Posts in category: Articles

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on September 6, 2017

Natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey provide little warning time before they occur and cannot be prevented. Disasters such as the periodic failure of critical elements of our national infrastructure can be anticipated and prevented.

Like the proverbial frog in a pot of water slowly being brought to a boil but doesn’t realize it until it is too late, we are in a similar situation with much of our national infrastructure. It seems there is no great incentive to step up the pace of repair and replacement projects until a catastrophe occurs — and then, everyone wonders why that infrastructure project did not have a higher priority.

As a nation, why do we let some elements of our national infrastructure deteriorate and not put a higher priority on repairing them? This infrastructure is critical to our country’s economic security and global competitiveness.

Trillions of dollars are needed to bring our highways, bridges and tunnels to a point where they are safe, reliable and have sufficient capacity to meet current and future needs.

Many of our elected representatives often argue there are insufficient funds to address our infrastructure needs. Money can be found for other needs, so why not infrastructure? We need our governmental leaders to stop acting like bureaucrats, take a visible leadership role, be proactive and champion an increase in the priority of these critical projects.

China and South Korea are building up their national infrastructure at a rapid pace. Other countries are doing the same. These countries view these initiatives as long-term investments to ensure their global competitiveness. I see no such vision or foresight within the U.S. to do this, and that is to our long-term detriment.

The 2017 American Association of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card states that in 2016, 56,000 or 9.1 percent of the bridges in the U.S. were structurally deficient. The report also states that 20 percent of the nation’s roads were in poor condition, with an increasing backlog of needed repairs. There are both safety and economic consequences to our failure to keep our bridges and roads in good condition.

This lack of foresight is apparent in particular with the need to construct two additional rail tunnels for Amtrak and New Jersey Transit under the Hudson River connecting New Jersey and New York City. This project has been talked about for years and should rank as one of the highest priority infrastructure projects in the nation.

The existing tunnels were built just over 100 years ago and have been deteriorating for a long time. During Superstorm Sandy in 2012, the tunnels flooded with salt water, hastening their deterioration. Their poor condition currently causes frequent interruptions to train service in and out of New York City.

Approximately 450 trains transporting nearly 200,000 passengers pass through these tunnels each day. At rush hour, trains are scheduled two minutes apart. If there is the slightest delay of a single train for any reason, the travel of thousands of passengers is delayed. These tunnels will need to be taken out of service for major repairs. If forced to do so prior to building an additional set of tunnels, our nation’s economic security will be impaired.

No business or government leader has placed sufficient priority on the construction of a new set of tunnels. In 2010, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie withdrew support for this project because of concerns that his state’s taxpayers would be responsible to pay for cost overruns. No government leader has subsequently stepped up to become a visible, proactive champion for this project.

It is anticipated that the project to build two new tunnels and increase train and passenger capacity at New York’s Penn Station will take 10 years. This project needs to be fast-tracked. During this period, the frequency that existing tunnels will be out of service will grow, seriously disrupting train travel. The problem will only get worse.

What are we waiting for? This project and so many other national infrastructure projects need a higher priority and funding, as well as more effective leadership from our elected officials to get these projects done.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on Aug 29, 2017

I’ve spent years negotiating many types of deals and living with the results as well as observing the negotiating styles and skills of other senior leaders. With that perspective, I thought I would share what I have learned about being an effective negotiator.

1. Know what are you 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.

2. 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?

3. 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 what you want to accomplish. Identify where your goals overlap and where they don’t so you can work to close the gaps.

4. Work towards 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 towards 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

So, 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 you are in a long-term relationship with the other party, drive for a win-win. Exercise caution driving for a win-lose. People have long memories, and you might encounter them again, perhaps when they are in a position of relative strength.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on Aug 22, 2017

Best practices of leading business organizations include becoming the preferred provider of products or services to their markets. They do this in part by listening to their customers and providing a great experience so that customers choose to do business with them rather than their competition.

Governmental agencies have no such competition, but shouldn’t these agencies still do the same – listen to and provide a great experience to taxpayers?

A coastal protection project by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection designed and managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offers a glimpse at how governmental organizations can drop the ball when it comes to best serving their taxpayers — in this case, the residents of Margate, New Jersey.

The project involves protection of the city against flooding during severe storms. The NJDEP and USACE chose to provide this protection by constructing sand dunes – a 12.5-foot elevated strip of sand about 100 feet wide, along the beaches of Margate.

Dune construction is part of the Absecon Island Storm Damage Reduction project. This project, funded by the federal government, was launched because of the heavy damage suffered by many New Jersey coastal towns from Superstorm Sandy nearly five years ago.

After the storm, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie mandated that the entire coastline of New Jersey be protected by dunes — despite a “one-size-fits-all” solution perhaps not being appropriate for every New Jersey coastal town, or that perhaps a solution of say, 90 percent as effective like sea walls, would be the preferred alternative.

The citizens of Margate did not want the dunes for a variety of reasons, including anticipated issues with street storm drainage. Many residents favored spending the funds on beefing up the sea walls that have protected Margate for decades and, in the long run, would have avoided the expense of dune re-nourishment every few years or after major storms.

In two referendums, the citizens of Margate voted against the dunes and authorized the Margate commissioners to go to court to oppose the project. Dunes, however, were the paradigm of NJDEP and USACE. Margate lost its court case in March 2016 in New Jersey Superior Court, allowing dune construction to proceed.

The result is that this dune construction project is currently underway at a time when thousands of vacationers visit during July and August to enjoy Margate’s pristine beaches. This disruption includes closing stretches of the beaches during construction, restricting access to sections of the ocean due to higher than acceptable bacteria count, and installing a 30-inch pipe running down the beach to transport sand slurry to construct the dunes from sand dredged offshore.

The disruption to beach access would be bad enough if the project went as planned. Unfortunately, it did not. A design based on faulty assumptions of street drainage issues caused flooding of 100- to 150-foot-wide drainage basins constructed between the sea walls at the end of Margate’s streets and the base of the dunes. Many of these streets had no drainage issues and did not require drainage basins.

To create the drainage basins, the USACE removed the top layers of sand from the beach that absorbed rainwater. The thought was that rainwater would percolate into the newly exposed sand, now much closer to the water table. However, percolation was not effective during a severe rainstorm on July 29 and a subsequent rainstorm a week later.

The storms created huge ponds of stagnant, contaminated water in the basins that ran for blocks, preventing access to the beach and creating a health and safety hazard. This further disrupted the use of Margate’s beaches during the height of the summer season.

On Aug. 3, Margate took the NJDEP to New Jersey Superior Court and asked Judge Julio Mendez to stop construction of the dunes. After viewing photos of the flooded drainage basins and calling the situation “horrendous,” he ruled that Margate residents were suffering “irreparable harm.” Mendez issued an eight-day temporary restraining order and ordered the NJDEP, USACE and Margate to work on a solution to the ponding issue.

Concerned about the mounting standby costs of the halted project, USACE on Aug. 9 petitioned federal court Judge Renee Bumb to overturn Mendez’s restraining order so the project could continue, which she did. Bumb also ordered the basins to be pumped out whenever the basins had two or more inches of water.

The USACE is now filling in the drainage basins with sand, hopefully creating sufficient ability for rain water percolation above the water table to be effective.

On the handful of Margate streets that end below the level of the beach before dune construction, USACE removed sand so that the beach is now just below the drainage scuppers in the sea walls. This allowed these streets to drain, mimicking what occurred before the dunes were constructed, when the city of Margate periodically trenched the beach to allow drainage of these streets.

Whether these drainage areas on beach will require pumping pools of rainwater, or pipes from the sea wall scuppers under the dunes and onto the ocean side of the beach, is yet to be determined.

But from the broader perspective, the question comes back to this: Can governmental agencies work to provide a great taxpayer experience, like businesses work to provide a great customer experience? Yes, they can, and hopefully they will, effectively listening to and considering the views of their “customers” – the taxpayers that they serve.

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.

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on Aug 15, 2017

One of the greatest opportunities a young person can be granted is the responsibility to run a business, lead employees and be held accountable for achieving results. This was the opportunity granted to 20-year-old Tauheed Baukman when, as a Drexel University co-op student, he was selected to run the most recently opened Saxbys Café, which is the second Saxbys on Drexel’s campus.

Baukman is a student entering his pre-junior year at Drexel’s LeBow College of Business. He is in the five-year program, which includes three six-month periods working and gaining practical experience in his field of study. Saxbys is Baukman’s second co-op experience, which ends in September.

I asked Nick Bayer, the CEO of Saxbys and adjunct professor of entrepreneurship at Drexel’s Charles D. Close School of Entrepreneurship, why he decided to pursue the idea of having a Saxbys café managed and operated by college students. He said, “I saw that college students were looking for experiential learning opportunities, and I wanted to provide it to them. These students get the opportunity to see how a strong and focused organizational culture successfully drives a business.”

Currently, Baukman leads a team of 21 people, which will grow in the future. All are part-time Drexel students. Baukman is responsible for hiring, developing and leading his team members, scheduling his café’s shifts, managing inventory, planning menus, minimizing waste and spoilage and ensuring his café meets health and safety standards. Baukman is also responsible for meeting his café’s revenue and profit targets. Rarely do 20-year-old college students have this broad range of responsibilities.

I asked Baukman what he learned about leadership in his job. He said, “What I am learning is not something you can learn from a book; you need to experience it.

“You learn to lead by example, be consistent, honest with yourself and transparent with your team members. You need to communicate with your people and build trust. If you can’t communicate, you won’t be a good leader. As a leader, I am learning to make the tough calls.”

Baukman added, “You will make mistakes, and you will learn from them. As a leader, you are not going to make the right decisions all the time. You learn to take initiative. Being a good leader is like being a good teacher. You need to teach others so they can grow and develop and can replace you.”

There are three competitors within very close proximity to Baukman’s Saxbys café. His aim is to be the preferred café to visit by providing great hospitality and a great guest experience.

I asked Baukman why his café is different than his competition, and how he and his team work to become the preferred café. He said, “We treat those who visit our café as guests, not customers. We serve delicious coffee and food, and provide great hospitality.” He added, “Guests will not see their friends working behind the counter at a competitor, or friends managing a shift team or the entire café.

“You go to our competitors, and you do not see lively energy from the people taking your order. If a line forms, everyone on the Saxbys team works hard to speed up the line. Our competitors are not as responsive to long customer lines. They know their customers will just wait. We want to give our guests a great experience. Speed of service is big for us. It’s one of the first things we learn in training.

“If a guest waits too long to be served, any Saxbys team member behind the counter is empowered to hand out a free drink card. That is why we want to hire people with good critical judgment and common sense – to know when to hand out a card.”

Baukman added, “A great experience leads to guest loyalty. Good business operations lead to profitability. When you combine guest loyalty and profitability, you can successfully grow your business.”

I asked Allie Bassman, manager of talent development for the company, what Saxbys looks for in the people they hire. She said, “We hire and train based on attitude and culture fit.

“We are looking for people who are people oriented, outgoing, detail oriented and disciplined. We can teach skills and knowledge, not attitude. We want people who are happy with what they are doing day-in and day-out. These people will be successful at what they do.

“We are a hospitality business first. This is how we differentiate ourselves. We are going to pay attention to our guests before anything else. Our team members know many of their guests’ names and what they drink.”

What struck me interviewing both Baukman and Bassman was their proactive, can-do attitude and the degree to which culture plays a huge role in Saxbys’ success.

The opportunity to lead a Saxbys café while being a college student is a gift. What Baukman is learning can’t be learned in a classroom, and will help him on the path to effective leadership and success regardless of the career path he chooses.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on August 8, 2017

Those iconic words by Emma Lazarus, enshrined on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, represent one of America’s most inspirational ideals of those yearning to build a better life for themselves and their families in the United States.

Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s senior policy adviser, was insensitive to the significance of Lazarus’ poem during a recent White House press conference about the proposed Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act when he stated the poem was added to the Statue of Liberty after it was built. The act would reduce the number of less-skilled immigrants to the United States described in Lazarus’ poem.

The RAISE Act was publicly announced at a White House press conference on Aug. 2 by President Trump and senators David Perdue, R-Ga., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark. The proposed legislation aims to cut green card immigration in half and would favor immigrants who “can speak English, financially support themselves and their families, and demonstrate skills that will contribute to our economy,” according to Trump.

Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., outlined the problems the RAISE Act would cause in the following statement: “I’ve always supported merit-based immigration. I think we should always want to attract the best and brightest to the United States. Unfortunately, the other part of this proposal would reduce legal immigration by half, including many immigrants who work legally in our agriculture, tourism and service industries. South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two. If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Why not just leave the number of green card immigrants at levels sufficient to avoid the labor shortages and its impact on business that concerns Graham? President Trump has said that immigrants take jobs away from American workers. This was refuted by Graham, who stated: “South Carolina’s agriculture and tourism industry advertise for American workers and want to fill open positions with American workers. Unfortunately, many of these advertised positions go unfilled. Hotels, restaurants, golf courses and farmers will tell you this proposal — to cut legal immigration in half — would put their business in peril.”

Study after study show that immigrants are good for business and have a positive impact on the economy. Many immigrants are entrepreneurial. They start small businesses, create jobs, pay taxes and revitalize our inner cities. Some work two or three jobs to provide the needed resources so their children can go to college.

Immigrants work on farms harvesting our food. They build our houses, shingle our roofs, babysit our kids and mow our lawns.

An August 2012 report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan group of mayors and business leaders, indicates that in 2011, of all new businesses started in the U.S., 28 percent were started by immigrants. The report also stated that immigrants were more than twice as likely to start a business as those who are native born.

Immigrants at all socioeconomic levels who come to the United States are motivated to succeed, whether they run small businesses or world-class enterprises. If passed into law, the RAISE Act would exclude a significant number of immigrants who would contribute to our future economic growth.

Some immigrants have had a transformational impact on the United States and on the world. To name a few: Sergey Brin (Google), Jerry Yang (Yahoo), Elon Musk (Tesla/SpaceX) and Pierre Omidyar (eBay). Their companies are on the cutting edge in their respective fields and play a key role in the technical and economic competitiveness of the U.S.

Quoting a National Foundation for American Policy brief dated October 2016, “Immigrants have been awarded 40 percent, or 31 of 78, of the Nobel Prizes won by Americans in Chemistry, Medicine and Physics since 2000. In 2016, all six American winners of the Nobel Prize in economics and scientific fields were immigrants.”

So, how many immigrants will be denied entry into the U.S. by the proposed RAISE Act legislation whose children or grandchildren may be future Nobel Prize laureates?

Immigrants played a major role in building our country. My grandparents, as did so many other immigrants, came to the U.S. in the early 1900s from Ukraine and Belarus to escape religious persecution as well as to seek a better life and economic opportunity for their children and for future generations. Two of my four grandparents were not fluent in English and had a limited education. They would have not qualified for entry to the U.S. under RAISE Act legislation.

My grandparents worked long hours in multiple jobs and were motivated to succeed for their families, not unlike many of today’s immigrants. Their children, first-generation Americans, were successful professionals and entrepreneurs who created jobs. My generation continues to build on the success of our parents’ generation.

Immigration is what has made our country great. Our immigration policies should welcome immigrants regardless of their socioeconomic status and embrace the ideals of Lazarus’ poem on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on August 1, 2017

Multiple attempts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to get 50 Senate votes for various versions of a health care bill that would repeal and replace former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) have failed.

McConnell’s last attempt was a Senate bill known as the Health Care Freedom Act (HCFA), dubbed the “skinny repeal of Obamacare,” which fell one vote short of passage during the early morning hours of July 28.

The HCFA would have repealed the ACA individual mandate to buy health care insurance or pay a penalty, as well as repealed the employer mandate to provide health care insurance to their employees, among other provisions.

The HCFA was not meant to become law; its purpose was to send legislation to the House so that along with the previously House-passed American Health Care Act both acts would go to a House/Senate conference committee, where the bills would be reconciled and result in legislation that would be acceptable to both chambers of Congress.

Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted “no,” resulting in one vote short of the 50 needed to pass the HCFA, which would have required Vice President Mike Pence, presiding over the Senate, to cast the deciding vote for passage.

McCain, Collins and Murkowski had deep concerns about the legislation that might ultimately be passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, which the Congressional Budget Office projected would result in as many as 32 million people losing their health care insurance due to insufficient funding of Medicaid going forward.

The loyalty of McCain, Collins and Murkowski was to their constituents and not the Republican party. These three Senators should be viewed as courageous heroes for their concern for people who may lose their Medicaid health care coverage, not as villains, as many of their Republican Senate colleagues now view them. They showed real leadership in voting against the HCFA, unlike some of their Republican Senate colleagues, who placed loyalty to party above the welfare of the people who elected them and likely would vote for any Republican health care legislation no matter how bad it was.

Yes, these three Senators were elected by their constituents based on a platform that in part called for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. However, they have a responsibility to vote for legislation that does not jeopardize the health care coverage of those same constituents.

Opposing the Republican House and Senate health care bills were Republican governors as well as the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and many other health-related industry and professional associations. Opposition from these groups was not acknowledged or addressed by Congressional Republicans.

Trump has threatened to let Obamacare collapse by withholding payments to insurance companies that help cover premiums for low-income people. This would cause additional insurance companies to withdraw from the ACA insurance exchanges, further destabilizing these markets and leaving people with fewer options to buy health care insurance.

After the Senate defeat of the HCFA, Trump tweeted, “3 Republicans and 48 Democrats let the American people down. As I said from the beginning, let Obamacare implode, then deal. Watch!”

Mr. President, effective leaders work to fix problems. They don’t cause further hardship.

After the defeat of the Senate’s HCFA, Steve Doocy, one of the hosts of the “Fox & Friends” show on Fox News Channel, commented to his viewers, “Congratulations. You now would pay a fine or you have to have insurance. Congratulations. The healthy people are paying for the sick people.”

Why is it so difficult for Doocy and many Republicans to understand how insurance works? We all buy home insurance in the unlikely event that our house burns down. We all buy auto insurance in the unlikely event that we are involved in an auto accident. The premiums paid by those who never experience the unlikely events of a house fire or auto accident cover the costs of those who do experience these events.

Health insurance works the same way. In fact, there is a higher probability of individuals using health care benefits multiple times during their lifetime than home or auto insurance benefits. The financial loss of a home or an auto is limited to their value, except for third-party liability exposure. There is no limit to the financial cost of an illness, and those costs could be huge just with the costs of diagnostic tests and only a few days in the hospital.

Health insurance, like any other type of insurance, relies on some policy holders rarely filing a claim. If younger and healthier people don’t buy health insurance, the premium costs for everyone else skyrockets, making insurance unaffordable. This is why the individual mandate is so important.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who wants to see the individual mandate eliminated, stated on July 29, “The individual mandate is one of those things that is actually driving up the cost for the American people.” He fails to acknowledge that the individual mandate is the one thing that makes health insurance affordable for many Americans in the ACA risk pool.

Unfortunately, some of those young, healthy people will suffer an unexpected illness or accident and will need health care, and in some cases, health care not covered by “skinny” policies favored by the Republicans. Who will pay for their care?

Do they expect to get a free ride on the backs of those who bought health insurance coverage and have paid premiums? This would certainly be contrary to Republican ideology.

On July 28, after the early morning defeat of the HCFA, McConnell signaled that he is open to inviting the Democrats into the process. Said McConnell, “We look forward to our colleagues on the other side suggesting what they have in mind.”

Time will tell if McConnell is serious.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on July 25, 2017

I recently had the honor of serving as the moderator of a panel discussion of three business leaders at a breakfast event hosted by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The discussion focused on the importance of organizational culture in building successful businesses.

Participating on the panel were Nick Bayer, CEO of Saxbys; Emily Bittenbender, managing partner of Bittenbender Construction; and Ed Hanway, former chairman and CEO of Cigna.

What follows are a few of the key perspectives of each participant on the elements of organizational culture that drive the success of their companies.

Nick Bayer: “Saxbys’ mission (is) ‘To make life better.’”

Bayer shared with the events’ attendees, “Saxbys is not just a coffee company but a hospitality company fueled by great coffee.” He added that their goal is to be the place everyone wants to go for “a great human experience.”

Saxbys’ mission, he said, is to “make life better,” and that mission permeates Saxbys’ culture. Saxbys currently operates 24 cafes with more to come.

Said Bayer, “During Saxbys’ first few years, we were not a culture-driven company. We finally realized that we were in a ubiquitous industry and many companies make great coffee. We asked ourselves how we should differentiate ourselves. We decided above all else we’d be a culture-driven company – a company committed to making an impact through great jobs, unforgettable hospitality and social impact.”

He continued, “Saxbys’ mission – ‘To make life better,’ drives our core values which in turn drives the actions and behaviors of our team members. We hire people who love who they are. They are outgoing, detail-oriented and disciplined and love being around people. As we say in one of our six core values, we live with pride, passion and purpose.”

Bayer is a firm believer in “servant leadership.”

“The members of Saxbys leadership team are there to serve our cafe executive officers (CEOs) and their team members who serve our guests,” he said.

These are not newly developed beliefs for Bayer, ether. In an article I wrote about Saxbys in May 2015, Bayer said, “Organizations work best when they are upside down. … We are here to help (our CEOs) be better at their jobs. My expectation of them is to be servant leaders to the members of their teams. Their job is to make life better for their guests every single day.”

Emily Bittenbender: “How you treat other people is incredibly important to us.”

Bittenbender is an entrepreneur and pioneer in the rough and tumble Philadelphia construction business, a sector historically dominated by men. In 2015, the Philadelphia chapter of the General Building Contractors Association named Bittenbender as its new chairwoman — the first female to hold the top post in the organization’s 124-year history. She is an important role model in the way she conducts and grows her business.

I asked Bittenbender what she values when she interviews job applicants. She responded, “We are in a blue-collar industry. For many of our positions, we don’t place a whole lot of focus on a university education. We hire people who are self-motivated, who buy into our culture and (who) have a can-do spirit.

“I am a people person,” she added. “How you treat other people is incredibly important to us. We want people who have the capability to learn. Coping skills are very important in the construction industry. Many times things don’t go right.

“In our industry, people screw up all the time. Adverse things happen outside of our control. We value employees with a high degree of emotional intelligence, (who) can cope and react and get a project back on track.

“We want people we can mentor and who in turn will help their colleagues succeed,” Bittenbender said. “We want people who have a sense of humor. Occasionally, we need to tell people you might be an awesome person but just not a good fit for our culture. You may be happier and more successful somewhere else.”

Ed Hanway: “Culture is what guides our employees on how to treat our customers.”

Hanway led Cigna’s transition to become a leading global health services organization that provides products and services including health, disability and life insurance, which are offered to employees through their employers.

Hanway focused Cigna on a journey to become the preferred provider within the industry, with the objective of “convincing other companies to choose us based on the client experience we could provide their employees and their families.”

I asked Hanway what the most important cultural norm was for the success of his organization. He said, “Unless you have great people and create an environment and culture in which they feel empowered and excited about what they are doing, you won’t be very successful, regardless of your organization.

“The most important people within your organization are the ones who are closest to your customers. They typically are the ones further away from the executives of Cigna. Culture is what guides our employees in how to treat our customers.

“Within the company,” he said, “you need to have the strongest people you can find regardless of position … and then you need to allow them to do their jobs.”

As Hanway was sharing his views, I was reminded of what Steve Jobs, the late chairman and CEO of Apple, once said: “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”

As the panel discussion ensued, it was clear how important culture is to a company’s success and that Bayer, Bittenbender and Hanway are strong advocates and communicators of the culture they want for their organizations. They are the chief culture officers for their companies. Not very many leaders are as passionate about culture.

The phrase “achievement of financial results” was not mentioned once during the panel discussion. The message of Bayer, Bittenbender and Hanway is if you hire the right people with the right management and leadership skills and instill the right cultural norms, the financial results will come. A great message for all leaders.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on July 8, 2017

“All companies need to build reputational capital by banking goodwill, just as we all build
political capital and bank goodwill within our companies by building trust and by
exceeding expectations.”

Earlier this month, I wrote an article about United Airlines passenger Shirley Yamauchi, who flew for three-plus hours from Houston to Boston on June 29 with her 27-month-old son on her lap. Her son’s boarding pass was not properly scanned, and therefore his seat was assigned to a late-boarding standby passenger.

In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Yamauchi said that when she told the flight attendant that the adjacent seat was hers, “She told me that the flight was full and she shrugged and that was the end of it.”

In my article, I wrote, “Recalling the [April 9] incident in which Dr. David Dao … was dragged off a United flight [by airport security officials] to accommodate a United flight crew member, Yamauchi said, ‘I didn’t want [my son] hurt. Of course, I feared [for] my personal safety with everything I have seen with United Airlines. I didn’t want to see anyone get hurt.’”

The flight Dao was on was a United Express flight using a UA flight number, but it was operated by Republic Airline with a Republic Airline crew. United was the brand that the passengers were buying, so United had responsibility and was blamed for Dao’s removal and injuries.

I titled my July 11 article “To improve its image, United Airlines needs to get better at hospitality.” I received feedback from readers that I failed to acknowledge the thousands of dedicated United employees that provide hospitality, treat their passengers with respect and who work each day to give them a pleasant flight. I do so now.

One of my readers wrote to me stating, “The mother and her 27-month-old child is just one isolated case out of thousands of non-event flights that customers experience on United on a daily basis.” This is true.

The same thing can be said about the Dao event: It’s an isolated case. Regardless of how good the culture within any company is, adverse events will occur — though hopefully not as serious as the Dao and Yamauchi events.

In an article I wrote shortly after the Dao incident, I criticized the culture within United, based on the initial statement by United CEO Oscar Munoz. I wrote, “In a ‘tone deaf,’ insensitive email to the airline’s employees, blind to the firestorm and the growing damage to United’s reputation, [Munoz] called [Dao] ‘belligerent and disruptive.’”

After experiencing a negative reaction to his email critical of Dao, two days later Munoz said he “felt shame when he saw the video [of the incident].” He added, “This will never happen again.”

Munoz also said, “[This] was a system failure. We have not provided our front-line supervisors, managers and individuals with the proper tools, policies and procedures that allow them to use their common sense. …This issue could have been solved by that. That’s on me, I have to fix that.”

I have no doubt that the board of United is holding Munoz accountable for changing the culture within the airline and that Munoz and his team are in the process of doing so.

Airline Quality Ratings (AQR) published annually by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and Wichita State University indicate that United has improved its performance each year from 2014 through 2016. AQR measures on-time performance, denied boardings, mishandled baggage and customer complaints.

However, in 2016, United was ranked eighth out of 12 U.S. airlines, the same as in 2015, which is a slight improvement compared with a ranking of ninth in 2014. The AQR data indicates that the entire airline industry is improving its performance. For United, however, the challenge is to improve at a faster rate.

Every airline experiences serious adverse events that get videoed on passengers’ cell phones and quickly find their way onto social media. How does the reputation of any company withstand serious adverse events?

All companies need to build reputational capital by banking goodwill, just as we all build political capital and bank goodwill within our companies by building trust and by exceeding expectations.

The greater the political capital of an individual, the greater the chance of minimizing the career impact of a major mistake. The greater the reputational capital of a company, the greater the chance of minimizing the social media impact of a serious reputational incident.

So, how does United build reputational capital? Through continued communication of Munoz’s tone at the top and a hospitality-focused culture. I am sure United is benchmarking the best airlines in the world as viewed by their passengers.

United also needs to ensure that its contract carriers, such as Republic Airline, adopt the same cultural norms regarding hospitality and passenger experience as United. Passengers purchase United tickets and reserve seats on a flight with a United flight number. It should not be their concern that they are flying, for example, on a Republic flight with a Republic crew.

All airlines need to go beyond what is expected to help passengers in need of an extra level of service. Airlines also need to reconsider their practice of reducing the distance between seats to provide a more comfortable flight for their passengers to “lower the temperature” and reduce stress in the cabin.

Gate agents and flight attendants, whose jobs can be stressful, need to defuse situations by being empowered to do the right thing for their passengers. They also need to have common sense and exercise good critical judgement.

All airlines need to make every effort they can to avoid events like the recent Dao and Yamauchi situations. It’s worth remembering that in addition to posting negative experiences, passengers post positive experiences on social media, too — and those are the experiences that can help to build reputational capital.

United Airlines is a unit of United Continental Holdings (NYSE: UAL).

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on July 11, 2017

When will United Airlines realize that it’s in two core businesses: the hospitality business in addition to the air transportation business?

United — which is a unit of United Continental Holdings (NYSE: UAL) — again appeared in the news and social media when on a recent flight from Houston to Boston passenger Shirley Yamauchi was forced to give up the adjacent seat occupied by her 27-month-old son to accommodate a standby passenger. Yamauchi and her son were traveling on a multiflight trip from Hawaii to Boston.

Yamauchi paid more than $900 for her son’s seat. According to the airline, the child’s boarding pass was scanned incorrectly by the gate agent. Within the computer system, the seat appeared to be empty, so it was given to a standby passenger.

In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Yamauchi said that when she told the flight attendant that the seats were hers, “She told me that the flight was full and she shrugged and that was the end of it.” Yamauchi was ignored. Not a very hospitable response to a customer and her child with a problem that needed to be addressed.

Yamauchi had to hold her son in her lap for the three-and-a-half-hour flight, a violation of FAA guidelines and United safety rules. Anyone who has interacted with a two-year-old knows they never sit still for three minutes, let alone for three-plus hours. Yamauchi stated that she developed loss of feeling in her legs and left arm during the flight.

Recalling the incident in which Dr. David Dao suffered a concussion, a broken nose and had his front teeth knocked out when he was dragged off a United flight to accommodate a United flight crew member in April, Yamauchi said, “I didn’t want [my son] hurt. Of course, I feared [for] my personal safety with everything I have seen with United Airlines. I didn’t want to see anyone get hurt.”

Is this the image United wants its passengers to conjure up before discussing a problem with a flight attendant: Dao having his teeth knocked out and dragged down the aisle?

United faced a firestorm of criticism in the press and social media for what happened to Dao. Now they are again experiencing criticism for what happened to Yamauchi and her son.

Of course, United issued the obligatory apology. Continued mistreatment of passengers, however, speaks louder than words. The airline’s apology rings hollow.

In describing Dao’s experience, United CEO Oscar Munoz said in April, “[This] was a system failure. We had not provided our front-line supervisors, managers and individuals with the proper tools, policies and procedures to allow them to use their common sense…” Given the experience of Yamauchi and her son, United still has a long way to go.

It is critical that United’s employees have the authority to make decisions, even if they may violate policies and procedures while also not compromising safety or security, to ensure passengers get a great customer experience. Do United’s employees have this authority? If they do, why didn’t the flight attendant use it? It is critical that United hires employees who will be passionate about providing its passengers a great customer experience.

In the case of Yamauchi, it would have been very easy for the flight attendant to confirm that the seat her son was occupying belonged, in fact, to her son. To accommodate the standby passenger, the flight attendant should have gone through the standard procedure when a flight is overbooked – offering compensation to passengers to give up their seat and take a later flight.

United needs to make hospitality part of its core mission. This will differentiate the airline, improve its reputation and build competitive advantage. Great hospitality develops customer loyalty.

United should want to be known as the preferred choice of passengers, not the last choice. The airline has a long way to go when passengers are fearful of raising issues with their flight attendants.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on July 5, 2017

Republicans in Washington, D.C., have not yet been successful in crafting a suitable replacement of former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, a top priority of President Donald Trump.

The Republican-controlled House passed the American Health Care Act on May 4. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, in assessing that legislation, projected that 24 million more Americans could be uninsured over the next 10 years due to cutbacks in Medicaid funding and affordability issues than if Obamacare remains in place.

The House AHCA was so unpopular that the Republican-controlled Senate stated it would make improvements in its Better Care Reconciliation Act. However, the CBO projected that over the next 10 years under the Senate BCRA, 22 million more Americans could be uninsured compared to Obamacare, not much different than the House-passed AHCA.

Latest reports indicate that nine moderate and conservative Senate Republicans oppose the Senate bill as written, which ensures the bill would not get the votes to pass. The Republicans can only afford to lose two votes.

The moderates object to 22 million Americans losing their health care coverage. The conservatives object to the bill for not sufficiently reducing spending on Medicaid. Senate Republican leadership withdrew the bill from a vote until after the Fourth of July holiday recess.

Both the AHCA and the BCRA have been labeled as being disruptive to the delivery of health care for our most vulnerable citizens. The American Medical Association and others within the health care industry oppose the Republican legislative initiatives to replace the ACA.

Many governors oppose the AHCA and BCRA because they ultimately place the burden of the growth of Medicaid costs on the states – which they can ill-afford.

Both the AHCA and BCRA include significant tax cuts for wealthy Americans. The optics are terrible: tax cuts funded primarily by cuts in Medicaid. One can only imagine the House and Senate mid-term campaign rhetoric by the Democrats against Republican candidates who supported the AHCA and BCRA.

This is a battle of ideology and a polarized political environment. The Republican opposition to Obama’s ACA has been intense ever since the legislation was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Obama in 2010.

Soon after the ACA was passed, issues became apparent that needed to be fixed. Instead of supporting those fixes, Congressional Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times since its passage. They have had seven years to write a replacement to the ACA. Now that the Republicans are in the majority in both the House and Senate, why can’t they get their act together?

A PBS-Maris-NPR poll taken from June 21-25 indicates that only 35 percent of Republicans approve of the BCRA, while only 17 percent of all Americans approve of the legislation. Other polls indicate similar results. Additionally, polling shows that 55 percent of Americans support Obamacare.

Are the Republicans tone-deaf? Is ideology driving them to pass legislation that is unpopular with the citizens they represent? At this rate, they will pay a price come the next Congressional mid-term elections in November 2018.

It is time for President Trump to show some leadership. Trump has made many supportive statements about Medicaid. On May 7, 2015, Trump tweeted, “I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid….” On July 15, 2015, he tweeted, “The Republicans who want to cut SS & Medicaid are wrong.”

These tweets are representative of Trump’s many statements both before and after he was elected, promising not to cut Medicaid.

In Trump’s victory speech after he won the election, he said, “Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division. … To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans….”

Trump now needs to show leadership and fulfill that pledge.

However, on June 30, Trump tweeted, “If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date.” The repeal would involve phasing out Obamacare over a period of time. This was previously rejected by the Republicans. It is not politically wise.

After describing the AHCA as “mean,” the president says he wants a health care bill that “has heart.” So, why is Trump so supportive of the BCRA that cuts the growth of Medicaid and could adversely impact 22 million Americans?

Trump is not ideological. What is important to him is a win. He thought supporting the Republican health care legislation would get him that win. So far, that approach is not working. It has not resulted in a win that Trump so highly desires. The divide between conservative and moderate Republicans may be unbridgeable.

Trump can get his win by demonstrating leadership and telling the Republicans to work with their Democratic colleagues and write new health care legislation that will satisfy the needs of Americans.

In a speech on the Senate floor on June 28, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “President Obama invited both parties, Democrats and Republicans, to Blair House, to discuss health care reform in front of the American people early in his first term as president.

“President Trump, I challenge you to invite us, all 100 of us, Republican and Democrat, to Blair House to discuss a new bipartisan way forward on health care.”

To date, the Republicans have not asked for any input from the Democrats, but it might be the only way for Trump to get his win and do what is right for the American people.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on June 27, 2017

The inevitable finally occurred. On June 21, The New York Times reported that two partners from the venture capital firm and investor Benchmark met with Uber CEO Travis Kalanick and presented him a letter from five major investors demanding that he resign from his position.

After consulting with board member Ariana Huffington, Kalanick stepped down as CEO of Uber.

It was the job of the Uber board to protect the interests of the company’s investors. It didn’t, so Uber’s investors stepped in to protect their own interests.

Kalanick was certainly a visionary. He transformed the taxi-cab/ride-hailing transportation business by challenging paradigms through the use of information technology and hiring individuals who use their own vehicles to transport people who traditionally used taxis.

However, an entrepreneur with a great idea and the drive to start a new business is not necessarily the individual with the skills, values and temperament to run and grow the company over the long term.

Kalanick had been under criticism for his poor tone at the top and fraternity-like culture that ignored sexual harassment complaints from female employees, causing many to leave the company.

His drive to win at nearly all costs by pushing ethical and legal boundaries to the limit created scandals, damaging the company’s reputation and adversely affecting its market share.

In February, the board hired former attorney general Eric Holder and his law firm to investigate and make recommendations on how to fix the culture within Uber.

Holder’s report was made public in early June, and all the recommendations were adopted by the board. After the report was issued, questions were raised if Kalanick was the right CEO to oversee the cultural changes that were needed within private company Uber.

The culture within Uber is certainly not one that would be tolerated by public company investors. Any ethical misstep by the CEO or hint of a scandal has an immediate adverse impact on the company’s stock price.

It is rare for a CEO who is so identified with that tone and culture to successfully implement change, so it was only a matter of time before it became apparent that Kalanick had to go.

This year, many senior executives have left Uber, doing so for various reasons. Some of these positions are currently unfilled, including that of CFO. It will be difficult to fill these positions until a new CEO is named.

A Wall Street Journal article dated June 23 is headlined, “Leaderless Uber scrambles to prevent employee exodus.” It is an exodus that Uber can ill afford.

With no one currently at the helm, the company is being operated by a group of 14 senior managers. Every organization needs a leader, even if interim. The board will need to name an interim CEO until a search can be conducted and a CEO named.

Many Uber employees are very loyal to Kalanick. On June 22, the L.A. Times shared a petition obtained by the news site Axios signed by Uber employees urging the board to reinstate Kalanick “in an operational role.”

That would be a mistake. It would undermine the new CEO.

Kalanick remains as a director on the board of Uber. This is not a wise decision. In his departing note to employees, Kalanick wrote, “[I] will be available in any and all ways to help Uber become everything we’ve dreamed it would be.”

Someone with such a large footprint within the company will still have influence over its employees and make it difficult for the new CEO to change the culture. In fact, it makes it more difficult to hire the right new CEO if Kalanick is still around. For the good of the company, Kalanick needs to make a clean break and leave the board.

On June 21, Yahoo Finance reported that former eBay and PayPal executive Stephanie Tilenius commented, “Travis’s management style and poor choices are now a case study for every start-up that sexual harassment and bad ethics will never be tolerated, regardless of how successful or fast a company grows.”

Trip.com CEO Travis Katz, in the same story, commented, “There has always been a sense that in Silicon Valley, growth is the only thing that matters. Kalanick’s resignation sends a message that we have entered a new era, where growth, without a fundamental sense of decency, is simply not good enough.”

A fundamental sense of decency is always required for the long-term success of any enterprise. Not only is it the right thing to do, but the public demands it.

A lesson for all boards: If the CEO isn’t cutting it regarding tone, ethics and culture, make a change before change is forced on you, and avoid the fallout that Uber is now undergoing.

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.

Article originally published in the American City Business Journals on June 20, 2017

What is an important trait of effective leaders? It’s the ability to use good critical judgment in the decisions they make.

A June 15 Washington Post article describes how Principal Craig Harris of Southwest Edgecombe High School in Pinetops, North Carolina, told senior class president Marvin Wright on the day of commencement that he couldn’t read the speech that he had written, providing no explanation. Instead, Wright was to read a speech prepared by school administrators.

Wright told the Washington Post, “I felt robbed of a chance to say my own words.” He had a decision to make. He could follow the directions of his principal or read the speech that he had written. Wright decided to do the latter and read his own speech.

Wright felt that he was using his good critical judgment. His speech had been reviewed and approved by his English teacher. There were no negative consequences to the school for reading his own speech. He felt he had to share his own thoughts with his fellow graduates rather than stand at the podium and read words that were not his.

In retaliation for not following directions, Harris withheld Wright’s diploma after the commencement ceremony.

When Wright’s mother asked for an explanation of why her son’s diploma was withheld, Harris said that he missed the deadline for submitting the speech to the school for review. I guess submitting his speech for review and approval by his English teacher didn’t count.

Two days later, Wright was given his diploma. The superintendent of Edgecombe County Schools, John Farrelly, issued the following statement: “I have communicated with the family to apologize on behalf of the school. The diploma never should have been taken from the student.” Farrelly, however, chastised Wright for not following the rules, rules that Wright claims he was not aware of.

Did Principal Harris use good critical judgment when he ordered Wright to read a speech at commencement prepared by the school administrators with no explanation, rather than the speech he had written?

What’s at stake is this: When leaders don’t show flexibility and good critical judgment and make exceptions to rigid rules, they can lose the respect of those they lead.

When Wright read his own speech, did Harris use good critical judgment by withholding his diploma at commencement?

You certainly don’t want leaders in your organization who are vindictive. In this particular case, when Harris withheld Wright’s diploma, it elevated the event to national news. This put Superintendent Farrelly in a position where he had to issue an apology to Wright, a position you never want to place your boss in due to poor judgment on your part.

Did Wright use good critical judgment when he decided to read his own speech rather than the speech handed to him by his principal?

There are those who feel Wright should have followed directions and complied with what he was told to do. Others will feel that Wright made a bold decision and did what he thought was right by reading his own speech.

We all go through our professional lives occasionally facing these types of decisions. If we decide to break the rules or violate policy, even if it is for the benefit of the company, we must be willing to face the consequences if our boss feels differently.

All else being equal, I would hire Wright before I would hire a job candidate who always followed the rules. I want employees who will use their good critical judgment and occasionally break the rules for good reason. These are the employees with initiative that will help move your business forward.

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.