By Mike DuBose
I had the opportunity to meet Larry Bossidy and speak with him firsthand for two days in May 2008. During this time, he shared ideas from his book and many years of business experience with me. The following chapter chronicles how one of my companies changed from an organization in decline to a more productive one based on many of the principles that Bossidy shared with me and those included in his bestseller Execution. Bossidy is mentioned frequently in this chapter because his ideas work! Let’s examine the changes we made in my company as we set out on the new, productive road of execution.
During 2007, one of our six companies was emitting warning signals. Projects were not getting done or were being misinterpreted, decision-making was taking an inordinate amount of time, employees were complaining about a sluggish system of doing things, and staff felt like they could not express their opinions in an open environment or challenge the status quo. Our once-productive company was being stifled by a hierarchical bureaucracy, and while some of the main projects that paid the bills were getting done, many of the things needed to achieve our goal of building a great company (like strategic planning) had taken a backseat. I had just finished reading Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan’s book Execution and realized we were headed for trouble.
Though I retained the titles of president and company owner, I had become more of a chairman of the board and allowed others to run the day-to-day operations of our company. But in late 2007, with our 22-year-old company slowly decaying, I reassumed control. The principles I firmly believed in were not being implemented or achieved. My first priority was to confront reality and try to understand why our once friendly, productive, and effective company’s wheels were coming off and what had to be done to get the company back on track. I had to do it fast, but wanted to assess the situation in a calm and logical way with lots of input from others.
We conducted a confidential online survey of all company employees as we entered the third quarter of 2007, and unflattering words like “micromanagement,” “controlling,” “perfectionism,” “slow decision-making,” and “projects not being completed” surfaced in employees’ replies. Though we have some of the best fringe benefits around, nine weeks of leave or holidays, and 37-hour work weeks, 75% of staff members surveyed said they did not plan to be with the company in five years. Simply put, staff members were not happy, and a lot of the hostility they felt was directed at me, the president. This raised a big red flag! The way we were doing business had to change quickly because people were unhappy and our company’s efficiency and effectiveness were in a downward spiral. Unhappy, frustrated, and hostile employees can kill a company.
Understanding the Problem
I read our detailed staff survey ten times over one month to assess where we were going wrong. Every time I read it, I picked up on more problems. During my initial reads of the survey, I was irritated by some of the remarks. But hey, I did ask for it, and this was the way our people were really thinking. When I met Larry Bossidy in New York, he repeated a point made in Execution: “Too many leaders fool themselves into thinking their companies are well-run.” I had been blind to the unhappiness, inefficiency, and hostility that had been growing in my company. I remembered another piece of advice from Charan and Bossidy: “you as a leader have to be deeply involved and passionately engaged in your organization and honest about its realities with others and yourself.” I had to look into the mirror and face the cruel truth! A humble leader will acknowledge, resolve, and learn from his or her mistakes.
I interviewed most of our full-time employees to solicit opinions and advice. Then, I brought in consultant Don Jenkins of the Leadership Academy to conduct an independent survey of the strengths and weaknesses of our organization. He had previously taken our staff through leadership training and was well aware of our employees’ feelings and our company’s growing problems. He led a group session of all employees without me in the room and then interviewed most employees individually to further assess our small company’s operations. I wanted to have an independent third party to seek information that I may have missed, and I knew I needed to “confront the brutal facts.” I did not brief our consultant with my interpretations of what was going on but asked him to seek the reality of our staff and company’s problems. Once his assessment was completed, we met and compared notes. Our perceptions of the company’s problems were nearly identical.
We had to make some major changes, and there is strong evidence that we made the right decisions. In July 2008, we confidentially surveyed our employees again, and 100% of those who responded reported that we were headed in the right direction. We wanted to create a culture and environment where staff looked forward to coming to work, their opinions and advice were valued, they could express their opinions in a welcoming environment, decisions could be made quickly, projects could be executed promptly, and efficiency moved from fair at best to good or excellent. We wanted to create a culture like that which Larry Bossidy described to me: “Show me a company that can execute, and I will show you a successful company!” But several factors must be present for a company to execute well. In addition, I had just read What Got You Here Won’t Get You There by Marshall Goldsmith and Mark Reiter. Our company had been very successful in making millions of dollars and we were debt-free. However, the purpose that we had when making money in the past would not work for us in the future as we traveled down the road of building a great company. As I learned from Marshall’s book and my recent realizations about my companies, a new strategy was needed!
Redesigning Management
As we studied our decision-making process, we learned that our way of doing things within the management team was failing. We had set up a very sluggish, controlling, structured hierarchy that communication took way too long to travel through. Employee requests sometimes had to go through four levels of authority to reach me and then travel back down the ladder, and projects could repeat this up-and-down process several times. There were too many chefs in the kitchen, trying to control everything we did. I was part of the problem in that I wanted to be involved as a helper but was inadvertently guilty of adding to the chaos and frustration.
Reducing the Perfectionist Culture
We had sent the message to employees that nearly everything had to be perfect, and as a result, we would send memos, reports, and e-mails up and down the hierarchy for everyone to review, improve, and approve. It took way too long to reach the desired stage of perfection. We had also encouraged staff to use the Microsoft Word tracking feature to visually detail how each staff member or team leader made comments on documents as they traveled through the hierarchy. The process was good from a teaching perspective; however, it deflated employees’ morale because the document (in which an employee invested a lot of time and pride) would come back improved but butchered and marked in many colors. We were not building confidence in our staff but were killing it instead! Thus, we had to reduce our goals to what I call “reasonable perfection”—very high standards without being obsessive-compulsive. We learned that in companies where perfectionism is rewarded, people often focused too long on one project to get it executed right while neglecting other important projects.
Getting the Leaders out of the Details
Our culture had become one where everyone was too invested in the details. Our leaders could not lead because they were too busy micromanaging and trying to be everything to everyone. Senior management had to review nearly every report, be involved with every project and decision, and attend every meeting. While this helped produce a high-quality product, we had become micromanagers and were sending the signal that we did not trust our employees and leaders to do their jobs. Rather giving people more control over their projects, allowing them to learn from mistakes or failure, and serving as teachers and mentors, some leaders became enablers and controllers. As the company president, I wanted to review projects to help perfect them. But again, senior management was adding to our organization’s failure to execute promptly. The problems with communication, decision-making, and project completion became even more frustrating because if a leader within the hierarchy was out sick, traveling on business, involved in a major project, or on vacation, things stopped or slowed to a snail’s pace.
In December 2007, I read two books on servant leadership, The World’s Most Powerful Leadership Principle and The Servant by James C. Hunter, which greatly influenced me. These books gave me a new outlook on how a leader should act and how management should be structured. Our private consultant and I worked with the senior team leaders to carefully study our strengths and problems and develop a new structure that would eliminate senior management. Bureaucratic titles like president and vice president were abolished. A new structure was designed that gave most of the authority to the former vice presidents and developed a new, smaller leadership team whose members were called senior team leaders. This eliminated two steps out of the hierarchy, including my role as president. I became more of a chairman of the board. I still signed legal documents as president and legally remained in that capacity, but my true function shifted more to helping, coaching, and mentoring. The new senior team leaders were given more power to run their divisions or companies, make decisions promptly, and execute projects on a timely basis. Instead of a sluggish, vertical, and inefficient bureaucratic leadership model, we developed a flat, effective one that allowed us to execute better.
Building Teamwork and Collaboration
Teamwork is critical in a culture of execution. I encouraged senior team leaders to increase their communication and work like best friends. I wanted to see teamwork and collaboration with much improved communication prevalent so the left hand knew what the right hand was doing. I also wanted to eliminate internal competition and instead create collaboration and cooperation. Senior team leaders embraced my goal and sent a representative from each division to attend each other’s meetings. They now call each other on a weekly basis to discuss projects, problems, and future plans. I also outlined clear goals and expectations for each senior team leader and their divisions, then turned them loose to do their jobs and decide for themselves how they would meet my goals and expectations. At first, backing off was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made because I wanted to be involved in everything!
Creating an Open Environment
We wanted to build a culture where people could freely express their opinions without fear of repression or retaliation and leaders listened. Effective listening is critical in an execution society. We discovered that we had set up a very rigid way of communicating (i.e. an employee would have to talk to their leader, who would have to talk to their senior team leader, who then would talk to another level of leadership, and then, finally, the communication would reach me). Then, that communication would travel slowly back down the ladder and up again! Projects got lost along the way, and sometimes what began as a good idea would become distorted or misconstrued because so many people were involved in the communications and interpreting what was needed. By putting more power in the employees and their leaders, we greatly improved effectiveness. I also try to meet with everyone (by phone or—as a goal—in person) once a month and ask them, “Do you have any questions, concerns, or advice you would like to offer?” I would then note their input and provide candid, honest answers about anything—nothing was hidden! I wanted to create a truly open environment, trusting staff to help guide and improve the company. My attitude changed to that of a servant leader and I began working for my staff versus the other way around. As long as we had a solid strategic plan in place and leaders’ actions followed the strategic plan and my written expectations, I stayed out of the details.
Giving the Power Away
In the past, leaders and senior management had their hands in everything! We established a one-year goal of reducing leaders’ involvement in day-to-day details of operations and provided additional resources so they were freed up to lead. We also were not delegating very well, so I asked employees from every level to chair or participate on committees that help run the company. While I wrote several position papers on what I thought was needed, I let staff volunteer to chair or be involved in these committees, which focus on topics like professional development, community service, and technology. My goal was for everyone to be a leader in the company. Senior team leaders began to let their employees become everything they could be and backed off from micromanaging them. If an employee was responsible for directing a project or department, we let him or her do it. It was so satisfying to notice our staff’s talents blossom. They worked harder, smarter, and really enjoyed themselves because we let them be in control. We let them spread their wings and fly—and fly they did!
Eliminating Bureaucracy
We examined all company procedures and processes, and if one procedure or process slowed our decision-making or held up projects, we refined or eliminated it. We changed from being a bureaucracy with lots of rules to an anti-bureaucracy! If there was a decision we needed to make, we made it quickly. In a 2008 meeting, one employee said, “Wow, we just made a decision that would have taken us months to make in 2007.” I sent out word that if anyone needed a decision from me, they shouldn’t worry about putting it in writing—call me and let’s execute. We removed as many barriers as possible so we could execute better. We did not want to make rash choices, but had opened up a new way of making decisions that was quicker and more effective. You simply cannot have a culture of execution and getting things done without timely decision-making.
Establishing Realistic Whys, Hows, Whos, and Whens
Some of the findings of our study were that we were not assigning mutually-agreed-upon completion dates to projects, were not monitoring projects as they moved through the completion process, and did not set up target dates through tracking programs like Microsoft Office Outlook. Projects were not being completed on a timely basis and in some cases just disappeared from the company’s radar completely. Projects were also not clearly defined as to their importance, why we were doing them, how they could be done, who should be involved, what outcomes we were expecting, what we wanted to accomplish, and when they should be completed. By reducing the points of command and flattening our management structure, we created a very efficient and effective way of doing things that reduced the control, management, and perfectionism. We also tried to prioritize, on an ongoing basis, all the projects on people’s plates to ensure they could accomplish each project by its target date. We began to logically study employee caseloads to ensure that work was balanced and learned to time our project deadlines better, avoiding things like having companywide or strategic planning meetings in the middle of intense work periods. One of our company objectives was to reduce stress, so we wanted to show that we cared about our employees and were confident in what they were doing. We did not want to kill them to get a project done too quickly while they were drowning in work. It became a mutually negotiated process where staff had input into what they did, how they accomplished it, and when they would finish it. And it also meant we had to be flexible enough to change projects’ target dates if needed and not obsess over the original target dates. By “doing with” instead of “doing to” staff, they became engaged and helpful instead of whining and complaining. We started seeing more smiles and the excitement about our new direction grew!
Drastically Reducing the E-mail Company Mentality
Our assessment showed that we had become an e-mail company. More than 90% of our communications were taking place by e-mail. We had become an impersonal organization driven by e-mails, which were subject to interpretation and “reading between the lines” by employees. We were also starting to discipline employees by e-mail, and sometimes that disciplining was done when emotions were running high. E-mails tend to be harsher when the sender can hide behind a computer instead of seeing and talking to the recipient face-to-face. The leadership team decided in 2008 that while e-mail would remain a part of our communications, we would reverse direction and go back to more face-to-face and telephone communications. Since we have gone back to the “old-fashioned” way of doing things, our e-mail usage has plummeted by more than 80%. Thus, we spend more time focusing on getting things done instead of having too many e-mail exchanges (or e-mail wars) that could demoralize employees or cause them to lose focus.
Focusing on What Was Going Right and Coaching Employees through Their Weaknesses
We adopted some techniques from The One Minute Manager by Ken Blanchard, like looking for things people did right and letting them know it. When something went wrong, we helped them do a better job next time. Leaders became helpers and coaches instead of dominating, controlling, and micromanaging employees. Thus, there were more compliments flying than criticisms and when people made mistakes, we encouraged bringing them out into the open so we could all dissect them as case studies and learn from the experience. We are also refining our employee performance assessment process. Employees who know exactly what is expected of them, understand their parameters, and receive ongoing, regular feedback will execute at a higher level.
Doing Fewer Things Really Well Versus a Lot of the Things Fairly Well
In Execution, Bossidy says that “anybody who thinks through the logic of a business will see that focusing on three or four priorities will produce the best results from the resources at hand.” At our company, we decided to look carefully at everything we did and commit primarily to projects that were the most profitable, we were most passionate about, and we knew the most about (taking a cue from the “Hedgehog Concept” explained in Jim Collins’ Good to Great ). By doing fewer things but making sure they fell within these areas, we decreased stress and increased our chances of success instead of being all over the board trying to be everything to everyone. We also kept pursuing our goals, expressing every chance we got that one goal was to significantly reduce stress in our companies. A certain amount of stress can be good within a company because it pushes people to get things done. However, too much stress over a long period of time can hamper productivity and the company’s ability to execute.
Developing a Clear Strategic Plan
We created a five-year strategic plan that articulated our purpose, vision, geographical target area, mission, and management plan. By creating a structured, flexible business plan with input from all staff, we would know and mutually agree to where we were going and how to get there. We wanted to follow Bossidy’s advice: “unless you translate big thoughts into concrete steps for action, they’re pointless.” Without detailed, concrete steps, execution slows. Every time we have a prospective customer or business activity, we hold it up to our strategic plan and ask, “Does that fit our plan for the future?” If not, we do not pursue it. Following our strategic plan will help us in decision-making and choosing the right projects. Clear strategic planning will help our companies execute better.
Promoting Decision-Making at All Levels within Our Companies
When I resumed control of the company, people’s confidence and trust in leadership were at an all-time low, we were hierarchical about making decisions, and the pressure to perform was intense (in the wrong way). People were fearful to make decisions because they were afraid they would fail to make the perfect choice or would not follow protocol. I tried to create an environment where leaders could make decisions, which meant I would express my opinions but not be directly involved in the final decision. I wanted leaders to become decisive through practice at being as the final decision-makers. That also meant that I had to accept their decisions, even if I could have helped them make a better one. Yes, I had to change the way I did things too! I also expressed my strong confidence in our leaders’ ability to collect the facts, decide on the best course of action on a timely basis, and execute the decision, not wavering unless new facts emerged. This would also become a part of my succession planning because I was growing future leaders so the company could run without me. I was trying to follow Larry Bossidy’s water glass test in that effective leaders work themselves out of a job. When they leave, you should be able to dip your finger into a glass of water, then pull it out and ask: “What difference did that make? What difference will my departure make?” If you have done your job right, the answer should be “none!” Bossidy wrote that that the role of the leader is to lead the processes, believe in them, and be actively involved. My role is also to prepare the next generation of leaders for their future roles.
Situate the Right People in the Right Jobs
During the 2008 reorganization of our company, we tried to design a logical, streamlined structure with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. That meant jobs were painfully eliminated, the hierarchy was flattened, staff were assigned new responsibilities, an unprofitable division was drastically reduced and restructured, and titles were changed. Restructuring a company is very difficult for a leader because lives are impacted. When possible, “good-to-great” companies try to avoid restructuring frequently and the insecurity it creates. You simply do not want a new plan coming out every week! However, our complex times are rapidly changing, and leaders need to make the hard (but fair) decisions sooner rather than later to let the company be the best it can be. Every position and company activity should be clearly scrutinized during restructuring to assess employees’ productivity, how they would best fit into the new organization, and how each job and person relates to the new structural plan you have developed. Restructuring must occur without emotion and changes or termination of staff positions must be based on facts with the goal of making the company more effective and efficient. Some staff will determine that the newly restructured company is not for them and will leave. Others who don’t fit into the new culture need to be asked to leave to pursue other opportunities. As Bossidy noted to me, leaders should step outside the box and try to view their organization from an outsider’s perspective.
Developing and Monitoring Accountability Systems
A company that executes maintains a culture of accountability. Larry Bossidy and I share the philosophy that people within companies should hold each other accountable. We have tried to develop a culture where everyone looks over each other’s shoulders in a friendly, positive way. I told my senior team leaders to please tell me if they ever felt like I could do better or was exhibiting any dishonest or unethical behavior. I wanted them to hold me accountable for my actions. That goes back to having an open environment where no one is afraid to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes on! We try to encourage everyone to ask questions like, “You said that we would have this project done by this date. Can you tell me how it is coming along?” Bossidy says that leaders should encourage people to challenge and debate with them. However, I think this should be done in a friendly, professional way. Look at everything you do and try to establish very simple processes that monitor performance and project deadlines. According to Bossidy, one of the keys to a successful execution culture is: “What gets measured, gets done!”
Learning from Our Mistakes
We also learned that when you don’t execute or make timely decisions, causing mistakes or failures to occur, you should dissect what happened and learn from the misstep. Then, as Total Quality Management teaches us, don’t make the same mistakes again. That means we must bring mistakes out into the open and study the cause so we can turn the failures into gifts. An organization that learns from its mistakes will improve its ability to execute in the future. My opinion is that in conflict there is always opportunity, but you have to look for it.
Creating a culture of execution where decisions are made promptly and projects are successfully completed on a timely basis requires a leader to project a constant, clear message to employees that execution is the way we want to do things. A quality execution culture means keeping things simple and fun, rewarding those who do great work within a reasonable time period, and putting a system of accountability in place. In Execution, Bossidy and Charan note that “leaders in an execution culture design strategies that are more road maps than rigid paths enshrined in fat planning books,” defining execution as “a systematic process of rigorously discussing hows and whats, questioning, tenaciously following through, and ensuring accountability.”
In conclusion, you can think of all kinds of great activities, strategies, and ventures to pursue and make money with. And yes, our companies have a long way to go before we can be called great companies of action. However, if you cannot execute your ideas, they are all worthless and a waste of time. Great company team members not only think outside the box, are entrepreneurial, and are very creative, but they also get the job done!
Mike DuBose is a field instructor with USC’s graduate school and has been in business since 1981. He is the servant leader and owner of six debt-free corporations, including Columbia Conference Center, Research Associates and The Evaluation Group. For more information and helpful articles, visit www.mikedubose.com.
© Copyright Mike DuBose August 2008. You have permission to reproduce any part of this article provided that the contents are not altered and the full description of the author and his book are given credit. No part of this article may be used in a for-profit activity without the author’s written permission. Columbia Conference Center, Research Associates, and The Evaluation Group are registered service marks.
Suggested Reading:
Execution by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan
What Got You Here Won’t Get You There by Marshall Goldsmith and Mark Reiter
Good to Great by Jim Collins
The One Minute Manager by Ken Blanchard and Spencer Johnson
The Servant by James C. Hunter
The World’s Greatest Leadership Principle by James C. Hunter
