in managing relationships and building networks. An ability to find common ground and build rapport.”
– Daniel Goleman, “What Makes a Leader”
How do these five components of EQ translate into a leader’s day-to-day interactions and effectiveness with the people they deal with? I would like to share with you, based on my experience interacting with others, six EQ behavioral rules that will contribute to your leadership effectiveness.
- Recognize how others perceive youYou should perceive how your words, body language, verbal tone and actions are read by others. If the way you are being read is not desired or effective, you should change. You can tell how you are being perceived by other people’s subtle or not-so-subtle cues.
- Always use your common sense and good critical judgmentMost decisions are made with only limited information, so you need to fall back on your common sense and good critical judgment. Be sure to use them. Ensure you hire people with these two traits. There are too many examples of employees causing economic and reputational harm to the company because they lacked them.
- Don’t communicate with others in a way that puts them on the defensiveCommunicate in a way so people feel respected and valued. Don’t criticize others in public. If you need to give them negative feedback, do it in private. Don’t waste your personal capital correcting individuals on minor irrelevant misstatements of fact. If a correction is necessary, do it in a way so that the individual maintains their dignity and you are not showing how smart you are.
- When a direct report shares an idea or proposes a new initiative, listen.Don’t accept or reject an idea out of hand before vetting it. Show respect by discussing the idea with the direct report, asking them questions on how it might be implemented, its impact and if there could be any unintended consequences.
It’s better to have them reach their own conclusion through dialogue rather than you prematurely telling them what you think. After a dialogue, both of you might have new positions or discover an alternative that is more effective than the original idea.
Value the opinion of the lone wolf within your organization. It takes courage and conviction to go against the grain. Give them a chance to air their views. They might just change your mind.
- Take the blame if it’s your fault. Give credit where credit is dueEveryone makes mistakes. Own up to yours. You will be a much more effective and respected leader if you do. Publicly acknowledge the successes of others. It will motivate them to continue to succeed. And, never throw people under the bus. It destroys trust and any respect people within your organization might have for you.
- Don’t self-aggrandizeAvoid telling everyone how great you are, compared to your predecessors. Don’t blame them for their decisions that you disagree with for the purpose of boosting your own perceived standing. Narcissistic, insecure people do this. It does nothing to win the hearts and minds and earn the respect of your organization and the other people you deal with. It makes you look bad.
So, practice street smarts. Follow these emotional intelligence rules to be a more effective 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.