by Adam Hartung | Jan 8, 2016 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership
“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it”
– George Santayana, “The Life of Reason,” 1905
There seems to be nothing Donald Trump will not say. Or at least imply.
Take for example his recent comment that evangelicals should not trust Ted Cruz because his father is from Cuba, and Cubans are mostly Catholic. He didn’t say Mr. Cruz wasn’t an evangelical, he just inferred that Mr. Cruz must not be, due to his origins. That Mr. Cruz’s father is a “born again Christian” and Bible-belt evangelical minister is simply ignored, regardless of its relevance.
Or, take for example the notion that Mr. Cruz is not eligible to be President because he was born in Canada, even though his mother is an American citizen. Mr. Trump doesn’t say Mr. Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen, he just implies that possibly he is not and therefore he may not be a legitimate candidate. Maybe Mr. Cruz really isn’t the American he claims to be?
Or, implying all Muslims are bad, because some followers of Islam have implemented bad acts. Mr. Trump has denounced all Muslims, and would deny all Muslims entry into the USA, because of the actions of a few. After all, why not? If you can’t tell the good from the bad, why not condemn them all? If he were doing the same to Jewish believers we would call Mr. Trump’s language antisemitic. Could you imagine denying all Jews entry into the USA – for any reason?
These are just a few of the outrageous things Mr. Trump has said, and yet he has people who think he is an admirable business leader suitable to be a political leader. Recently a good friend of mine was quite eloquent in her praise for how well Mr. Trump “plays the media like a church organ.” Even if she didn’t like some of his messages, she thought it admirable how he obtains media attention, and keeps it focused on himself, and lures people into listening to him.
Which takes me to my opening quote. Mr. Trump is great at practicing McCarthyism – and yet nobody seems to care. And if we don’t do something, we may repeat a part of history that was a very black eye.
Senator Joe McCarthy was a conservative Senator from Wisconsin in the early 1950s. To achieve fame and glory, he famously developed a great skill for feeding the news media bits of information that would bring attention to himself. Senator McCarthy excelled at building on the public’s FUD – Fears, Uncertainties and Doubts.
At the time, Americans were terribly afraid of communists, fearful they would ruin the U.S. social order and make the country into the next Soviet Union. So Senator McCarthy conveniently blamed all social ills on communist infiltrators – people working in government jobs who were set on destroying the country. He then would accuse those he didn’t like of being communists. Or, if that accusation was proven baseless, he would accuse those he saw as political opponents of sympathizing with communists – claims that amounted to “you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.” He didn’t have to prove someone was bad, just that they might look bad, sound bad or know someone who was possibly bad.
Mr. McCarthy was fantastic at feeding great lines to the media – newspapers, radio and TV. He would seek out reporters and say outrageous comments, which were so outrageous that the media felt compelled to report them. And the more outrageous Senator McCarthy was, the more media attention he acquired. And the more attention he had, the more he used false attacks, innuendos and statements that pandered to the FUD of many Americans.
Eventually, Senator McCarthy was exposed as the blowhard that he truly was. Full of innuendo and attack, but lacking in any real policy skills or ability to govern. The word “McCarthyism” was born to “describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.” (Wikipedia) Famous broadcaster Edward R. Murrow eventually exposed the baselessness of Senator McCarthy, leading to his Senatorial censure and media decline.
Few have ever demonstrated the skills of McCarthyism better than Mr. Trump. Feeding the public FUD, Mr. Trump doesn’t say President Obama is a Muslim – but he accepts the notion from an audience member’s shout out at a public rally. Just like McCarthy called members of the State Department “sympathizers” as he tried to ruin their careers, Mr. Trump says that the investigation of Benghazi implies that former Secretary of State Clinton did something wrong – even though the investigation results were that there was no wrong-doing by the Secretary or her staff. The “investigation” is held out as evidence, when it is nothing more than an inference. And attacks on whole groups of people, like Muslims, is the definition of demagoguery.
Mr. Trump may be good at media management, but that is not to be admired. Being good at a skill is admirable only if that skill is used for good. We admire magicians for slight-of-hand, but not pickpockets. We admire forest rangers for skillful use of burns, but not arsonists. We admire locksmiths for knowing how locks work, but not thieves. We admire artists for great brushwork, but not forgers. We admire hard working business people for their skills, but not skillful lawbreakers like Skillling of Enron, Ebbers of Worldcom or investment advisor Bernie Madoff.
Mr. Trump clearly knows how to identify the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubts that plague many Americans. And he is quick with a phrase to make people even more fearful, uncertain and doubtful. And he is well spoken enough to know how to obtain the attention of all media outlets, plus clever enough to know how to appeal to their need for quotes and images to meet the daily news cycle. But, he does all of this as the heir apparent to demagogue Senator “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy.
Mr. Trump is not a to be admired, he is not a leader, he is a demagogue. And shame on us for letting him repeat a part history we surely regret.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 4, 2015 | Current Affairs, Leadership
Tom Brady’s lawyers convinced a judge this week (9/3/15) to over-rule his four game suspension for using under-inflated footballs in playoff games. This could seem like making a mountain out of a molehill, if it wasn’t so important a statement about bad leadership.
In 1925 golf legend Bobby Jones was playing the U.S. Open when he called a penalty on himself. He claimed that as he moved his club near the ball during his set up he “felt the ball move.” The judges asked the other players if they saw anything which should cause a penalty, and they said no. The judges asked the spectators if they say the ball move, and unanimously everyone said no. So the judges told Mr. Bobby Jones that he need not call a penalty, and he should play on. But Mr. Jones said that he was sure, so he called the penalty on himself.
He lost the U.S. Open by 1 stroke. Had he not called that penalty he would have been in a playoff and may well have won. And that is the kind of thing which creates a legend. Leadership based on honor and ability.
It strains credulity to think Mr. Brady did not know he was playing with under-inflated footballs. This man has won four Superbowls, and been named most valuable player (MVP) 3 times. He is an athlete in the top 1% of professional football players. He touches the football on every play he is in the game, and he has thrown millions of passes in games and practices over his long career. Yet we are to believe he could not feel that these balls were somehow different?
I am a lousy golfer, not nearly good enough to play in amateur, much less professional, tournaments. Yet even I can tell the difference in a golf ball, which I hit with a 3 foot long stick that has a mallet on the end. Professional golfers can talk eloquently about the feel of a golf ball and how it shapes their shots.
Yet we are to believe that Mr. Brady does not have enough sense of feel in his multi-million dollar hands to notice these balls were under-inflated and thereby easier to control? Few professionals believe he did not know.
Tom Brady had his opportunity to call a penalty on himself, and he did not do it. He could have told his coaches, management or officials that the balls felt soft and this should be checked. But his desire to win kept him from pointing out something minor – but something upon which winning or losing could have turned. Then, when he was caught and it was proven he used under-inflated balls, he had the opportunity to say “this was wrong, and I will accept whatever penalty in hopes that this never happens in professional football again.” But instead he refused to accept his penalty and sued the league.
This is NOT the stuff upon which legends are made.
Mr. Brady is a role model for thousands, possibly millions, of football fans and young aspiring athletes. He had the opportunity to show great leadership. Whether Mr. Jones would have won that U.S. Open or not, he forever showed that athletic leaders should never stoop to cheating. No matter how small. Not only by winning golf tournaments did Mr. Jones become a leader, but by his behavior he demonstrated leadership requires honesty, integrity and trust.
As head of the NFL, Mr. Roger Goodell has used this experience to reinforce the better parts of athletic competition. He tried to demonstrate a commitment to athletic leadership and fairness. He did not ban Mr. Brady from the sport, but rather told him he must sit out 4 games for his error in judgement as a leader. This is not unreasonable, and Mr. Goodell gave Mr. Brady an opportunity to demonstrate leadership, and his own commitment to the principles of good leadership.
Mr. Brady could have used this opportunity to help himself, his teammates, his coaches and everyone who watches sports understand the role of a leader. But instead, he chose to argue for the concept of win at any cost. He will forever be remembered as someone who probably cheated, when perhaps cheating was not even necessary to win. And he will be remembered for promoting to millions of fans and followers that winning at any cost – even if you have to go to court – is more important than demonstrating good leadership.
When leaders think they are beyond punishment, bad things happen. Look at Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom, Dennis Koslowski at Tyco and Jeffrey Skilling at Enron. To them winning was all that mattered. They hurt millions of employees, customers, suppliers and investors with such hubris. They were bad leaders, and bad role models. While Mr. Brady will not go to jail, his role in teaching bad leadership principles is fully entrenched – and likely will affect many more future leaders than the worst American business has thus far produced.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 2, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Bernie Ebbers (of WorldCom) and Jeff Skilling (of Enron) went to prison. Less well known is Conrad Black – the CEO of Sun Times Group – who also went to the pokey. What do they have in common with Rupert Murdoch – besides CEO titles? The famous claim, “I am not responsible” closely allied with “I’ve done nothing wrong.” While Murdoch hasn’t been charged with crimes, or come close to jail (yet,) there is no doubt people at News Corp have been charged, and some will go to jail. And there is public outcry Murdoch be fired.
Investors should take note; three bankruptcies killed 2 of the organizations the ex-cons led and investors were wiped out at Sun Times which barely remains in business. What will happen at News Corp? Given the commonalities between the 4 leaders, I don’t think I’d want to be a News Corp. stockholder, employee or supplier right now.
How in the world could something like this happen?
Like the infamous trio, Rupert Murdoch was, and is, a leader who defined the success formula of his company. As time passed, the growing organization became adroit at implementing the success formula, operating better, faster and cheaper. Loyal managers, who identified with, and implemented intensely, the success formula were rewarded. Those who asked questions were let go. Acquisitions were forced to conform to the success formula (such as MySpace) even if such conformance created a gap between the business and market needs. Business failure was not nearly as bad as operating outside the success formula. Failure could be forgiven – but better yet was finding a creative way to make things look successful.
Supporting the company’s success formula – its identity, cultural norms and operating methods – using all forms of ingenuity became the definition of success in these companies. This ingenuity was unbridled, even rewarded! Even when it came to skirting the edge of – or even breaking – the law. Cleverly using outsiders to do “dirty work” was an ingenious way to create plausible deniability. Financial machinations were not considered a problem if there was any way to explain changes. Violating accounting conventions not really an issue if done in the pursuit of shoring up reported results. Moving money wherever necessary to avoid taxes, or fines, and pay off executives or their friends, not really a big deal if it helped the company implement its success formula. Any behavior that reinforced the success formula, as the leader expressed it, made employees and contractors successful.
Do the ends justify the means? Of course! As long as the results appear good, and the leader is taking home a whopping amount of cash, everything appears “A-OK.”
Is this because these are crooks? Far from it. Rather, they are dedicated, hard working, industrious, smart, inventive managers who have been given a clear mission. To make the success formula work. Each small step down the ethical gangplank was a very small increment – and everyone believed they operated far from the end. If they got away with something yesterday, then why not expect to get away with a little more today? What are ethics anyway? Relative, changeable, difficult to define. Whereas fulfilling the success formula creates clear, measurable outcomes!
What is the News Corp’s Board of Directors position? The New York Times headlined “Murdoch’s Board Stands By as Scandal Widens.” Mr. Murdoch, like any good leader implementing a success formula, made sure the Board, as well as the executives and managers, were as dedicated to the success formula as he. Through that lens there are no difficult questions facing the Board. Everything was done to defend and extend the success formula. Mr. Murdoch and his team have done nothing wrong – except perhaps a zealous pursuit of implementation. What’s wrong with that? Why should the Board object?
Could this happen to you, and your organization? It may already be happening.
Answer this option, what’s more important to you and your company:
- Focusing on and identifying market trends, and adapting your strategy, tactics, products, services and processes to align with emerging future trends, or
- Focusing on execution. Setting goals, holding people to metrics and making sure implementation remains true to the company’s history, strengths and core capabilities, customers and markets? Rewarding those who meet metrics, and firing those who don’t?
If it’s the latter, it’s an easy slide into Murdoch’s very uncomfortable public seat. Very few will end up with an Enron Sized Disaster, as BNET.com headlined. But failure is likely. Any time execution is more important than questioning, implementation is more important than listening and conforming to historical norms is more important than actual business results you are chasing the select group of leaders exemplified today by Mr. Murdoch.
Here are 10 questions to ask if you want to know how at risk you just might be. If even a couple of these ring “yes,” you could be confidently, but errantly, thinking everything is OK :
- Is loyalty more important than business results? Do you have people working for you that don’t do that good a job, but do exactly what you want so you keep them?
- Do you hold certain aspects of your business as being beyond challenge – such as technology base, meeting key metrics, supporting historical distributors (or customers) or operating according to specified “rules?”
- Do you ask employees to operate according to norms before asking if they have a better idea?
- Does HR tell employees how to do things rather than asking employees what they need to succeed?
- Do employee and manager reviews have a section for asking how well they “fit” into the organization? Are people pushed out that don’t “fit?”
- Are “trusted lieutenants” moved into powerful positions over talented managers just because leaders aren’t comfortable with the newer people?
- Are certain functions (finance, HR, IT) expected (perhaps enforcers?) to make sure everyone operates according to the historical status quo?
- Is management meeting time spent predominantly on internal, versus external, issues? Talking about “how to do it” rather than “what should we do?”
- Is your advisory board, or Board of Directors, filled with your friends and co-workers that agree with your success formula and don’t seek change?
- Do your customers, employees, or suppliers learn that demonstrating dissatisfaction leads to a bad (or ended) relationship?
by Adam Hartung | Jul 12, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
What do Tony Hayward, Jeff Skilling and Bernard Ebbers possibly have in common? They all might end up convicted felons.
While this may sound ridiculous, and very, very scary to corporate CEOs, nobody expected Skilling, the CEO of Enron, or Ebbers, the CEO of Worldcom, to go to jail. They were hailed as heros, and admired for their leadership of large, high growth companies. Yet, Ebbers is waiting out a 25 year sentence, convicted of acting illegally in the value destruction at Worldcom (CNNMoney.com “Ebbers Gets 25 Years.”) And Skilling is working on a 24 year sentence for the downfall of Enron (CNNMoney.com “Skilling Gets 24 Years.”)
Now, BusinessWeek.com is asking if the same fate awaits Tony Hayward in “The Oil Spill: Will BP Face Criminal Charges?“ As the spill goes on and on, and the damages increase, the public sentiment against BP is increasing. If the spill goes around Florida to the east coast there will be millions more citizens, and businesses, affected. It is clear that many laws were broken, as the article lays out. So it’s not a mute question that an aggressive prosecutor would go after imprisoning Hayward.
As reprehensible as many may find each of these 3 men, how did they end up facing criminal prosecution? Even The Washington Post has asked “Did Jeff Skilling Do Anything Illegal?“ A Harvard MBA and former McKinsey partner, Mr. Skilling calmly described the practices at Enron completely unapologitically. He was certain he’d done nothing wrong. Mr. Ebbers was a devout Christian and Sunday School teacher who claimed all through the trial and to reporters on the way to jail he’d done nothing wrong. I’m sure Mr. Hayward believes similarly.
What all 3 did was simply push the Success Formula too far. Worldcom, Enron and BP were wildly successful companies. They created Success Formulas that earned billions of dollars. For years they grew. But unfortunately, they kept trying to push the Success Formula to better results when market shifts left that formula earning lower returns. Rather than recognize that lower returns were an indication of a Success Formula needing change, they dug in their heals and “got creative” in Defending & Extending it. They used “best practices” to lower costs, and to seek out financial machinations which would allow the business to look more profitable – even as they undertook more, and more risk.
To them, taking risk rather than change the Success Formula wasn’t thought of as risk. They were out to protect something they felt had to be protected, at all cost. The Success Formula that had made money for years, enriching not only themselves but investors, employees and suppliers. They were blind to the added risk, because it was assumed that doing incrementally more was the “right thing to do” for the company. They were doing what they believed were “best practices” for the “health” of their companies.
Defending a Success Formula can become very risky, as I wrote in Forbes “BP’s Only Hope For Its Future.” Years of doing the same thing, only more, better, faster, cheaper, makes it harder and harder to do something different. The culture and decision-making systems are designed, and modified — Locked-in — to push employees to make the same decision over and over, regardless of risk. In BPs case we now know that cheaper parts and practices were employed to improve profitability – something each employee felt was in the company’s best interest. Only, in the end, it served to layer risk upon risk – and lead to an eventual disaster.
Are you “doubling down” on risk in your business? Are you investing more and more into trying to improve returns in a business that is earning less and less – and growing less and less? If so, you could be setting yourself up for disaster as well. Let’s hope in doing so you don’t run afoul of the law. 25 years in prison is a hefty price to pay for spending too much energy “focused on your core” business at a time when you should be looking for new ways to expand and grow where the risks are less.
