Posts in category: Articles

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 27, 2016

The response of the leaders of the European Union to the Brexit vote in the U.K. on June 23 indicates that they are not facing the brutal facts of their reality – if changes to EU regulations are not made, the organization faces possible defections and economic chaos. This is in everyone’s worst interest.

The headline of the June 29 Financial Times states that “[U.K. prime minister] Cameron blames Brexit defeat on EU failure to tackle immigration.” Cameron is quoted as stating, “The U.K. could not continue to accept large numbers of EU migrants, even if that meant losing access to the [EU] single market.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the German parliament, “If you wish to have free access to the single market then you have to accept the fundamental rights as well as … [obligations] that come from it. … This is as true for Great Britain as for anybody else. Free access to the single market will be granted to a country which accepts the four fundamental freedoms of movement of people, goods, services and capital.” Merkel stated there would be no negotiation “based on the principle of cherry-picking.”

With all due respect to Chancellor Merkel, rules that cause harm to an organization should be changed, especially rules that could sink that organization. This is the case with the major issue that resulted in the Brexit vote to leave the EU and the talk of other countries to do the same – the lack of control over borders, immigration by those who do not assimilate, and the fear that over time their country will lose its historical cultural norms and traditions.

The issue of some immigrants not assimilating into European society is a real concern for Europeans since history has demonstrated that “demographics is destiny.” In some cases, immigrants may choose not to assimilate into European society. In other cases, European society makes it very difficult for immigrants to do so. In the U.S., immigrants assimilate much more successfully while remaining true to their heritage.

The EU refuses to acknowledge the growing movements in many European countries to leave the 28-member EU, as well as the possibility of Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the U.K. so they can remain members of the European Union.

The leaders of the 28-member EU need to meet and decide whether “the fundamental freedom of movement of people” with respect to immigrants should be modified in an appropriate way to prevent the possible collapse of the EU. The EU must maintain the ability to negotiate trade agreements as a single EU entity with countries outside the EU, and for EU member countries to be able to trade among themselves.

The member countries of the EU want the U.K. to negotiate its exit as quickly as possible. Nothing will happen until a successor to Cameron is selected, possibly as late as September by the U.K.’s conservative party. Article 50 of the EU Treaty, which details the withdrawal procedure of a member country from the EU, would then need to be invoked. The withdrawal may take up to two years to complete. The U.K. is in the driver’s seat with respect to timing. The longer the U.K. takes to invoke Article 50, the higher the chance that the leadership of EU member countries will become less doctrinaire in their views and negotiate a way to keep the U.K. within the EU.

A U.K. Brexit re-vote is politically difficult. Cameron has stated that there will be no re-vote. However, it is possible under the right circumstances. During a Morgan Stanley investor conference call on June 27, Lord Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, “In the light of new information and developments, you might be able to go back and say here is a different way of looking at it.” Making the right changes to EU regulations can justify that re-vote. It may quell the movement to exit the EU within other EU member countries, an exit that would have disastrous economic consequences.

The EU needs to recognize these brutal facts of its reality and make the necessary changes to its regulations as quickly as possible to avoid the unraveling of trade arrangements that have taken many years to develop, and avoid the resulting economic hardship.

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 27, 2016

During the days prior to the historic United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) Brexit referendum on whether to leave the 28-country European Union, pollsters were predicting that U.K. voters would choose to remain in the EU. I awoke the morning of June 24 and glanced at my iPad and saw the headline, “David Cameron announces his resignation as U.K. prime minister as a result of the vote to leave the European Union,” a news story I did not expect to see that morning. Fifty-two percent of U.K. voters expressed their desire to leave the EU.

Cameron is leaving his post so a new U.K. prime minister can fulfill the mandate expressed by a majority of its voters to leave the EU. Quoting Cameron, “British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this [new] direction.”

Since the Brexit vote on June 24, the media and pundits have reported on the adverse impact on world stock markets, international trade, immigration and the implications for the future of the EU. Almost immediately, supporters of exiting the EU in France and the Netherlands claimed that their countries were next. Within the U.K., Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, which raises the specter of these two countries leaving the U.K. so they can remain in the European Union.

There are two major reasons for the vote by U.K. citizens to exit the EU, as well as the possible future exit by its other member countries. One reason is loss of national sovereignty in many areas by “being governed” and over-regulated by faceless, unelected EU bureaucrats in Brussels. The other reason is concern over lack of control of immigration, resulting in the slow erosion of their national culture caused by some immigrants who do not assimilate nor adopt the values and cultural norms of their new country.

Other countries negotiate trade agreements with the EU, and all member EU countries are bound by these trade agreements. One can imagine the added complexity and adverse impact on trade, employment and economic growth if separate trade agreements needed to be negotiated with each non-member of the EU.

Jobs and employment drive politics, and I can’t help but think these are also factors causing dissatisfaction within with the EU. The one economic benefit that has not come to all EU countries is reflected by high relative unemployment rates compared with the United States.

From 2003 through 2014, total unemployment in the EU has averaged 9.2 percent, 37 percent higher than the average unemployment rate of 6.7 percent in the United States during this 12-year period. The unemployment rate for workers under the age of 25 in 2014 was 22.2 percent for all EU members; in France, 24.1 percent; and in the United Kingdom, 16.9 percent. This compares with 13.4 percent for unemployed workers under the age of 25 in the U.S.

The economies of EU countries are not expanding at a sufficiently rapid pace to provide work for their young people. Exiting the EU will make this problem much worse. Those individuals in the U.S. who want our country to be more like Europe need to take note. The economic system of the U.S. is better at providing jobs for its youth and the population as a whole. Job growth in Europe is stifled by government philosophies that are slanted to favor social polices other than employment.

The initial response by the EU to the U.K. referendum was to state that separation of the U.K. from the EU should take place much more rapidly than the two-year period that Cameron initially suggested. I believe that the EU leaders should not play hardball with the U.K. and show some sensitivity to the results of the vote, and if possible change those rules which are an anathema to citizens of the member countries of the EU.

Rules of every organization that don’t make sense or are unimportant to achieving goals should always be questioned and changed. It would be in the best interests of the EU and the leaders of Europe to listen to their constituents and make adjustments to their policies to avoid further defections.

The EU needs to face the brutal facts of reality and become less bureaucratic and more accountable and responsive to the citizens of Europe. If the EU continues to be viewed as independent of the citizens of its member countries, nationalistic fervor will grow and more defections will occur, to the detriment of all.

A petition is circulating within the U.K. to hold a second referendum, claiming that many voters did not realize the consequences of the U.K. leaving the EU. So far, over 3 million signatures have been collected. This second referendum should be permitted.

I would hope that the U.K. vote to exit the EU serves as a wake-up call, resulting in real change to how the EU operates. The political leaders of Europe will need to ensure that this occurs because the bureaucrats of the EU will not. Disintegration of the EU is in no one’s best interest.

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 20, 2016

There are many routes to becoming an entrepreneur. The news media often focuses on millennials and the challenges they face and overcome as they start their businesses. Another path to entrepreneurship can come after years of life and work experience, bringing with it a different set of challenges and rewards.

Lisa Lemire is an entrepreneur who started her business after climbing the ladder in Corporate America. After a 20 year career centered around consumer beverage products at Green Mountain Coffee, Ocean Spray, PepsiCo and Aramark, Lemire welcomed a chance to do her own thing. She became a mid-career entrepreneur, founding Kamini Bay Asset Management, a company that invests funds raised from individual investors to buy distressed residential mortgages.

She and her husband were looking for sources of passive income, a “check in the mail” approach where the assets she owned deliver income every month. Lemire’s husband, Raymond was buying homes, rehabbing them when necessary and renting the homes to tenants, creating a passive stream of income.

Lemire’s business buys mortgage debt that people have stopped making payments on. Lemire explained, “After purchasing the mortgage at a discount from the bank or hedge fund that owns it, we are able to work out a payment schedule with the homeowner that they can afford. We’re always trying to get to the monthly number that they can pay without hardship so they don’t default again. Depending on the situation, we often end up with a lower monthly payment than the homeowner had originally, but one that also provides a return to the company’s investors.”

I asked Lemire, based on her experience, if she could provide any advice to individuals who yearn to become mid-career entrepreneurs. Lemire shared her insights on the following areas:

Lemire said, “Having big company thinking, training and experience in Corporate America – gold standard practices, as well as being around people who were extraordinarily capable, intelligent and competent – has stood me in good stead.”

Entrepreneurs coming out of a corporate career have had hands-on experience, often with years spent hiring people, developing and implementing strategies or running functional areas such as sales or human resources, and learning from the risks they took and the mistakes they made.

Just as important, they often have an established, well-regarded reputation and a network of valuable contacts that can serve as the foundation of a client base for their new business. It is important that all entrepreneurs, regardless of age or level of experience, have seasoned advisors who can provide guidance and mentoring.

… but there are some challenges

It’s often a difficult transition for mid-career entrepreneurs to get out of their comfort zone, try a new way of doing things, take a risk and get something accomplished, as opposed to young entrepreneurs, who don’t yet think that something can’t be done and who find an innovative way to do it. Without taking risks, nothing really gets achieved.

Lemire shared that she has a quote on her desk: “Life Begins at the End of Your Comfort Zone.” It reminds her every day to get comfortable with being uncomfortable.

In a corporate environment, the organization’s goals flow down to you from the chain of command. As CEO of your company, you set the goals. Learning to be your own boss, to be accountable to yourself and “kicking yourself in the butt,” as Lemire put it, may require some creative techniques. What worked for her: checking in with a trusted friend every day for five minutes on how she did on her list of daily goals. “Saying what I was going to do publicly was a big motivator to do it,” said Lemire.

You need a plan to overcome the biggest obstacle to becoming a mid-career entrepreneur: the uncertainty of putting your family’s finances at risk.

“I know many people in their 40s who would like to leave Corporate America and do something on their own, but can’t figure out how to manage without their salary,” said Lemire. “It may take a few years of planning to get there – to save enough (which may require reworking household expenses), to invest in passive income sources that can replace some of the lost income, or have a spouse go back to work.” Not easy.

But, as Lemire also pointed out, “since no job is really safe in Corporate America any more, it feels good to have a Plan B in case you end up without the salary anyway.”

Of course, there are ways to position yourself to be less likely to be “outplaced.” When working for a company, think like an entrepreneur. Embrace continuous improvement. Be sure you differentiate yourself by doing things that are innovative and will benefit the growth and profitability of your company.

This is how you will build your resume to get that next job. You are only as safe as you are essential to your company, or to the next company you want to work for. The riskiest thing you can do is not advance within your company or your profession, or advance slower than your peers. You risk getting left by the wayside as others build skills and a track record of accomplishments that surpass yours.

Lemire shared how she feels when an adverse event occurs in her business. She said, “All entrepreneurs need an inner fortitude to get over rough spots and see things through that don’t go right. Before becoming an entrepreneur, be sure you have that inner fortitude.”

I asked Lemire what keeps her up at night. She said, “I feel a huge responsibility to my company’s investors to invest their funds well.” This commitment Lemire has to those who trust her with their money is an important value. It is a value that all business people should hold dear.

Quoting founding dean Donna Marie De Carolis of Drexel University’s Close School of Entrepreneurship, “Being an entrepreneur is about taking initiative, being flexible, taking calculated risks [and] knowing how to dream and do.” Whether you work in a large corporation or in a small startup, take De Carolis’ advice, and think like an entrepreneur.

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 13, 2016

Many of us are familiar with the story of the frog who finds itself in a pot of water that’s slowly being heated. In the beginning, the frog doesn’t foresee what is about to happen. As the water increases in temperature, the frog realizes that it needs to escape but can’t, and ultimately the frog faces its demise. This story is a metaphor for what is happening to the Republican Party as it tries to deal with Donald Trump.

As Trump’s rhetoric became increasingly outrageous during the Republican Party primaries, his value system became clear. Trump has verbally attacked women on numerous occasions and has made fun of disabled people. He has broad-brushed Mexican illegal immigrants as criminals, and said that he would get Mexico to pay to build a wall separating our two countries.

The perpetrator of the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando on June 12 was of the Muslim faith and the Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack. Hopefully, Trump will remind everyone that it is wrong to broad-brush an entire religion for the horrible acts of a few.

Trump has a history of partially paying the contactors who worked on his properties, not meeting the obligations of his companies’ construction agreements. His response to these contractors is “go sue me.” Smaller contractors do not have the financial staying power to take Trump to court. His companies have been accused many times of not paying hourly workers according to federal employment law.

Trump has criticized American-born U.S. federal judge Gonzalo Curiel, presiding over the Trump University lawsuit case, claiming that the judge has a conflict of interest because of his Mexican heritage. The suit asserts that Trump University defrauded students. Trump, due to his positions on Mexican immigration and construction of a wall separating the U.S. and Mexico, wants the judge to recuse himself.

To many Republicans, Trump has crossed the line with his criticism of Judge Curiel and has violated a fundamental American value – respect for each other’s heritage. Most Americans can trace their heritage to places other than the U.S. His personal criticism of Judge Curiel undermines the judiciary. I personally feel Trump has crossed the line several times in violation of our American value system. There is even talk among some within the Republican Party of dumping Trump at the Republican National Convention. No path forward bodes well for the Party.

The value system of our leaders matters and Trump does not represent the values nor has the temperament of the individual we want leading the United States.

During the Republican primaries, the more outrageous the things he said, the more his popularity went up within segments of the Republican Party, and the more delegates he captured. This is noteworthy, since Trump was mostly silent on fiscal and broad social policy issues, during a time when Republican primary candidates talk to the voters about their positions and tout their conservative credentials. Not Trump.

Trump’s positions, on the infrequent occasion when he has made statements concerning economic and social policy, indicate he does not hold true conservative views, which are foundational beliefs of the Republican Party. Yet, he has managed to defeat all 11 of his primary election campaign opponents, and is the presumptive presidential nominee leading up to the Republican National Convention in August.

In an op-ed commentary on June 11 in the Wall Street Journal, headlined, “Why Trumpkins want their country back,” Joseph Epstein writes, “So great is the frustration of Americans who do not believe in progressivist ideas, who see them as ultimately tearing the country apart, that they are ready to turn in their near hopelessness, to a man of Donald Trump’s patently low quality.”

What are these “progressivist” ideas? Epstein lists a few: multiculturalism, identity politics and victimhood. Little do the Trumpkins realize that the changes Trump would bring may not address these issues, but undermine the values that this country was built on.

Many Republican politicians are not quite sure how to deal with the Trump issue. If they support Trump, they may lose votes because Trump is not a true conservative, and many voters disdain his value system. However, if Republican Party candidates don’t support Trump, they may lose votes for abandoning their party’s presidential nominee.

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, is one example of someone who faces such a dilemma. At first, Ryan withheld his endorsement of Trump because he was not sufficiently conservative. After meeting with Trump, Ryan then issued a tepid endorsement. Within a week, Trump made his comments about the Mexican ancestry of Judge Curiel, igniting a firestorm of criticism. Many Republican candidates are now trying to distance themselves from Trump’s remarks.

So, what should Ryan and other Republican Party candidates do? Should they take a deep breath and support their party’s nominee for president, even if doing so is distasteful, and violates their own personal values? Or, should they take the high road of integrity, do the honorable thing and publicly state that criticism of a federal judge’s heritage and Trump’s other beliefs and business practices are antithetical to American values, and that they cannot support Trump? I know what I would do – the honorable thing. I am a life-long Republican, and my conscience and value system will not allow me to support Trump for president.

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on June 7, 2016

Milestones are important in life. They mark points at which we can assess with perspective what we have accomplished. This is my 100th article since I started to write my weekly column for the Philadelphia Business Journal, so I thought this would be a good time to take such a perspective.

As a former CEO and director on numerous company and nonprofit boards, I have written on the principles of effective leadership, entrepreneurship and corporate governance, applying these principles to situations that I have experienced in my professional life and to events reported by the news media.

What led me to writing? Two years ago, I accompanied founding dean Donna De Carolis of Drexel University’s Close School of Entrepreneurship, six of her staff and 16 of her students on a trip to Silicon Valley to visit Apple and eBay, as well as numerous start-ups in San Francisco. I was energized by Drexel’s students and how they interacted with the entrepreneurs we visited.

After the trip, I felt I needed an additional challenge beyond serving on boards in my post-CEO life. I had a need to get outside my comfort zone and do something different. I chose writing, using my experiences to help people be better leaders, entrepreneurs and board members, which led to being invited to speak on leadership at various conferences. Throughout my career, I have been a student of leadership. I always try to connect with my readers by sharing my personal views and experiences, and by writing on topics on which they can personally relate.

I established credibility by writing 15 articles on leadership and posting them on LinkedIn. I shared the articles with Lyn Kremer, then publisher of the Philadelphia Business Journal, who I had previously met. After my articles were reviewed by Business Journal editor-in-chief Craig Ey, I landed a position as a guest columnist.

I hired two editors – Julia Casciato, then editor-in-chief of Drexel’s independent student newspaper The Triangle, and Alexa Josaphouitch, at the time a copy editor of The Triangle. Both of these English majors have been invaluable in helping me improve my writing style and better connect with millennials.

Over the past two years, I deepened my knowledge about the traits of successful people and successful organizations. For this 100th article, I would like to share six of these important traits.

Successful people have a great outlook on life, and are not afraid to take risks

There are two types of people in this world – those who have a positive attitude, see a world of opportunities and abundance and are not afraid to take risks; and those who have a negative attitude, only see a world of limitations and scarcity and stay within their comfort zone. The first type of individual builds something enduring and changes the world. The second type only sees obstacles and why things can’t be done.

Dean Mahmoud and Logan Levenson, 2014 graduates of Drexel’s LeBow College of Business and co-founders of the rapidly growing digital media company Argyle Interactive, are examples of those that see a world of opportunities and abundance. Argyle developed my website and manages the on-line presence of my company, Silverman Leadership. Jon Shettsline, my Argyle account manager, manages the email campaign for my articles each week. He graduates from Drexel on June 10. Mahmoud, Levenson and Shettsline exemplify the entrepreneurial spirit that is driving this millennial generation.

Effective leaders create a culture that encourages their employees to tell them the brutal facts of reality

Robert Ebeling was the Morton Thiokol engineer who warned NASA not to launch the space shuttle Challenger because the ambient temperature was below the design temperature for the O-ring seals on the solid fuel rocket boosters of the space shuttle. Ebeling was ignored. On January 28, 1986 the Challenger was launched and one of the O-rings failed, resulting in the catastrophic loss of the lives of seven astronauts.

In response to Ebeling’s warning, one NASA manager is quoted as saying, “I am appalled by your recommendation.” Another NASA manager said, “My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch – next April?” It’s obvious that NASA did not want to hear the brutal facts of reality, resulting in tragedy.

Leaders need to be open to hearing issues within their organizations, not only from direct reports, but also from all employees. They need to create an environment that welcomes this input. When speaking to employees who are not direct reports, a leader should listen and ask questions for understanding, and never tell the employee what to do, since that violates the chain of command.

Always differentiate

Creating a great customer experience differentiates you from your competition. The gold standard in the area of customer experience is Apple, which is able to obtain a price premium for the products they sell due in part to the experience they provide their customers.

Whether you are a student about to enter the workforce or are currently employed, always differentiate yourself by creating value for your company. You will stand out and be considered for additional responsibilities. When it comes time to move on to a new company, the hiring manager will ask what you did that was new and different within your previous organization to move that company forward.

Whether an individual or a company, always differentiate.

Listen to your customers – how they see your company is more important than how you see it

Too many organizations are focused on how they see themselves, rather than how their customers view them. The customers’ view is really the only one that matters – they are the ones that decide to buy from you or your competition.

All of us have heard a CEO claim that their company is great. I have never called my company great – I would state that we are constantly on a journey to become great, to be the best in the world at what we do. Once a CEO calls his or her company great, it has nowhere to go but down. Calling your company great is for others to do. As CEO, your response should always be that we are still on that journey.

You should act as if your competition is trying to eat your lunch

Why act this way? Because that’s what competitors will do. It may not be across the board, but in a business niche, where they feel they can exploit their competitive advantage. Andy Grove, former chairman of Intel Corporation was right when he said, “Only the paranoid survive.”

Many times a management team has presented a business plan to me with no analysis of their organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats – a SWOT analysis of their business. Leaders of a business should develop strategies to build on an organization’s strengths, overcome its weaknesses, exploit its opportunities and defend against its threats. A similar analysis should be done for your business’s major competitors, to enable you to better understand their strategies.

As the leader, what are you going to do about a competitive threat to your business? Don’t wait to take action to defend your market position. The longer you wait, the harder it is to defend.

Networking is one of the most important things that you can do

Last year, I conducted a Lunch and Learn for the students of the Pennoni Honors College at Drexel University. After the session, a student introduced herself and asked if I knew anyone with whom I could connect her in the area of marketing and communications in the San Francisco area. After going through my mental rolodex, I asked her to send me an email, which I forwarded to Richelle Parham, a 1986 Drexel graduate, who at the time was the chief marketing officer at eBay. Within a few hours after asking, this student was connected to this high-level eBay executive.

I had met Parham the prior year when I visited eBay with the Close School of Entrepreneurship. Had I not made the trip and met Parham, and had this student not taken the initiative to introduce herself to me, she would not have been able to connect with Parham. Take the opportunity whenever possible to network. As you move up in your career, use your network to help others.

So, what have I learned about myself over nearly two years of writing, as well as speaking at conferences on effective leadership? I learned that my purpose in life is to help others be better at what they do. Given what I do now compared to my prior professional life as a CEO, I also learned that one never knows where the future will take them. And finally, I have learned that I am here to make a difference in the lives of others, and that is what I try to do every day.

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 31, 2016

Those of us who have recently waited hours in line to clear security at airports across the U.S., especially at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, wonder why the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), an agency of the federal government, can’t deliver a better customer experience while keeping us safe. An opinion piece in the May 28 edition of The Wall Street Journal was headlined, “The TSA’s Summer of Lines: They’re from the government and they’re here to make you wait.” A fitting description of the current airport security screening situation.

Within the past month, passengers waiting to clear security at O’Hare have waited as long as three hours, causing many to miss their flights. Since the beginning of 2016, American Airlines reports that over 70,000 of its passengers across the U.S. have missed their flights due to long airport security lines.

Since 2011, the number of air travelers has increased 11 percent while the TSA has reduced the number of screeners by 10 percent. The TSA thought that their Pre-Check and other Trusted Travelers programs would hasten the security screening process. However, the TSA has not added a sufficient number of agents to interview applicants, resulting in applicants waiting months for an appointment. The airline policy of charging for checked baggage has resulted in an increase of carry-on bags, which has also slowed security screening.

Congress controls the purse strings of the TSA. During the 2013 budget sequestration process requiring across the board budget cuts, Congress diverted over $1 billion from the TSA budget into other areas, exacerbating the performance issues of the TSA. The airlines want this funding restored. Effective CEOs of successful companies don’t make across the board budget cuts – they continue to fund high-priority mission-critical areas, but this is the federal government, not a company in the private sector.

The findings of the Inspector General’s report in the summer of 2015 on TSA performance indicated during a test of the system that an astounding 95 percent of the fake weapons and explosive materials in bags sent though the TSA screening system were not detected. The TSA has slowed the screening process as a result of this finding as the agency tries to improve its detection performance.

An April 27 story in The Washington Post by Ashley Halsey III was headlined, “TSA bosses are called ‘some of the biggest bullies in government.’” The headline is a quote from Jay Brainard, one of TSA’s security directors in his testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who also stated, “While the new administrator of TSA has made security a much-needed priority once again, make no mistake about it, we remain an agency in crisis.” Managers who bully their employees and create a hostile work environment should never be tolerated in any organization.

In her article, Halsey reports that Mark Livingston, a program manager in TSA’s Office of the Chief Risk Officer, testified, “The refusal to address or to hold senior leaders accountable is paralyzing this agency. TSA employees are less likely to report operational security or threat-relevant issues out of fear of retaliation from supervisors, who fear further retaliation from their chain of command. No one who reports issues is safe at TSA.” This is a huge violation of a basic leadership principle that leaders need to create a culture where direct reports feel comfortable telling them about the brutal facts of reality. You can’t fix a problem unless you know what it is.

Former Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger was appointed head of the TSA in June 2015. He inherited an agency with multifaceted problems that did not develop over-night. These issues were part of a culture that developed over the years under the leadership of a number of administrators prior to Neffenger’s arrival. Why does the TSA have such a poor reputation, and why did the culture of the TSA, a newly formed agency 15 years ago, develop in this manner?

The rare opportunity to build a new organization from the beginning – a TSA organization with the right tone at the top, the right people and the right culture without having the need to dismantle a legacy organization, was unfortunately squandered. The TSA should have been established as an organization with two core imperatives: first – providing security to the nation’s air transportation network, and second – providing a great customer experience to those passing through the TSA system.

There is no reason why the customer service expectations of the traveling public should be any different than if they were purchasing a product or service from a company in the private sector. The traveling public deserves no less. All citizens dealing with any governmental entity are entitled to a great customer experience, since their tax dollars are paying for the service provided.

Few political leaders and government administrators place a high priority on customer experience. Unlike the private sector, government agencies generally do not face competitive pressures with the exception of the Postal Service, which faces competition from UPS and FedEx, and has lost significant business to both due to the high level of service and reliability that UPS and FedEx provides. Even with competition, it is very difficult for a federal agency to provide a great customer experience because it is not inherent in their mindset.

Airports have the ability to opt-out of the TSA managing the passenger screening process and can use a private contractor, even though the private contractor would be under the oversight of the TSA. In a July 2013 policy brief published by the Reason Foundation, Shirley Ybarra and Robert Poole Jr. wrote that it is a conflict of interest for the TSA both to set standards for passenger screening and then rate its own performance against its own standards. Ybarra and Poole wrote, “In practice, no matter how dedicated TSA leaders and managers are, the natural tendency of any large organization is to defend itself against outside criticism and to bolster its image. And that raises questions about whether TSA is as rigorous about dealing with performance problems within its own workforce as it is with those it regulates – such as airlines and airports.”

Ybarra and Poole point out that within the European Union and in Canada, this conflict of interest doesn’t exist since passenger screening is carried out either by the airport or by private contractors that must meet government standards.

Neffenger’s 2017 budget presentation on March 1 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, the subcommittee on Homeland Security ran 4,338 words. A scan of his presentation reveals that he only mentioned the term “customer service” twice. He mentioned the word “security” 43 times. Keeping air travelers secure is the TSA’s prime imperative. However, the near absence of focus on customer service is very telling. Hopefully the long lines at airports, missed flights and frustrated passengers will help the TSA and Congress, which approves the TSA budget, realize that delivering a great customer experience needs to be built into the mission and mindset of the agency. The traveling public deserves no less.

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 23, 2016

As the former chairman of the board of Drexel University’s College of Medicine and as the vice chairman of the board of Drexel University, I have the honor each year of addressing the graduates of the Drexel College of Medicine. I always try to share some advice that may help the university’s graduates as they navigate their careers.

My message is similar each year and it continues to be meaningful to me, because I speak about the values that I hold dear. I always try to deliver a message that is short and to the point, in hopes it will resonate with the graduates.

At this year’s commencement of Drexel’s College of Medicine on May 20, I shared the following remarks:

Graduates, the best advice I can share with you as you pursue your careers as physicians, researchers or in other endeavors is to be open to new opportunities that come your way and embrace change. I encourage you to be proactive and create your own opportunities. You never know where these might take you.

I am a 1969 chemical engineering graduate from your University, who just happens to be the vice chairman of its board. Now, how does that happen? How does an engineer become the vice chairman of the board of his alma mater?

Shortly after becoming CEO of my company, I was honored to be asked to join the Drexel board. The following year I was named chairman of the board’s finance committee. A number of years later I became chairman of Drexel’s College of Medicine, followed by being named vice chair of the Drexel board.

I can look back to the first day after my commencement and recall steps along my career pathway. I took advantage of opportunities and accepted assignments outside of my comfort zone to learn and to broaden my knowledge and experience. I took risks. Sometimes I failed, but I never let that stop me from moving forward.

Tomorrow is the first day after your commencement. Take risks, and step out of your comfort zone. To quote Stephen S. Tang, President and CEO of the University City Science Center, “Failure is a valuable experience. It is a natural consequence of [taking] risks.”

Always take advantage of opportunities to do something new and different. And some day, you may have the honor of addressing graduates at their commencement ceremony, as I am doing today.

The story of Icarus, a character in Greek mythology, is a great metaphor for how one should manage their career. According to legend, Icarus flew too high, too close to the sun, his wings melted off and he crashed into the sea.

Should Icarus have played it safe, and flown lower?

Seth Godin, the author of “The Icarus Deception,” writes, “It is far more dangerous to fly too low than too high, even though it might feel safer to fly low. You settle for low expectations and small dreams, and guarantee yourself less than what you are capable of. By flying too low, you also shortchange not only yourself, but also those who depend on you, or might benefit from your work.”

During your career, be sure you don’t fly too low. Take risks and fly high, and if you crash, you will pick yourself up and fly again.

The following achievements and personal attributes will help you advance in your career:

Your education, your experience and the expertise you develop in your chosen field.

The track record of success and the results you achieve as you gain that experience.

Your commitment to yourself and others to always strive for excellence.

How you differentiate yourself by doing new things, and proactively implement positive change in everything you do.

Your interpersonal skills and how you lead others.

Your good critical judgment and common sense.

Your contacts and personal network.

Your integrity and your professional and personal reputation among your colleagues, your patients and the public.

During your career, be sure to protect your integrity and reputation. Once damaged, you never earn them back.

As I reflect on this message to the graduates of Drexel’s College of Medicine, I think this advice is universal. This is a message I encourage all to share, not just with new graduates, but with anyone navigating their career.

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 16, 2016

Have you recently read a news story about a decision made by a school official that “followed the rules” but that flew in the face of logic, common sense and good critical judgment? When that decision becomes public on social media, it generates the scorn and derision of thousands of people asking, “What were they thinking?” While many of these stories appear in the news, it’s likely that others never get reported.

On May 11, the Miami Herald ran a story written by Kaytlyn Leslie that first appeared in the San Luis Obispo Herald about an Arroyo Grande, California high school student who had been diagnosed as having a brain tumor and was confined to a wheelchair. A few weeks prior to his prom he fell out of his wheelchair and broke his hip. The student was told, according to Leslie’s article, that he was “denied entry to his prom because he missed three weeks of school due to his broken hip.”

Leslie wrote that the student’s father was told “it would be too difficult to arrange accommodations [to attend the prom], and that if … [the student’s mother or father] wanted to attend to assist their son, they would have to provide a doctor’s note, undergo a TB test and background check, and set up a meeting with the district to develop an individualized education plan for their son.” Really? A great example of school policies and procedures gone amuck! Did anyone in the high school’s administration have the common sense to just let the student go to his prom?

After thousands of commentators on social media blasted the school for its decision, the obligatory apology was issued by the school superintendent, stating that “We are truly sorry that [Jared] did not get to attend his senior prom.” The school administration needs to evaluate their decision-making process in these types of situations.

All schools should learn a lesson from what happened here and examine their own decision-making processes. In addition to school administrators, all leaders and managers need to think through and understand the impact of their decisions. Their personal reputations and the reputation of their organizations depend on it.

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

Often, a school infraction is nuanced, and the prescribed punishment does not fit the infraction. In a May 7, 2005 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Torpy reported on the suspension of a Muscogee County, Georgia high student who violated school policy by speaking on his cellphone with his mother, who was deployed in Iraq. The student’s father had passed away many years ago, so he was living with another military family while his mother was on active duty.

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

Did this infraction justify suspension, a punishment that would appear on the student’s transcript and potentially have an adverse impact on future college and employment opportunities, or was a less serious punishment that would not appear on the student’s transcript warranted?

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

After the school received a huge amount of criticism from the public, the school board reduced the 10-day suspension to three days.

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

So, what is it about the culture of some organizations in which leaders are reluctant to exercise common sense and good critical judgment, and do the right thing in situations that require discretion? A “zero-tolerance” policy was put in place by federal legislation in 1994 for students who bring a weapon to school. Extending this zero-tolerance policy to many other types of infractions does not serve our students well. In addition, when the punishment does not fit the infraction, school administrators lose the respect of their students.

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

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

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 9, 2016

Startup companies become successful based on many factors, two of which are how well they serve a growing market for their product or service and the drive, determination and leadership skills of the founder.

One such market is that of lifting low-lying houses prone to flooding along the east coast of the U.S., and one such entrepreneur is Andrew Baumgardner, founder of Baumgardner House Lifting (BHL). Unlike developing an app which has been the route for many young entrepreneurs, Baumgardner decided to enter the house-lifting market.

The frequency and severity of recent storms including Superstorm Sandy along the east coast, and subsequent damage and rising flood insurance costs have increased the interest of some homeowners in raising their low-elevation houses to avoid possible future flooding and costly repairs.

Baumgardner, the son of two successful entrepreneurs in the commercial window glass business and in the construction contracting business, grew up in a family where the business issues faced by his parents and their companies were discussed at the dinner table nearly every evening. Baumgardner said that based on that exposure, he developed a desire to follow in his parents’ footsteps, become an entrepreneur and someday start his own business.

As a sophomore at James Madison University in 2013, Baumgardner saw an opportunity in the growing market of lifting low-elevation houses along the New Jersey coast that had experienced storm related flooding in the past. There were a small number of firms serving the market and with government grants for the lifting of these houses, he thought that the market could accommodate another New Jersey-based entrant.

At the age of 20, Baumgardner decided to leave college and start a house lifting company, which he named Baumgardner House Lifting. Baumgardner said, “Not having any experience in this industry, I needed to hire expertise. The most similar industry to house lifting is house moving, so my first hire needed to be someone from either industry who had significant experience either moving or lifting houses, and who had credibility with general contractors who hired movers or lifters. I was very fortunate to find John Matyiko, a third generation house mover who had just left a firm in Louisiana, and wanted to relocate to the east coast. He was my first hire, and the key to getting my company off the ground.”

During their first year, Baumgardner and Matyiko spent all of their time networking with contractors, with the objective of getting their company’s first house lift. All startups new to an industry must establish credibility. BHL benefited from the fact that the Matyiko family name is well-recognized and respected within the house lifting industry, as is the Baumgardner family name in the construction industry. Baumgardner learned the business from Matyiko.

Baumgardner “bought” his first few house lifts at little profit margin to build his company’s credibility and reputation. This came at the expense of cash flow, an issue faced by many early-stage companies new to a market. Once established, BHL competed on the track record it was developing in the industry.

During the past three years, the company has expanded into a broader array of services needed after a lift has occurred, including rebuilding the foundation to the new height of the house, reconnecting utilities and rebuilding steps to a higher elevation. BHL now provides all construction services for lifting a house from start to finish.

BHL has grown to over 90 employees, and has established a joint venture with another firm in New York to lift low-elevation houses along the waterfronts of Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. In 2013, its first year of operation, BHL had revenues of just under $300,000. In 2016, revenues should exceed $30 million. Since its founding, the company has lifted over 500 houses.

Baumgardner was fortunate in that the initial funding for his new company came from his family, since liability exposure would have made it difficult to raise funds from outside early-stage investors. However, the funding from his family came with significant scrutiny of his operational decisions. This scrutiny was perhaps higher than if he had been able to raise funds from outside investors. Baumgardner shared with me that he felt a huge imperative to succeed and not let his family down, much more so than if his financial backers were outsiders.

I asked Baumgardner what keeps him up at night, and he said cash flow and his company’s ability to add the right people to keep up with rapid growth. “People are everything,” Baumgardner said. “We have been fortunate to attract the best people who focus on exceeding our client’s expectations. Our business would not have grown so quickly without our people.”

Given the need for hydraulic machinery and steel, the house lifting business is capital intensive. Baumgardner stated that in the first year he invested too early for growth that took some time in coming, which tied up cash for equipment that wasn’t in use every day. This is less of an issue today, now that the company has a steady stream of business.

Receivables are also less of an issue, now that significant growth is coming through the company’s expansion into New York, where BHL’s clients are construction management firms hired by New York City that receives funds from the federal government to reduce the impact of storm flooding. In New Jersey, BHL’s clients are individual homeowners and contractors, who tend to take longer to pay for the company’s services.

I asked Baumgardner why his clients contract with his company versus a competitor. How does he differentiate BHL from his competitors? He immediately responded, “Company culture and people. I want a company culture in which we strive to be the best at what we do, a value I learned from my parents. We are on a journey to be the best in the house lifting business by meeting our commitments and by providing a great client experience, which means performing a lift on time and with no problems. These are goals shared by all of our employees.”

Colin Schmitt, BHL’s vice president of development, said, “BHL has been able to find pragmatic solutions to complex and difficult house lifting problems. This has helped differentiate our company from others within the industry.” Samantha Danaher, office manager of BHL’s New York operations, said, “Andrew Baumgardner has a strong vision of what he wants our company to achieve; he effectively communicates that vision to his employees, and creates an environment where his employees develop a sense of ownership in their role within BHL.”

Baumgardner decided to enter the house lifting market with no experience or expertise lifting houses. What he saw was a market that would grow, and knew that if he hired the right people, created the right culture and delivered a great customer experience, BHL’s reputation would grow and his company would be successful. He is a role model for all entrepreneurs.

Stan Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on business issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on May 6, 2016

On April 26, I had the privilege of attending a reception hosted by Drexel University honoring tennis legend Billie Jean King, holder of numerous tennis titles and prestigious awards, receiver of many accolades, and a tireless inspirational champion of equal opportunity and gender equality not only in sports, but also in the workplace and in society.

As a strong advocate of equal prize money for women and men, Billie Jean is the passionate and dedicated owner of the Philadelphia Freedoms of World Team Tennis, a coed professional tennis league founded in 1974. This is where she currently focuses much of her time, as well as raising funds to advance the cause of gender equality.

As Billie Jean spoke about her journey to remedy the unequal treatment of women not only in sports, but also in the workplace and in society, I thought about many of my female colleagues whose careers paralleled mine. I thought about their challenges and trailblazing efforts for themselves, their contemporaries and the women who followed them. They fought for respect and acknowledgment of their abilities and achievements. They helped change both societal and organizational norms.

The passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 gave women the right to vote. However, it wasn’t until the 1960s that women started to gain many of the rights and opportunities that men had. Title IX, passed in 1972, increased opportunities for women at institutions receiving federal funds, including sports programs.

Billie Jean spoke about the societal changes that gave women the right to obtain a credit card in 1974 without having her husband co-sign the credit application. About 50 years ago, women faced enrollment barriers at some Ivy League universities. In many states, women could not serve on juries. Many private clubs did not permit women to be members, effectively freezing them out of opportunities to do business with decision makers, who were most always men.

Sept. 20, 1973 marked an important milestone. This is the date of the pivotal tennis match between Billie Jean and Bobby Riggs. Riggs, a former number one professional tennis player in the world, who, at the age of 55, played then 29-year-old Billie Jean in a tennis match. The match was billed as “The Battle of the Sexes” and was held in the Astrodome in Houston. Riggs had previously challenged her to a match, but she did not play him. After Riggs beat number one ranked woman player Margaret Court, Billie Jean accepted Riggs’ challenge.

Billie Jean described why the match with Riggs turned out to be so momentous. After she defeated Riggs, many women felt empowered and emboldened to raise issues with their employers regarding inequality of pay, working conditions and opportunities for career advancement. It was as if her win gave these women a voice they previously had not had.

Listening to Billie Jean’s inspirational remarks, I thought about my two daughters-in-law and the progress they are making in their careers. I thought about my two granddaughters and what societal norms will be like as they go through school, and whether their teachers will hold them to the same standards and expectations as the boys in their classes.

When my granddaughters graduate college, I hope they will have the choice to be anything they want to be, to pursue their interests and fulfill their dreams, and not be limited by their gender. This will have been made possible by trailblazers like Billie Jean, an inspirational change agent and role model.

Women are still under-represented in executive leadership positions in major corporations, and as directors on the boards of these companies. This is changing, as the leadership pipeline fills with women and as companies realize that the best decisions are made by diverse teams that bring different viewpoints to the table, not only with respect to gender, but also race and ethnicity.

As leaders of our organizations, we need to ensure that every individual at the table is not only heard, but also welcomed to provide their views. We need to ensure that individuals are judged and promoted based on their abilities, contributions and accomplishments. Not only is it good for business, it is the right thing to do.

Stanley W. Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer, speaker and advisor to C-suite executives on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on April 25, 2016

Margate’s nearly three-year battle with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection opposing the building of dunes to protect the city from severe storms and hurricanes should come to an end. On April 11, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Julio Mendes ruled that the state’s use of eminent domain to seize beach parcels of property with appropriate compensation to build the dunes is not “arbitrary or capricious.” As of this date, no decision has been made by Margate’s three commissioners on whether to appeal Judge Mendes’ ruling. Hopefully, they will not do so.

Superstorm Sandy hit the New Jersey coast in late October 2012 causing significant devastation to beach towns. In 2013, Governor Chris Christie launched an initiative to build dunes along the entire New Jersey coast to protect life and property from future storms. A vocal group of Margate citizens spoke out against building dunes, arguing in part that Margate’s system of bulkheads is sufficient to protect the city, and that attention should be paid to the flooding which occurs on the bay side of the city caused by high tides during severe storms.

In November 2013, the citizens of Margate voted against the dune project and in another vote a year later, authorized the city Board of Commissioners to take legal action to prevent the dunes from being built.

On Nov. 2, 2015, I wrote an article headlined, “Battle over Margate dunes: City and state leaders need to talk with each other.” In that article, I stated that the effectiveness and costs of both the dune and bulkhead alternatives should be evaluated to help guide the decision on how to proceed. Studies developed by the Army Corps of Engineers comparing the dune versus bulkhead alternatives were introduced into evidence during the trial. Judge Mendes used these studies to help him render his April 11 decision.

Now that the court has spoken, it is time for Margate to cooperate with the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure the city gets a seat at the table to influence the design of the dunes and most importantly, to address the issue of street drainage that the dunes will create.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a part-time resident of Margate with a summer home on the beach block of Douglas Avenue, the end of which is below the grade of the beach. Currently, to drain the street, the city trenches the beach towards the ocean starting from the scuppers in the bulkhead at the end of the street. About four times a year the trench is re-dug so that storm water can continue to drain from the street. When the dunes are constructed, this method of street drainage will not be possible. Drain pipes from the street that run under the dunes will need to be installed so that storm water can be directed and drained out onto the beach. Periodic trenching still may be needed at the end of the drain pipes, depending on the slope of the beach.

Many of Margate’s beach block streets will face the same drainage issue as Douglas Avenue when the dunes are installed, because these beaches will be raised above their previous height. Since the dunes will cause a drainage issue, the cost of a street drainage system should be part of the dune project cost, including the cost of pumping stations if needed. Environmental permits to pump storm water from the street onto the beach should be granted.

I have been told that the original design of the dunes assumed that Douglas Avenue storm water runoff would collect in a trench between the bulkhead at the end of the street and the dune, and that storm water would percolate into the sand. Water will not percolate through saturated sand. It will puddle and stagnate, drawing flies and mosquitos. This is not a solution to the street drainage issue.

It is time that Margate change from being a legal adversary to a partner with a seat at the table. An appeal of Judge Mendes’ decision will risk Margate’s ability to get what it needs to deal with street drainage and other dune related issues.

Stanley W. Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer and speaker, advising C-suite executives about issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com

Article originally published in the Philadelphia Business Journal on April 18, 2016

The CEO has the ultimate responsibility for employee safety in the workplace. The board’s role is to hold the CEO accountable not only for the safety of the company’s employees, but also for workplace health hazards and company environmental performance. These should be included in the metrics the board uses to evaluate CEO performance.

On April 6, Donald Blankenship, the former CEO of Massey Energy, was sentenced to prison for 12 months after being found guilty in December 2015 of conspiring to violate federal mine safety standards. On April 5, 2010, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch (UBB) mine of Performance Coal Company (PCC), a subsidiary of Massey Energy, resulted in the deaths of 29 miners.

In May 2011, an independent investigative report commissioned by the governor of West Virginia titled, “Upper Big Branch – The April 5, 2010 explosion: A failure of basic coal mine safety practices” was published. The report documented instance after instance of safety violations, and showed that production of coal had a higher priority than the safety of the miners.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) imposed a fine of $10.8 million on Massey Energy. A MSHA report on the explosion states, “Massey’s corporate culture was the root cause of the tragedy. MSHA has issued Massey and PCC 369 citations and orders … for an unprecedented 21 flagrant violations, which carry the most serious civil penalties available under the law.”

MSHA Assistant Secretary Joseph A. Main stated, “Every time Massey sent miners into the UBB Mine, Massey put those miners’ lives at risk. Massey management created a culture of fear and intimidation in their miners to hide their reckless practices. Today’s report brings to light the tragic consequences of a corporate culture that values production over people.”

So, how did the Massey board assess Blankenship’s stewardship of employee safety? Bobby Ray Inman, a well-respected leader who has served as an admiral in the U.S. Navy, director of the National Security Agency, deputy director of the CIA, interim dean at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas and a long-term director at Massey Energy, offered his views.

In an April 27, 2010 article by Reeve Hamilton in The Texas Tribune, Inman is quoted as saying, “Blankenship … [is] the best coal miner in West Virginia.” In the article, Hamilton writes, “As Inman sees it, much of the backlash against Blankenship stems from the ripple effect of a [prior] political incident.” Really? The backlash wasn’t due to the 29 deaths at Upper Big Branch mine, and a cavalier culture by Massey Energy regarding safety?

In his article, Hamilton writes, “The Upper Big Branch mine had 19 times the national rate of violations according to a recent MSHA report. … Determining the cause of the explosion will take weeks, and in the meantime, Blankenship has the board’s – and Inman’s full support.” Quoting Inman, “This I learned through my military career: As angry as you may be with somebody, you do not shake the structure in the middle of a crisis. You work your way through the crisis, and then you hold accountability and responsibility. Those words are not carelessly chosen.”

I would respectfully disagree with Inman. Blankenship retired from Massey nearly nine months after the explosion in December 2010. So for those nine months, an opportunity was lost to improve the safety culture at Massey, during which employees continued to be exposed to unsafe conditions.

Was the Massey board ever concerned about Blankenship’s poor history of compliance with federal mine safety standards and a corporate culture not focused on safety? The company had a history of safety issues. Why wasn’t Blankenship held accountable to a higher standard of performance by his board prior to the explosion?

I have served on the boards of a number of companies where, due to the nature of their operations, there were inherent risks to the safety and health of employees as well as to the environment. In many of these companies, management did not report to the board their safety, health, or environmental incidents, and what management was doing to improve performance in these areas. They do now, after I brought this important discipline to the board.

As CEO of PQ Corporation, I took the issue of employee safety very seriously. Our safety, health and environmental performance was presented and discussed as the first topic at every board meeting, before discussion of financial performance. If plant employees were about to perform a task that they felt was unsafe, or they felt that an established procedure was unsafe, they raised the issue with the plant’s management. Hazardous conditions were addressed, to avoid future accidents.

At conferences with plant managers and hourly employees who led plant safety committees, I would state that the safety of our employees came before production. Hazards were promptly addressed. A sense of ownership was instilled in employees for their personal safety and that of their colleagues. Our OSHA recordable accident rate improved, and we achieved first quartile performance within the chemical industry.

Directors, hold your CEOs accountable for more than just financial performance. Hold them accountable for their tone at the top and the culture they nurture within their organization. The world is changing, driven by a focus on reputation, and where millennials, the future leaders of your company, want to work. Companies that do the right thing will be the ones that produce the best returns for investors.

Stanley W. Silverman is the founder and CEO of Silverman Leadership. He is a writer and speaker, advising C-suite executives about issues and on cultivating a leadership culture within their organizations. Stan is Vice Chairman of the Board of Drexel University and a director of Friends Select School and Faith in the Future. He is the former President and CEO of PQ Corporation. Follow: @StanSilverman. Connect: Stan@SilvermanLeadership.com. Website: www.SilvermanLeadership.com