management titles - selected excerpts

1

Learn. earn.Lead. Succeed.

a SampLer of management bookS from paLgrave profeSSionaL buSineSS

Selected Excerpts from:all above board

nice companies finish firstthe proactive Leader

conquering global marketsbuilding resilience for Success

How excellent companies avoid dumb things

Palgrave Professional Business books are written by the best minds in business, combining topical writing, cutting

edge research and strong industry case studies.

In this sampler we have included chapters from our recently published Management and Leadership books. From the aspiring leader to the experienced CEO, these essential

books will help you overcome challenges and lead teams and organisations with confidence.

To order any of these books, please visit www.palgrave.com and enter the promo code WORLDPALGRAVE20

to receive a 20% discount.

COntEnts

All Above Board Ulf Lindgren

nice Companies Finish First Peter Shankman

the Proactive Leader David de Cremer

Conquering Global Markets Nancy A. Hubbard

Building Resilience for success Cary Cooper, Jill Flint-Taylor and Michael Pearn

How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb things Neil Smith and Patricia O’Connell

3

16

23

31

46

54

Order at www.palgrave.com. Enter code WORLDPALGRAVE20 to receive a 20% discount.

3

9781137264251 | August US / July UK 2013$40 | $46 CAN | £26Hardback | 188 pages

Based on unique access interviews with leading chairmen and senior executives, All Above Board examines the key functions of the ideal 21st century board, how and why badly led boards fail, and what changes can be made to improve board behavior and effi ciency for best practice.

4 • An Excerpt from All Above Board

6

CHAPTER 2

The board of the future

The board of directors: the ‘hidden asset’

Should the boards of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, General Motors, Northern Rock, Saab Automobile, Beyond Petroleum and others have been able to avoid the disasters that subsequently hit these corporations? Could their boards have been much more proactive at an earlier stage so as to lead the companies into different and more sustainable stra-tegic avenues and business models?

Although it is obvious that the boards alone cannot be blamed for these crises, we can debate whether they should have been able to guide the corporations into strategic actions and paths to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

In many corporations, the Board of Directors are simply not performing to their full potential. Observing the corporate board composition of most large companies around the world, it is clear that they consist of very prominent and experienced members, often with vast personal contact networks, man-agement experience, customer inroads and indisputable skill sets. Why is it that this ‘Hidden Asset’ is not used to deliver the results it surely has the potential for?

Are shareholders not paying enough attention to the perform-ance of the board? Or are there built-in flaws in the internal procedures of the board itself that keep it from performing to its full potential? Perhaps the boards simply focus on the


5An Excerpt from All Above Board • 5

7The board of the future

wrong things, too much on regulatory and legal issues, finan-cial reporting and compliance issues versus too little focus on strategy and value creation, and challenging the CEO and his/her top team’s strategy and goals.

One team

In the ideal world, if we were free to design and find the opti-mal Board Team, we would look to a set of imperatives when making the selections:

Boards would appoint members who complement each • other, bring key skills and expertise to the board and enhance quality and accuracy of decision making. Cultural and gen-der diversity should also be part of the profile definition. Boards must make everyone understand that they all serve • the interest of the Company; they are not selected to look after self and factional interests, and they must be commit-ted to giving the CEO and his team their full support. Boards must avoid involving members who cannot listen • and/or who like to listen only to themselves. How many times are boards forced to sit in and listen to the ‘Monologue of Director X’ who can go on forever until another director or the chairman forces him/her to stop? Boards must avoid drawing on the ‘Old Boys Network’. This • network, when it exists, is often biased towards one indus-try, gender, geography, and so on. The board must stay clear from the ‘club atmosphere’ and develop high stand-ards of professionalism and effectiveness. It also should stay free from ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ syndromes. The relationship between the CEO and the chairman • is a key imperative for all boards to promote; without a well-functioning chairman to CEO interaction, the board’s work is doomed to fail. Bearing in mind that the CEO reports to the chairman, as well as the fact that the ultimate responsibility of the board and thus its chairman, is to hire


8 All above board

and fire the CEO, this requires that the roles and tasks of these two ‘captains’ must be clearly defined and executed upon. Chairman and CEO should never be the same person. They • must be assigned to two people with complementary skills and profiles, and with a personal chemistry that benefits their relationship. Finally, it is ultimately the task of the chairman to promote the ‘One Team’ spirit and modus operandi. By setting the standards and following up on individual board member performance, he/she can actively promote and build a board consisting of team players who set the Company’s interests first and their own aspirations and objectives later.

Agenda and strategy

Far too often, board meetings are spent on issues far removed from what is of strategic importance to the Company. Meetings become filled up by operational items and with legal and com-pliance issues, and so on. Sometimes a whole board meeting can be devoted to presentations by many (sometimes all) of the top executives of the firm. These ‘Powerpoint Waterfalls’ can prove to be destructive for strategic decision making. Too many times the agenda is drawn up in haste without any stra-tegic focus in mind. How many times are the same agenda items from the last meetings just copied over to be used for the next one?

Many formal issues can be circulated and subsequently dealt with beforehand, such as legal and financial reporting issues. Here the board must require more proactive work from the CFO and the Chief Legal Officer respectively.

The chairman seems to have the task to put together an agenda with a strategic focus, perhaps assisted by the President/CEO. However, it is important to stress that the chairman must not ‘abdicate’ the task of driving the agenda-setting process. The agenda determines the content and the quality of the board




meeting, and thus is imperative for the entire functionality of the board. This is a factor that is often overlooked and forgot-ten. The chairman must be prepared to say ‘no’ to requests for putting various non-strategic and legal issues on the agenda. This enables the board to stay focused on strategic decision making and not turn the meeting into a ‘discussion club’ lack-ing focus and without deliverables.

The committees

Many boards today operate a set of board sub-committees such as the Nominating Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Risk Committee, and sometimes even a Chairman’s Committee.

When structured and defined in the right way, committee work can be of great help for the chairman to leverage time to stay focused at the main board meetings. Committees can be both helpful and enhance the effectiveness of the board, including contributing to significantly better decisions. But committees can easily become isolated ‘silos’ giving them-selves specific, and non-strategic, narrow mandates. The risk of creating unnecessary filters and bureaucracy cannot be over-stressed. Instead of freeing up and leveraging the time for effective board work, committees can seriously add to sclero-sis and prohibit action-oriented execution of board decisions, which must be avoided at all cost.

Our research indicates that in some cases, the Chairman’s Committee had become the real board, that is, where the real strategic decisions were being made. This can be a faster route to decision making, but it is risky, as it reduces the signifi-cance of the main board itself. The role and mandate of each committee must be made clear to everyone, and at all costs they must be stopped from becoming ‘silos’.

We recommend that the chairman meets with each such sub-committee beforehand and that he/she gives a summary of


10 All above board

the key recommendations to the board; not the sub-committee itself who could be expected to sometimes lose proper context.

Overall, given that committees must be put in place as required by the law, they should be used intelligently. However, if we were to have our way, we would rather not have them at all.

Board and innovations

Innovation is essential to the firm’s long-term success. Regardless of industry and business situation, businesses must constantly strive for innovations and new ideas to develop key products and services to target customer groups. Innovations allow us to charge higher prices.

Innovations lead to growth and create the market by driving demand for new solutions. The board is essential to pushing for innovation. Often, the board satisfies itself that a certain amount is spent on Research & Development (R&D) and perhaps that a certain part of total revenue comes from new products. However, a healthy strategy calls for more.

The board must ask and push for examples, and constantly discuss with the management team how the key products are being ‘innovated on’ to satisfy the target customer group’s requirements. These are the issues that should be on the board’s agenda. The discussion should not be on general long-term R&D, but rather on what is really ‘new’. How well are we meeting key customer’s demands for new solutions and services?

This requires a thorough understanding of customer needs and a willingness by board members to learn more about key customers and their requirements, as well as their will-ingness to spend more on truly unique solutions. Successful board members tend to grasp the underlying customer eco-nomics, that is, how the solutions that the company is offering




impact on the economics of the customer’s business model. How many times does the CEO bring board members to key customer meetings? Such initiatives should be part of every board member’s learning process when he/she joins the board of the company.

Challenge the paradigm

A vital imperative for the board must be to challenge the way the company conducts its business, how value is being cre-ated, and how resources are being deployed. Are we really doing the right things? And, are they being done in the right way?

The board must be prepared and willing to ‘think big’, to stretch the business beyond its traditional boundaries in terms of business model, performance goals, and so on.

Most companies live under some form of reigning ‘paradigm’, the mantra through which its business is carried out. The best leaders tend to challenge such accepted ‘truths’ and continue to push for new and breakthrough initiatives. This is what we believe a board should be doing: to constantly challenge the paradigm, to stretch the limits and to strive for excellence in every aspect of the company’s business.

This could imply developing new and disruptive business models, either from within the existing strategic scope of the company or let it emerge as a separate business model in a dual structure. Few boards seem to have the courage and con-viction necessary to engage in such bold strategic moves.

We have seen examples where the chairman is pushing his fellow directors to approach the boundaries of the business, to stimulate and encourage management to ‘think-out-of-the-box’, and have achieved astonishingly good results. But it has been based on a high degree of mutual respect and exchange of views; typically, the board has been turned into


12 All above board

a true ‘meeting place’ where ideas and views are being openly presented and debated, the challenger of the status quo is not being branded a ‘villain’ by his/her peers, but rather is shown respect and an open-minded reception of such suggestions for new and ground-breaking thinking. This is what we have seen happen at some truly world class boards, under the strong and visionary leadership of a non-conformist chairman.

At the same time, many existing corporations are being chal-lenged by new entrants adopting new and disruptive tech-nologies, and sometimes entire new business models. We see this happening in financial services, airlines, retail, and other sectors. Again, the board must act as a catalyst for new think-ing and constantly challenge its CEO and his/her team to be watching out for these ‘new kids on the block’. There are too many examples of how strong companies have been brought down because of lack of insight about new trends and ideas; how they miss out on being a ‘learning organization’ and live on based on their past successes. Here the chairman has a great responsibility to foster a never-ending search for strate-gic excellence.

Pursuing the performance-based culture: creating the ‘gap’

There is a clear pattern that many boards tend to be satisfied with the existing way things are being done, as long as the performance of the business is in line with what other com-parable businesses are doing. Yet, truly successful companies go beyond that and their boards tend to be asking for even more all the time. They are never satisfied to be ‘as good as the best’. As one chairman put it to us: ‘Benchmarking is for losers. The winners are those who create the Gap.’

This form of active and demanding leader is what makes the difference between winners and losers, those who create the ‘Gap’ and those who are satisfied in trying to fill it. But it is




not enough to never be satisfied and push for more; the board must be so well prepared that when it asks management to go back and improve their results and plans, it must understand more about why and how this could be done than sometimes even the management itself. This requires reliable and fast information along with its interpretation. This is the level of excellence that a board should strive for in a world-class cor-poration today.

Only then will the constant challenging of the results pre-sented by the CEO and his/her team lead to changes in behav-iour and create world-class results. Such mutual respect exists in some of the successful boards we have observed creating superior results for the business that they are serving.

This successful relationship starts with the chairman and his directors. They must themselves be high performers and deliver superior results in support of the CEO and his/her Team. When this happens, we have seen how the entire organ-ization develops a culture of performance orientation. Values are aligned between the executive team and the board. Such a performance-based culture tends to remain with the organi-zation even if the board is being changed. In effect, these cor-porations have shown a constantly superior performance.

The culture of such ‘Gap’-creating organizations is character-ized by focus on speed, action and results. Fast actions are being rewarded and become a natural element in the values adopted by these successful companies.

Such ‘Quantum Leaps’ distinguish world-class companies from the rest and the winners from the losers. This can almost always be traced back to the board and its strong leadership. The next generation boards must focus on how to work better, by adopting a customer focus and by daring to challenge the eternal truths, the ‘sacred cows’ of the corporation it serves.

Ultimately, implementing this is the task of the senior execu-tive management, but the board’s role is to push for this.

1212 • An Excerpt from All Above Board14 All above board

Reality case

A day in the boardroom 1

The CEO and the Chairman are both sitting in the large con-ference room dedicated for the Group board meetings. They are putting together the last-minute reports to be attached to the board agenda document. They are also considering what to put under the agenda point ‘Other Items’.

The deputy chairman enters the board room. He has been asked to present his suggestions for such ‘Other Item’ issues to be discussed at the very end of the meeting. Not because they were not considered important, but simply because the ‘Other Item’ point was always put at the end of the agenda and thus dealt with last. The CEO then tells the chairmen that he asked two of the major business area executives, who were not board members, to prepare a brief on the state of the business in each of them and present any important points for discussion to the board.

Now, the chairman and CEO argue that there would not be enough time to deal with all of them at today’s meeting. Thus, the deputy chairman agrees to bring his suggestions back and present them at the next board meeting three months later. The deputy chairman is quite disappointed about this out-come, but accepts the decision. Obviously something impor-tant was about to be discussed, perhaps even decided, that related to the core business areas.

The board meeting is scheduled to start at 9 AM.

One by one, the other board members arrive. One board member has been travelling the entire night from the US West Coast, whereas one came in from another board meeting that he had attended in Mumbai. Both seem tired and show signs of jet lag.

Finally, all twelve board members arrive, including the two union representatives. None of the directors is a woman. The




board of this large industrial group, one of the largest compa-nies in Scandinavia, has allocated three hours for the meeting. Time is important so the agenda must be followed very strictly.

The chairman opens the meeting and goes on to the first item, ‘Minutes from the Last Meeting’. Forty-five minutes later, this item is finally put to the minutes and the chairman goes on to Agenda Item number two; ‘Results for the 2nd Quarter 2011’. Here the CFO enters and starts handling the remote control for his long presentation, including eighteen slides.

He goes through the quarterly results and asks the board to approve the results as they were presented. The CFO had sent out the financial results to the board members the previous day so they could have a chance to review the data. However, as most of them had been travelling to come to the meetings, this was not the case for all of them. As a result, the financial presen-tation and discussion takes almost forty-five minutes as well.

The next item on the agenda is to approve a set of legal docu-ments. These are presented by the Group Legal Officer. They relate to two foreign acquisitions where share purchase agree-ments have been signed subject to board approval. As with the financial reports, the legal department has sent the signed agreements to each board member ahead of the meeting. Nevertheless, the Group Legal Officer has to ask each board member for questions and comments.

One board member, who previously had been critical to the pro-posed growth initiative for this specific business area, is occu-pied by the guarantees that were included in the acquisition agreements. He insists on a review of the warranties by another legal expert, as he views them as too weak for the purchaser, that is, this group. After a discussion, this request is rejected by the rest of the board. The agreements are approved.

Now the Chairman suggests a five minute break. By the time the board reconvenes, it is already 11:05 AM.

After the break, the CEO presents the head of the second largest business area of the group. He tells the board that they


16 All above board

have prepared an overview of the strategic situation of the business. The business area head starts on what turns out to be a thirty minute presentation of his division. As this is the segment where one of the two acquisitions has been made, the board member who had previously expressed his concerns and objection to prioritizing this specific part of the group’s business again raises his voice.

‘I want this board to approve to appoint a strategy consultant to carefully review this business area’, he explains . ‘ I have discussed with one of the world’s leading consulting companies, and they have agreed to submit a proposal to the board for a strategy review that they could start right before the summer holidays’.

As everyone on the board was aware of this particular board member’s critical view regarding this business segment, they are not surprised, but still the Chairman did not expect that such a request would come up. Therefore, he is not prepared for such a proposal from this board member.

As the discussion of the proposed strategy review lasts for almost a quarter of an hour, the Chairman has to take the matter to a vote. Time is running out and the end of the meet-ing quickly approaches. The result of the vote is a clear ‘no’ to the proposed study. The only director in favour of the motion is the board member proposing the study himself.

With only ten minutes left of the meeting, the Chairman now moves on to the last agenda item, ‘Other Items’. Just one such item remains on the agenda as the two additional items pre-pared by the deputy chairman have already been removed from today’s meeting.

Before the meeting went on to the Other Item issue, one sen-ior board member who has flown in from the US that same morning, asks the CEO, ‘When is my taxi coming to pick me up for the airport?’

Finally, the last item on the agenda starts. The CEO presents his plans for engaging in a dialogue with a couple of private




equity firms regarding the possible sale of one of the six remaining business areas, at least of one of the two separate units forming part of the business area. This is a plan that had come out of the strategy meeting that the group board had held during the meeting earlier in the spring. No decision has been made, however, the CEO has prepared a preliminary assessment of potential valuation of the business, and is ask-ing the board to approve of the appointment of an investment bank to be in charge of the divestment process.

By the time the CEO finishes his presentation, the Chairman looks at his watch and has to finish the meeting. It is now 12:10 PM, and they are ten minutes late. One board member whose taxi had been ordered to pick him up at noon sharp, has already excused himself and left the meeting room.

The chairman announces the time and place of the next meet-ing, and the board meeting is concluded with his wishes for a great summer for everyone. Everybody leaves the head office of the company in a hurry.

Lessons to be learned

Reality case: ‘A Morning in the Boardroom’

Important and relevant material must be documented and • distributed well in advance of the meeting. Only items pre-announced to the Chairman must be brought • up during the board meeting session. Individual board members cannot be allowed to use the • board for his/her agenda. Presentations by executive management must be focused • and decision-oriented. Start the board meeting with ‘Other Items’ (at least to try • it out).

16

1What’s so great about being a

niCe guy?

“Be the change you want to see.”

—Gandhi

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 1 2/1/13 10:46 AM

not too long ago i was standing in line at the airport wait-

ing to check in. The whole experience of flying has been

severely downgraded over the last 20 years, from glamor-

ous and exciting to dismal and depressing, not to mention incon-

venient and uncomfortable. so i wasn’t really all that surprised

to see the person in front of me, a normal-looking guy in a suit,

throw a tantrum that would put an overly tired, sugar-infused

three-year-old to shame. i know you’ve seen this before: Tantrum

Guy wasn’t getting his way. Didn’t the airline rep know who he

was? He should get the seat he wanted. Why wasn’t he getting

bumped up to business class? everyone at the airline was a jerk.

He was important. He had to get to a Vip meeting. The ticketing

agent remained stoic during his unconstrained tirade.

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 3 2/1/13 10:46 AM

9780230341890 | March US / April UK 2013$26 | $30 CAN | £16.99Hardback | 256 pages

In Nice Companies Finish First, Peter Shankman, a pioneer in modern PR, marketing, advertising, social media, and customer service, profi les the famously nice executives, entrepreneurs, and companies that are setting the standard for success in this new collaborative world.


17An Excerpt from Nice Companies Finish First • 17

1What’s so great about being a

niCe guy?

“Be the change you want to see.”

—Gandhi

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 1 2/1/13 10:46 AM

not too long ago i was standing in line at the airport wait-

ing to check in. The whole experience of flying has been

severely downgraded over the last 20 years, from glamor-

ous and exciting to dismal and depressing, not to mention incon-

venient and uncomfortable. so i wasn’t really all that surprised

to see the person in front of me, a normal-looking guy in a suit,

throw a tantrum that would put an overly tired, sugar-infused

three-year-old to shame. i know you’ve seen this before: Tantrum

Guy wasn’t getting his way. Didn’t the airline rep know who he

was? He should get the seat he wanted. Why wasn’t he getting

bumped up to business class? everyone at the airline was a jerk.

He was important. He had to get to a Vip meeting. The ticketing

agent remained stoic during his unconstrained tirade.

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 3 2/1/13 10:46 AM

1818 • An Excerpt from Nice Companies Finish First

4 niCe CoMPanies Finish First

The most powerful leaders are almost always the role models for the change

they seek.

We’ve all been witness to this kind of embarrassment at one

time or another. i just shook my head, rolled my eyes, and briefly

made eye contact with the agent. None of my fellow passenger’s

perceived problems was the fault of the agent, who was, of course,

just doing her job amidst her own problems, like bills to pay, an

annoying supervisor, or a kid on the verge of becoming a teenager.

still, Tantrum Guy didn’t give a thought to any of this. To him,

the agent had ceased to be human and instead became the vessel

into which he poured all of his petty aggravations and frustra-

tions. in reality, the agent continued to be patient and polite, and

then she dispatched him as quickly as possible, all while he con-

tinued to whine and complain loudly.

“Well. . . . That sucked.” i smiled as i got up to her. “i give

you a lot of credit for letting him leave with his teeth.” i grinned.

“i hope your day gets better from here.”

“Thank you, mr. shankman,” she said as she smiled back.

“How can i help you today?”

“oh, i just need to check in, and with any luck, you won’t

have to deal with any more idiots of that caliber today.”

and with that i was upgraded to first class.

lesson number one: it pays to be a nice guy. second: always

stand behind a pompous ass whenever possible. your niceness

will be thrown into dramatic high relief.

There’s no way to institutionalize or “corporatize” niceness—it comes from the

top person and permeates a place.

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 4 2/1/13 10:46 AM

What’s so great about being a niCe guy? 5

let me tell you another story. i have a colleague who worked

for a big corporation more than 20 years ago. That’s a lifetime in

working terms. she had a boss who could be very cutting—it was

a management style that defined her, in fact. she pitted the mem-

bers of her team against each other so that they often worked at

cross-purposes. That was bad enough, but the offhand insults she

threw at them were perhaps the most harmful of all. Words sting.

especially when they come from a supervisor.

at any rate, one day my colleague was asked to re-do a report

done by a person in another department. she took on the chal-

lenge and did her best. “i felt very proud of that report,” she said.

“But when i showed it to my boss, instead of sensing my pride

and thanking me at least for the effort, she said, ‘you’re not that

good at this,’” referring to the analysis my friend had put into

the report. “i carried those words with me for 20-plus years,” my

friend told me. “They were always in the back of my mind, even

though i had gone way beyond that job.” in fact, today she is a

very successful consultant whose insightful analysis of markets is

in huge demand.

“one day i was minding my business, and my old boss wanted

to friend me on Facebook,” she said. “i thought, okay, i’m cu-

rious. But i couldn’t help but be reminded of the way she had

treated me—and my colleagues. i posted the revelation of how

awful it had been on my page, without mentioning her name.

even though she recognized herself and apologized, it seemed

very hollow to me. What was more interesting was the many re-

sponses i got from Facebook friends—how it resonated. so many

of us have been hurt by bosses, people who we want desperately

to trust.” This isn’t an unusual story—carrying around the toxic

spew of a bad boss affects too many people. The difference is that

nowadays we have the chance to announce it to the world.

These incidents got me thinking. i’m a serial entrepreneur, a

ceo, and an avid student of brands and marketing, so i tend to

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 5 2/1/13 10:46 AM


19An Excerpt from Nice Companies Finish First • 19


let me tell you another story. i have a colleague who worked

for a big corporation more than 20 years ago. That’s a lifetime in

working terms. she had a boss who could be very cutting—it was

a management style that defined her, in fact. she pitted the mem-

bers of her team against each other so that they often worked at

cross-purposes. That was bad enough, but the offhand insults she

threw at them were perhaps the most harmful of all. Words sting.

especially when they come from a supervisor.

at any rate, one day my colleague was asked to re-do a report

done by a person in another department. she took on the chal-

lenge and did her best. “i felt very proud of that report,” she said.

“But when i showed it to my boss, instead of sensing my pride

and thanking me at least for the effort, she said, ‘you’re not that

good at this,’” referring to the analysis my friend had put into

the report. “i carried those words with me for 20-plus years,” my

friend told me. “They were always in the back of my mind, even

though i had gone way beyond that job.” in fact, today she is a

very successful consultant whose insightful analysis of markets is

in huge demand.

“one day i was minding my business, and my old boss wanted

to friend me on Facebook,” she said. “i thought, okay, i’m cu-

rious. But i couldn’t help but be reminded of the way she had

treated me—and my colleagues. i posted the revelation of how

awful it had been on my page, without mentioning her name.

even though she recognized herself and apologized, it seemed

very hollow to me. What was more interesting was the many re-

sponses i got from Facebook friends—how it resonated. so many

of us have been hurt by bosses, people who we want desperately

to trust.” This isn’t an unusual story—carrying around the toxic

spew of a bad boss affects too many people. The difference is that

nowadays we have the chance to announce it to the world.

These incidents got me thinking. i’m a serial entrepreneur, a

ceo, and an avid student of brands and marketing, so i tend to

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 5 2/1/13 10:46 AM



look at life from a business perspective. it occurred to me that in

business, one of the most demonized populations around (with

good reason), nice people, actually can and do finish first despite

the conventional wisdom that says you have to be a cold, uncaring

bastard to succeed in the corner office. in other words, more and

more, nice guys do win. That’s why i always take the first meet-

ing and try to have five minutes for someone. you never know

where that first meeting will lead, and you never know what can

be accomplished in those five minutes. Understand—this doesn’t

mean i get taken advantage of. i always tell people (with a smile):

“Happy to answer a question you might have, but don’t ask me

to write your marketing plan for you.” There’s a big difference

between being nice and being taken advantage of. Good leaders

know this and work accordingly.

if you look under the hood of successful companies, you’ll

find that they are made up of people working together in an at-

mosphere that is conducive to civility and good cheer. There’s no

way to institutionalize or “corporatize” niceness—your Hr de-

partment is never going to come up with a management structure

that magically creates a collegial atmosphere. it has to come from

the top, and from there it will filter down through managers, su-

pervisors, staffers, and so on (the same can be true of a negative

atmosphere).

i’m not just talking about making your business the top in

its sector, exceeding sales expectations, or making boatloads of

money. First of all, nice ceos can (and do) make great business

and plenty of dough (richard Branson at Virgin, shantaul Na-

rayen at adobe, and Kenneth chenault at american express, to

name a few). Nice guys have a constant competitive advantage

over their nasty counterparts, as illustrated by my airport story.

Versions of that same scenario play out every single day, and

not just in terms of the ceo who yells at his assistant, but also

with the ceo who refuses to answer shareholder questions, who

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 6 2/1/13 10:46 AM


21 An Excerpt from Nice Companies Finish First • 21


cheats employees out of bonuses, or who treats stakeholders and

the community like dirt.

There’s a growing body of research indicating that bad bosses

hamper productivity, which results in smaller profits and lost

business. University of Florida researchers found that people who

work for abusive bosses are more likely to arrive late, do less

work, and take more sick days even though they may be physi-

cally fine. Wayne Hochwarter, an associate professor of manage-

ment at the Florida state University college of Business, and his

colleagues interviewed more than 700 people from a variety of

industries about the treatment they received from their managers.

The results were dismal:

• 31 percent reported that their supervisor gave them the

“silent treatment” during the year.

• 37 percent said that their supervisor failed to give credit

when due.

• 39 percent noted that their supervisor didn’t keep

promises.

• 27 percent told the researchers that they had discovered

that their supervisor made negative comments about them

to other employees or managers.

• 24 percent reported that their supervisor invaded their

privacy.

• 23 percent indicated that their supervisor blamed others

to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.

according to the researchers, this kind of employee–manager

abusive relationship resulted in a workforce that “experienced

more exhaustion, job tension, nervousness, depressed mood and

mistrust.” These workers were also less likely to take on addi-

tional tasks, such as working longer or on weekends, and were

generally less satisfied with their jobs. also, employees were more

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 7 2/1/13 10:46 AM



likely to leave if they were involved in an abusive relationship

than if they were dissatisfied with their pay—proving the old

maxim that people quit bosses, not companies.

Ultimately, strong leadership is the most important competi-

tive advantage companies have—it comes first, before technology,

finance, operations, and everything else. “Nice” ceos and man-

agers are the best leaders: run better companies, attract innovative

and more loyal employees, get into legal and regulatory trouble

far less frequently (if ever), have better relationships, get more

done, and are even healthier than the bad guys. and i can prove it.

in this book, i identify nine “nice” characteristics. i talked to

dozens of ceos, entrepreneurs, and other leaders who embody

these traits and practice them actively to very profitable effect.

my hope is that i can encourage a whole new generation of ceos,

managers, and entrepreneurs to embrace their inner nice guy (or

gal) and make it the hallmark of their business life. Who knows?

maybe a few Tantrum Guys will even change their attitudes.

read on. let’s learn about these traits—Do you identify with

any of them, either positive or negative? Do you see yourself as

a “good” ceo or a “bad” ceo? more important, how do your

employees see you?

one last story: i was sitting in a meeting with a ceo a few

years ago when an administrative assistant walked in, caught her

foot on a piece of rug that had curled up, and went down like a

lead balloon, taking with her about 200 collated but not stapled

pages. The ceo, in his thousand-dollar suit, jumped up and sat

on the floor with the admin, picking up and re-collating papers

for the next ten minutes. We all joined in as well. end result? No

harm, no foul, and no injury to anyone’s pride. That ceo had his

company acquired for about $600 million last year.

Not bad for a guy sitting on the floor collating papers.

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 8 2/1/13 10:46 AM


23


likely to leave if they were involved in an abusive relationship

than if they were dissatisfied with their pay—proving the old

maxim that people quit bosses, not companies.

Ultimately, strong leadership is the most important competi-

tive advantage companies have—it comes first, before technology,

finance, operations, and everything else. “Nice” ceos and man-

agers are the best leaders: run better companies, attract innovative

and more loyal employees, get into legal and regulatory trouble

far less frequently (if ever), have better relationships, get more

done, and are even healthier than the bad guys. and i can prove it.

in this book, i identify nine “nice” characteristics. i talked to

dozens of ceos, entrepreneurs, and other leaders who embody

these traits and practice them actively to very profitable effect.

my hope is that i can encourage a whole new generation of ceos,

managers, and entrepreneurs to embrace their inner nice guy (or

gal) and make it the hallmark of their business life. Who knows?

maybe a few Tantrum Guys will even change their attitudes.

read on. let’s learn about these traits—Do you identify with

any of them, either positive or negative? Do you see yourself as

a “good” ceo or a “bad” ceo? more important, how do your

employees see you?

one last story: i was sitting in a meeting with a ceo a few

years ago when an administrative assistant walked in, caught her

foot on a piece of rug that had curled up, and went down like a

lead balloon, taking with her about 200 collated but not stapled

pages. The ceo, in his thousand-dollar suit, jumped up and sat

on the floor with the admin, picking up and re-collating papers

for the next ten minutes. We all joined in as well. end result? No

harm, no foul, and no injury to anyone’s pride. That ceo had his

company acquired for about $600 million last year.

Not bad for a guy sitting on the floor collating papers.

978-0-230-34189-0_Shankman.indb 8 2/1/13 10:46 AM

9781137290267 | July US / June UK 2013$32 | $46 CAN | £19.99Hardback | 146 pages

Too many decisions are taken too slowly or not at all because of the dithering behavior of our leaders. Using case studies of well-known leaders, David De Cremer explores decisions they have made and actions they have taken to show where procrastination and inaction has caused failure, and what can be learnt from these examples. Full of practical checklists and tools, The Proactive Leader explains why people delay decisions, and how to manage this behavior in yourself and your teams.

2424 • An Excerpt from The Proactive Leader

CHAPTER 5

The consequences of delayingdecisions

We all want to make progress. We humans are learning organisms andwe have a tendency to evaluate our existence in terms of growth andprofit. Finding the strength to continually improve is therefore one ofthe things that we look for in life. Any opportunities that present them-selves must be seized with both hands. It is built into our DNA that wewant to go further, faster and higher. Viewed from this perspective, itis little wonder that a failure to take decisions is equated with failureand ineffectiveness. Procrastination and avoidance are not compatiblewith our fundamental human instinct to keep moving forward. Leaderswho are unable to satisfy this basic instinct will not be long tolerated intheir role as representative of the group. If you cannot win approval andsupport from your followers, your career as a leader is destined to be ashort one.

Procrastination can indeed lead to all kinds of unpleasant conse-quences for a leader, ranging from financial difficulties to career andhealth problems. Just as seriously, the delaying or avoidance of deci-sions can have far-reaching consequences for followers as well. Butwhat exactly are these consequences?

Financial consequences

It will come as no surprise to learn that people who have difficultyin controlling their impulses often end up with financial problems.The relationship between an inability to act and negative financialconsequences is clearly present in our society. A famous study con-ducted in Chicago provided direct proof that a tendency to procrastinateundermines your financial results.96,97 In this study of a group ofMBA students it was found that they had the possibility to win 300dollars by playing a series of games. Once the games were over, thestudents were given a choice with regard to their winnings. They could

85


25An Excerpt from The Proactive Leader • 25

86 The Proactive Leader

either immediately receive a cheque for the 300 dollars or they couldwait for two weeks, in which case they would receive a larger amount.Most of the students took the first option – immediate payment. Therewas nothing wrong with this, of course, but it was curious to note thatthese students, who wanted their money up front, then took an averageof four weeks before actually cashing their cheque in the bank! If theyhad waited just two weeks they would have automatically got a largersum from the test organisers, but the majority rejected this offer. Thiswould have been a perfectly rational strategy, if they had cashed theircheque immediately, but by postponing their action they actually lostout financially!

Your financial strength can also be diminished if your career does notrun as smoothly as you had hoped. In his excellent book about procras-tination, Piers Steel observes that people who delay decisions or put offaction are generally less successful.98 The large majority of procrasti-nators (63%) perform under the average level for what can usually beregarded as a successful career. In other words, leaders who procras-tinate will in general perform less well than leaders who can resist orcontrol this temptation. For this reason, it is vital that leaders who havethe opportunity to grow within an organisation are coached in a mannerthat helps them to understand the importance of self-control as a keyelement in their leadership make-up.

Another way of demonstrating that procrastinating behaviour canhave serious financial consequences is to look at the costs it cre-ates for society. Let’s take, for example, the negative results of suchbehaviour for organisations in European countries like Belgium and theNetherlands (for organisations in the United States, see the excellentbook by Piers Steel). The findings alone are staggering. If we look atthe total working population in both countries and then calculate theiraverage earnings on the basis of an eight-hour day, the figures tell asombre story. Based on statistics for 2010, there were 7,785,000 peo-ple at work in the Netherlands, with an average gross annual salaryof 34,600 euros. The average number of working hours per year was1703 hours. The researchers estimated that for each 8-hour day, no lessthan 25% of the time – 2 hours per day or 414 hours each year – isspent exhibiting procrastinating behaviour. A little simple arithmetictells us that the average gross salary per hour in the Netherlands in2010 was 20.31 euros (34,600/1703), and that the total cost of procras-tinating behaviour was therefore 8408.34 euros per employee (20.31× 414) or 65,458,926,900 euros (8408.34 × 7,785,000) for the nation

2626 • An Excerpt from The Proactive LeaderThe consequences of delaying decisions 87

as a whole. And what of their neighbours? In Belgium in 2010 therewere some 3,859,000 people in active employment, earning an averagegross salary of 35,232 euros. Using the same parameters of 1703 work-ing hours per year and 2 hours of procrastinating behaviour per day,this gives a total annual loss of a massive 33,038,905,680 euros. And inboth cases, these are conservative estimates – the real costs are probablymuch higher.

Health

The postponement of decisions can perhaps give a feeling of relief anda short-term benefit to health, but in the long run it will have a negativeeffect on the physical and mental well-being of leaders. People havean automatic focus on the short term and frequently react to the feel-ings that they are experiencing at any given moment. In contrast, thereare very few people who automatically consider their needs and wishesover the longer term. This is unfortunate, since if you find yourselftrapped in the spiral of postponement and avoidance, this will ultimatelylead to greater stress. Procrastinators consistently suffer from a higherincidence of colds, flu and insomnia.

Even if you postpone a decision, you cannot eliminate the tensionassociated with the making of that decision. The uncertainty will remainand you will continue to worry about how things will turn out in thefuture. There may be some initial relief, but the problem will not sim-ply go away and will soon return to haunt you, usually in a manner thatweighs far more heavily on your health and your conscience than firsttime around. But the consequences are not just psychological – theycan also be physical. There is solid evidence to show a clear connectionbetween procrastination and increased levels of stress.99 If you analysethe decisions you are required to make each week, you will probablyconclude that your worst feelings are not the result of the total numberof decisions you are asked to make but that they have their origins in themore limited number of decisions you put off – and then worry about.This type of stress can have a damaging effect on your immune system.And if your immune system is under pressure, this can lead to sleep-less nights, bad eating habits and lower levels of bodily resistance andrecovery. If this is allowed to persist for any length of time, a process ofescalation can lead to serious long-term harm. To make matters worse,procrastinators are not the type of people who will readily visit a doctorunless it is unavoidable – by which time the damage is often already


27An Excerpt from The Proactive Leader • 27


done. In other words, they even apply their procrastination to their ownhealth! By refusing to face up to the problem, possible remedial actionis not taken, so the levels of stress and nervousness increase still fur-ther – and so the vicious downward spiral into illness – and possiblyworse – continues.

Another possible consequence of procrastination is alcoholism.A build-up of postponed decisions may lead some people to seek otherways to relieve the pressure they feel. One of the most ‘popular’ meth-ods of doing this is the consumption of strong drink. Because theyare poor in self-regulation, procrastinators are much more likely to hitthe bottle than the rest of us. This means that if they drink, they areless inclined to drink with moderation. And once they start drinkingto relieve stress, they will react so impulsively and so uncontrollablythat they will drink more than is good for them. This often results inalcoholism, which is not only damaging to your health but also to yourrelations with others. Excessive use of alcohol can lead procrastinatorsto behave in an increasingly aggressive and emotional manner, so thatthey are no longer motivated to accept their responsibilities. Conflictsdevelop more quickly than in normal circumstances and the means toresolve them become harder and harder to find. This tendency towardsalcoholism – particularly if you are a born procrastinator – can rapidlydestroy the atmosphere and team spirit in your group, so that your legit-imacy as a leader is in danger of being challenged. Before long, youmay even lose your right to speak on behalf of your own followers.

A less obvious consequence – but nonetheless a real possibility – isthat procrastinating leaders gradually become more and more isolatedand lonely. The alcohol again plays an important role, by driving peo-ple away (nobody likes a drunk), but the irritation and incomprehensioncaused by the constant postponing of necessary decisions is also a keyfactor. Very few people are willing or able to find sympathy for thisdilatory approach. This again increases the likelihood of conflicts andconflicts lead to a polarisation of opinions, which force the contendingparties further and further apart. Soon the leader will find himself on oneside of the dividing lines and most of his followers – if not all of them –on the other side. And it hardly needs to be emphasised that lonelinessand isolation are also bad for people’s health. In particular, lonelinesshas a negative effect on self-regulation. Lonely people have more dif-ficulty controlling their impulses. They will be inclined to drink more,eat badly and neglect proper exercise. There is also evidence that lone-liness can also have harmful effects on the immune system, increase


The consequences of delaying decisions 89

blood pressure and heighten the risk of heart disease.100 In these cir-cumstances, stress and depression are often just around the corner.101

The fact that people no longer have social contacts with others influ-ences the chemical processes that decide whether or not loneliness willhave a negative effect on one’s overall health. Depression is a chemicalreaction that means we no longer derive pleasure from our daily activi-ties. Everything seems pointless and this feeling simply strengthens anyexisting tendency towards procrastinating behaviour, in the hope thateverything will seem better ‘tomorrow’. Unfortunately, this is almostnever the case, so the negative spiral becomes ever deeper and ourreactions more desperate and panic-stricken.

To break this negative relation between procrastination and ill health,it is important to take good care of yourself in all areas of your life:

� Build healthy, lasting, genuine – and not virtual – relationships withothers.

� Make sure that you get enough sleep.

� Eat healthy and take enough exercise.

� Away from your work, make sure that you do things that you enjoydoing. We all need a release valve, a chance to express ourselvesand be who we really are.

� Devote enough time and attention to your intimate relationshipswith your partner, family and close friends.

� Try to give the things in which you believe a central place inyour life.

The cost to others

Leaders who regularly postpone decisions do little to promote cohesionwithin the group that they lead. It is noticeable that people who areled by procrastinators often complain of feeling frustrated. In the longrun, this negative emotional situation within the group will result inless constructive behaviour. This might express itself as resistance tothe wishes of the leader, a withdrawal of trust or an open display ofmistrust, all of which might eventually persuade some people to evenleave the group.

The negative consequences for the functioning of teams and organ-isations stem from the fact that the implicit psychological contract


29 An Excerpt from The Proactive Leader • 29


Leaderdecides to

delaydecisions

Perception thatthe leader

does not takeup his/her

responsibilities

Psychologicalcontractbreach

Outcomes:

– Less commitment by the followers

– Less cohesion

– Distrust

– People leaving the group

Figure 4 Social consequences of leaders’ delaying decisions

between the leader and his/her followers has been broken by the leader’sfailure to take action (see Figure 4). This contract implies that the per-son who accepts the position of leader also accepts the responsibilityof actively pursuing the interests of all the members of the group. It isalmost as if the leader makes an unspoken promise to move the organ-isation forward, to the general benefit of all concerned. But there canbe no progress without action and no action without decisions. Pro-crastinating leaders are therefore in breach of the trust given to themby their followers. The leader’s promise means that the followers canreasonably assume that the leader is worthy of their trust and that hewill not damage their interests.102 They believe that the leader will feeluncomfortable and guilty if he/she does not keep his/her promises andthat consequently non-compliance with the implicit or explicit agree-ments between the leader and the followers will weigh heavily on theleader’s shoulders. This leads to the further assumption that the leaderwill not behave in a manner that runs contrary to his/her promise. Evenso, procrastination is becoming more and more common as the yearsgo by – certainly much more common than we would all like – andthis is resulting in a growth of negative feelings in a whole range ofenvironments.


The consequences of delaying decisions 91

In view of the above reasoning, it is important that leaders should bemade more aware of these implicit psychological contracts with theirfollowers. Leaders are not always fully familiar with the full range ofresponsibilities that they are expected to carry. This means that theywill not be rationally capable of making an accurate assessment of thehopes and fears of the people they purport to represent. To allow thisto become more apparent, it is necessary for leaders to create a cultureof maximum transparency, where the giving and receiving of feedbackis built into the DNA of the group.103 This approach can help to ensurethat the expectations of both sides – the leaders and the led – are more orless attuned to each other. In addition, it is also vital that leaders shouldbe prepared to learn the skills and competencies that will allow themto deal with crisis situations – such as the moments when, for whateverreason, they lose their follower’s trust.

As mentioned earlier in the book, every leader will display procras-tinating behaviour from time to time – no one can ever eliminate itcompletely. The fact that this type of behaviour has a negative impacton mutual trust means that leaders must know what action they cantake to win back this lost confidence – and fast. It is crucial to iden-tify the breach of trust as soon as it occurs and to take corrective actionas quickly as possible. The longer the mistrust persists, the deeper itwill become. For this reason, action to restore confidence must be takenimmediately and must appear spontaneous.104 It is also important whentaking this action that the leader makes clear that he/she knows whythe bond of mutual trust has (temporarily) been weakened. If you admitthat something has gone wrong and own up your mistakes, your follow-ers will at least see that you understand where the root of the problemlies. Once this has been clearly communicated, the next step is to detailin an open and competent manner the steps that need to be taken to putmatters right and how this will be accomplished. These points are worthrepeating: you need to recognise that a breach of trust has occurred andthen outline the actions that will restore that trust. Doing just one with-out the other will not work. If your deeds fail to match your words,you will soon acquire a reputation as an inconsistent and unreliableleader. And when this happens, you will never be able to recover yourfollowers’ lost faith in you.


31

9780230293557 | April US / March UK 2013$40 | $46 CAN | £24.99

Hardback | 240 pages

Conquering Global Markets offers assessments of the issues, statistics, cases, and best practices of mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and alliances throughout the world. Using information gleaned interviews with CEOs, Nancy Hubbard, a leading expert on acquisition, provides insights into making global M&As successful.

3232 • An Excerpt from Conquering Global Markets13

2 Trends in Globalization

Introduction

The pattern of globalization has been a topic of debate for 40 years. The events toward the end of the twentieth century spurred on a dramatic accel-eration of globalization that had yet to be seen on a global stage. This chapter will review those events, their impacts, and the various theories of globaliza-tion in light of the study participant’s experiences. In addition, four trends that are currently unfolding in globalization will be further examined.

The facilitators of globalization

The end of the twentieth century saw a dramatic transformation of the world’s corporations, which had an enormous impact on globalization. This was caused by several factors that are grouped into three subcategories: political, technological, and economic.

Political

Several key changes in the political landscape facilitated global organiza-tions as they extended their global reach. The first of these was the fall of the former Soviet bloc. This act, while political in nature, had massive eco-nomic implications (Harvey, Kiessling, and Novicevic, 2003). Not only did hundreds of millions of potential consumers become available, the privatiza-tion of former Russian state-owned enterprises led to the rise of asset-rich Russian corporations especially in the natural resource and infrastructure industries. They in turn instantly became world players as well as poten-tial venture partners. The most obvious of these are Rosneft, Lukoil, and Gazprom, all of which rank in the world’s top 20 oil companies, and were partly privatized and are still at least owned in part by the Russian govern-ment (Pravda, 2009).

The second major political event that transformed the global market-place was the relaxation of trade relations with many previously closed or restricted markets. The most notable of these, of course, is China that is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10. The 2001 admittance of China into the Word Trade Organization signaled a concerted change in the


33An Excerpt from Conquering Global Markets • 33CONQUERING GLOBAL MARKETS14

Chinese government’s philosophy toward capitalism. The sudden inclusion of over one billion Chinese consumers combined with the Chinese gov-ernment welcoming low-cost manufacturing spurred a massive influx of foreign investment into China and the region as a whole. The end result was threefold: new market opportunities for many globalizers, cheaper manufacturing centers for the same, and a burgeoning assortment of newly developed nation’s corporations who were laying the foundation to expand internationally.

A third political factor was the formation of the European Union eco-nomic zone (1994) and ultimately the Euro zone (1999), which spurred on an acquisition wave within European boundaries. A host of cross-border acquisitions occurred in anticipation of European political consolidation. The net result was a rapid increase in the amount of cross-border European acquisition activity thus creating larger multinational organizations and fur-ther opportunities (Coeurdacier, DeSantis, and Aviat, 2009).

The final major political trend that transformed the international landscape is related to both of the first two—that is, the wholesale semi- privatization of national assets in many developing world economies. These newly commercialized businesses came with preferential government relationships and excellent sources of funding, as many were still owned in part by the sponsoring government. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are those “enterprises comprising parent enterprises and their foreign affiliates in which the government has a controlling interest (full, majority, or sig-nificant minority), whether or not listed on a stock exchange” (UNCTAD, 2011, p. 28). The level at which one defines a “controlling interest” differs: a generally accepted view is that occurs when the government owns more than 10 percent, is the largest single shareholder, or if it can actively dictate the organization’s strategic direction (ibid.).

Interestingly, while there has been quite a concern over the ownership of emerging nation SOEs, the vast majority of the world’s largest SOEs (including the largest 12) come from developed nations (see Graph 2.1 given further).

What all of these enterprises share, however, are extensive resources and are becoming increasingly confident on the international stage.

Technological

Simultaneously, while markets were opening up, changes in technology facili-tated the growth and complexities of international businesses into far-flung geographies. The reduction of transportation costs shortened product life cycles, meaning that manufacturing in lower-cost locations became a viable alternative to local manufacturing (Harvey, Kiessling, and Novicevic, 2003). In addition, the increase in communication ease made managing complex globalizers possible. Only a generation ago, the ability to manage a retail behemoth the size of Walmart’s 2.2 million employees in over 10,000 retail units in 27 countries would have been impossible.

3434 • An Excerpt from Conquering Global Markets2 � TRENDS IN GLOBALIZATION 15

Economic

The economic factors that led to the increase in globalization are too numerous to be addressed in this book. However, they include universality of production, differences in production costs between countries, tech-nology transfers, and a growing population in certain parts of the world (ibid.). In addition, rising wage costs of developing nations caused their corporations to seek cheaper manufacturing bases often in the formerly off-limits developing world economies. This in turn led to a rise in the available incomes of those manufacturing centers and made them more attractive domestic markets thereby creating a spiral of production being increasingly allocated for the domestic market share growth and less being allocated as export.

Simultaneously, diversified conglomerates from the developed world increasingly began to fall out of fashion. Research has shown, with some notable exceptions, that Anglo-Saxon and European diversified con-glomerates underperform their single industry counterparts (Christensen and Montgomery, 1981). Markets began to realize this and increasingly favored those organizations in related industries. This change in inves-tor attractiveness has led to a realignment of organizations along related industries.

Interestingly this move away from diversification does not apply to all geographies. Japanese global companies continue to operate in a focused conglomerate format and see global success and investor favor. Conglomerate formats from the developing or newly developed world are seen as the norm as demonstrated by the rapid growth and globalization of the South Korean and Indian giants such as Aditya Birla Group, Tata, Samsung, and Hyundai.

Trends in globalization

The combination of economic, political, and technological changes fun-damentally reshaped the global corporate landscape, and with it triggered four main trends: globalfocussing; rejection of globalization; the changing role of mergers and acquisitions for overseas expansion; and the changing nature of the global investor, including the emergence of the SOE and pri-vate equity buyer.

Globalfocussing

The first trend witnessed is a refocus and shift in global organizations from a more diversified perspective into a far narrower industry focus with the orga-nization’s objective of replicating the process throughout the world (Meyer, 2006). Rather than promoting business diversification in a geographic area, organizations increasingly moved to promote geographic diversification


35 An Excerpt from Conquering Global Markets • 35CONQUERING GLOBAL MARKETS16

with a narrower product offering. This shift has been termed “globalfocus-sing” and is marked by “shifts in the relative importance of country-specific and industry-specific resources and capabilities due to changes in the inter-national and external environment, notably the globalization of markets and supply chains,” and this is shown in Diagram 2.1 (Meyer, 2006, p. 1109). As will be discussed later in this chapter, the survey results concur with this perspective; this is seen as one of the major trends impacting global busi-nesses today.

This change in focus from industrial diversification to geographic diver-sification has led to some dramatic shifts in the international landscape. It is not unfair to say there has been a wholesale reorganization of many of the world’s largest organizations that in turn has fueled 15 years of merger activ-ity with transactions increasingly occurring in less traditional corners of the world. At least part of the 1999–2006 merger mania was fuelled by a surfeit of attractive targets as the developing world’s financial markets decidedly turned against the idea of diversified conglomerates.

The fall from grace of diversification combined with the increase in available markets led to a wholesale demerging in many large “Western” multinationals. For example, in 2001 over one-third of the UK’s largest listed companies were demerging along industry lines while simultaneously looking for related industry targets (Hubbard, 2001). This led to a great number of divestments that became attractive acquisition and merger targets for other multinationals trying to solidify their positions in their specific industries.

Country specificity

HIGH

LOW

Industry specificity

LOW HIGH

Domesticsingle industry

Diversification

Internationalization

Globalfocussing

Diagram 2.1 Globalfocussing

Notes: The figure describes country and industry specificity of resources. The arrows indicates change induced by liberalization and globalization of industries.

Source: Meyer (2006).


Research at the time gives a clear snapshot of the reasoning behind what is called the Millennia Merger Wave. A survey that dates from 2001 found that 37 percent of large organization mergers and acquisitions were occur-ring for “over capacity”—companies were buying direct competitors of the same geography and merging the organizations together to reduce costs through economies of scale and take out a competitor (Bower, 2001). The addition of a product line to the existing product offering accounted for 36 percent of acquisitions. Geographic extension—moving into a new market—was only 9 percent (ibid.). As will be seen in this research, the reasons why acquirers are buying now is completely different—they are buying to enter new geographies. The 9 percent of geographic extension is now more likely 42 percent. Thus there is a shift from cost-saving acquisitions where there is enough overlap in which to remove duplicate costs to geographic expansion where there is little if any duplication of functions to combine. As will be seen, this research found that globalizers are pursuing top-line growth as their primary objective in their march toward global market positions rather than economies of scale cost savings.

A retrenchment to global expansion

While the vast majority of those interviewed continued to pursue globaliza-tion, a significant handful had reined in their global expansion plans and instead focused on a specific geographic region rather than the world as a whole. Lonrho and Standard Bank had focused their operations on the African continent. Standard Bank have publicly stated that, while they will not be selling their assets that are not located in Africa, they are concentrat-ing their efforts and resources on retaining their standing as the largest bank on the African continent. Santander have also concentrated their efforts in those markets in which they already have a commanding presence, including in significant parts of Europe and Latin and South America while divesting operations that fall outside of that remit. As will be seen in Chapter 8, Tele2 reduced their international exposure from 25 countries to 11 in order to organize their efforts in a more concentrated regional strategy.

The reasoning for regional focus is not unlike those globalfocussers who narrowed down the diversity of their product offering and then expanded geographically with the hopes of gaining significant global presence in a narrower industry. These organizations are focusing their efforts in those regions where they are able to be market leaders and parlay that into organi-zational strengths and competitive advantage knowing that they don’t have the size or benefits of doing this on a global scale. As the representative of one of the companies in our survey commented, “I don’t think the benefits of being global are worth the effort.”

In 2011, GDF Suez decided to forgo a global footprint and concen-trate their management’s attention on a European growth strategy. As part of this, GDF Suez spun off their international assets into a merger with


372 � TRENDS IN GLOBALIZATION 17

Research at the time gives a clear snapshot of the reasoning behind what is called the Millennia Merger Wave. A survey that dates from 2001 found that 37 percent of large organization mergers and acquisitions were occur-ring for “over capacity”—companies were buying direct competitors of the same geography and merging the organizations together to reduce costs through economies of scale and take out a competitor (Bower, 2001). The addition of a product line to the existing product offering accounted for 36 percent of acquisitions. Geographic extension—moving into a new market—was only 9 percent (ibid.). As will be seen in this research, the reasons why acquirers are buying now is completely different—they are buying to enter new geographies. The 9 percent of geographic extension is now more likely 42 percent. Thus there is a shift from cost-saving acquisitions where there is enough overlap in which to remove duplicate costs to geographic expansion where there is little if any duplication of functions to combine. As will be seen, this research found that globalizers are pursuing top-line growth as their primary objective in their march toward global market positions rather than economies of scale cost savings.

A retrenchment to global expansion

While the vast majority of those interviewed continued to pursue globaliza-tion, a significant handful had reined in their global expansion plans and instead focused on a specific geographic region rather than the world as a whole. Lonrho and Standard Bank had focused their operations on the African continent. Standard Bank have publicly stated that, while they will not be selling their assets that are not located in Africa, they are concentrat-ing their efforts and resources on retaining their standing as the largest bank on the African continent. Santander have also concentrated their efforts in those markets in which they already have a commanding presence, including in significant parts of Europe and Latin and South America while divesting operations that fall outside of that remit. As will be seen in Chapter 8, Tele2 reduced their international exposure from 25 countries to 11 in order to organize their efforts in a more concentrated regional strategy.

The reasoning for regional focus is not unlike those globalfocussers who narrowed down the diversity of their product offering and then expanded geographically with the hopes of gaining significant global presence in a narrower industry. These organizations are focusing their efforts in those regions where they are able to be market leaders and parlay that into organi-zational strengths and competitive advantage knowing that they don’t have the size or benefits of doing this on a global scale. As the representative of one of the companies in our survey commented, “I don’t think the benefits of being global are worth the effort.”

In 2011, GDF Suez decided to forgo a global footprint and concen-trate their management’s attention on a European growth strategy. As part of this, GDF Suez spun off their international assets into a merger with

An Excerpt from Conquering Global Markets • 37CONQUERING GLOBAL MARKETS18

International Power plc, a listed UK energy company while retaining 70 percent of the combined organizations’ shares. The combination, however, meant that GDF Suez’s international management remained separate from their pan-European business. Recently, however, GDF Suez committed to buying the outstanding 30 percent of their merger partner’s shares to fully take back control of the combined international business.

The changing nature of merger and acquisition

The third key trend is a change in the use of acquisition as a vehicle for growth, including the rise of the transformational transaction, the drop in use of hostile acquisition as a vehicle for taking control, and the changing origination of global acquirers.

The late 1990s saw an exponential rise in the use of large-scale consolida-tion via mergers and acquisitions, which led to the advent of the Millennia Merger Wave that occurred between 1998 and 2007. Prior to 1996, the largest merger in history was the 1988 purchase of RJR Nabisco by KKR at $25 billion. In just 15 years, 100 others had surpassed it in value, including over 5,000 $1 billion or more transactions. What makes the merger activity of the past five years so significant to globalization, however, is its transfor-mational nature, the fall of hostile acquisition activities, and from where the corporate players originate.

Firstly acquisitions have increasingly been used in a transformational capacity especially in terms of quickly extending a corporation’s geographic footprint. Cadbury Schweppes, for example, entered the South American market with their purchase of Adams from Pfizer in 2002: this being an example of the pharmaceutical giant shedding one of their noncore busi-nesses—globalfocussing (see Case 7.1 of Chapter 7). As Sir Roger Carr, for-mer Chairman of Cadbury Schweppes noted, “Had we not done the Adams acquisition, Cadbury Schweppes would look very different now.” The advent of globalfocussing meant that some very significant divestments have taken place, meaning for another globalizer the ability to make a significant merger or acquisition. As will be seen in Chapter 7, a significant number of global-izers interviewed acquired key related businesses because of this.

Secondly, during the late 1990s and early 2000s, organizations seemed more willing to use hostile acquisition as a means of taking corporate con-trol. Even so, less than 5 percent of public deals were hostile acquisitions (UNCTAD, 2000). The most famous is the largest acquisition in history: the $200 billion acquisition of Germany’s Mannesmann by Britain’s Vodafone that played out as an acrimonious cross-European affair. The implications are that one didn’t need mutual consent in order to grow the business. This trend seems to be abating in recent times, however, with fewer large-scale hostile acquisitions taking place. There are notable exceptions, however, including the bitter takeover of Cadbury Schweppes by Kraft in 2010. This may be linked to the increasing number of large-scale acquisitions occurring


in the developing world where hostile acquisitions are very rare in part due to cultural differences and also family ownership structures (UNCTAD, 2010).

On a global basis this shift shouldn’t be surprising. When one is acquir-ing for consolidation of assets and economies of scale benefits, employee retention is less of an issue as there is considerable duplication of skills. With the current push of using acquisition to enter new markets, there is little duplication of effort, and therefore employee retention becomes critical. In fact, the KPMG study of 162 companies found employee retention to be the joint highest HR concern after a cross-border acquisition. It is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

The changing nature of the international investor

Part I The emerging market internationalizer

The final and perhaps most important trend currently being experienced in globalization is the changing nature of who is globalizing. In the past 20 years we have seen the rise of the emerging world globalizer (EWG). In the past, the world’s largest organizations have been dominated by devel-oped nation organizations; however, this trend has been slowly changing. Increasingly emerging world organizations have been entering the ranks of the world’s largest transnational organizations. Between 2001 and 2004 on average there were six EWGs among the list of the world’s 100 largest quoted companies. By 2006, this number had jumped to 18 and it has remained relatively steadily at this position. Using the list of largest quoted companies is an imperfect science as it excludes some of the world’s largest organizations that are either state owned (e.g. CITIC), privately held (e.g. Cargill), sov-ereign wealth funds (e.g. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority), private equity funds (e.g. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts), or pension funds (e.g. Norwegian Government Pension Fund), all of which have been making significantly more foreign investments. It is, however, a telling indication of the increas-ingly diverse makeup of transnational organizations.

Another indicator of globalizer diversification is the pursuit of large-scale acquisitions to fulfill organizational objectives. The nationalities of those organizations pursuing mega deals, those with a value of over $1 billion, have changed quite dramatically during the past few years as seen in Graph 2.1.

As can be seen in Graph 2.1, the number of mega deals clearly reflects the global economy. The impact of the 2001 World Trade Center bombing and the war in Iraq can be seen in the lower activity of 2001 through 2004 and the economic downturn for the developed world can be seen in the lower figures of the decade’s end. Even during these downturns the composition of transactions was changing. Between 2000 and 2003 emerging world compa-nies acquiring into the developing world accounted for less than 1 percent on

CONQUERING GLOBAL MARKETS20

average of all mega-deal transactions. In the latter half of the decade, EWG averaged almost 6 percent of transactions.

Their involvement as either an acquirer or target of mega deals went from being less than 10 percent in 2000 to roughly 30 percent by 2012 (see Graph 2.2). Some of this was in all likelihood fuelled by the timing of the economic downturn—the emerging world did not experience the same degree of down-turn as the industrialized world, thereby creating a window of opportunity that many emerging nation corporate acquirers exploited (UNCTAD, 2010). In addition, the newly privatized industries of many emerging nations meant that attractive targets were surfacing all over the world.

The geographic diversity of acquirers also changed quite dramatically during this time frame. We saw the first mega transactions involving acquir-ers from Papua New Guinea, Kazakhstan, Angola, Uganda, Chile, and Nigeria (see Table 2.1). The amount of large-scale acquisition activity from some of these countries is quite surprising. For example, Kazakhstan corpo-rations made 11 acquisitions of over $1 billion each during a five-year period beginning in 2007.

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

EA/ET EA/DT ET/DA DA/DT

Graph 2.1 Size and participants’ nationalities of acquisitions greater than $1 billion

Notes:EA = Emerging world acquirerET = Emerging world targetDA = Developed economy acquirerDT = Developing economy target

Source: Raw data provided by Thompson Financial.



average of all mega-deal transactions. In the latter half of the decade, EWG averaged almost 6 percent of transactions.

Their involvement as either an acquirer or target of mega deals went from being less than 10 percent in 2000 to roughly 30 percent by 2012 (see Graph 2.2). Some of this was in all likelihood fuelled by the timing of the economic downturn—the emerging world did not experience the same degree of down-turn as the industrialized world, thereby creating a window of opportunity that many emerging nation corporate acquirers exploited (UNCTAD, 2010). In addition, the newly privatized industries of many emerging nations meant that attractive targets were surfacing all over the world.

The geographic diversity of acquirers also changed quite dramatically during this time frame. We saw the first mega transactions involving acquir-ers from Papua New Guinea, Kazakhstan, Angola, Uganda, Chile, and Nigeria (see Table 2.1). The amount of large-scale acquisition activity from some of these countries is quite surprising. For example, Kazakhstan corpo-rations made 11 acquisitions of over $1 billion each during a five-year period beginning in 2007.

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

EA/ET EA/DT ET/DA DA/DT

Graph 2.1 Size and participants’ nationalities of acquisitions greater than $1 billion

Notes:EA = Emerging world acquirerET = Emerging world targetDA = Developed economy acquirerDT = Developing economy target



Part II The rise of government and venture capital funds in cross-border investment

While sovereign funds, SOEs, state-sponsored funds, and venture capital funds have existed for years, their expansion activities have been primarily domestic. Venture capital funds accounted for 14 percent of 1997’s global

40

Per

cent

age

35

25

30

20

15

5

Both target and acquirerfrom the developing world

Developing world acquiror

Developing world target

Year

2000

4.3 4.3 4.3 6.5 8.8 9.3 13.9 23.8 19.2 21.7

45.55.26.75.93.122.80.5231.6

3.3 3.6 3.6 2.3 2.5 6.9 5.8 4 5.4 7.1 4.9 7.6

7.1 11.7

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

10

Graph 2.2 Percentage of emerging market globalizers in M&A mega deals worth greater than $1 billion


Table 2.1 Total mega-deal acquisitions between 2007 and 2011 featuring emerg-ing market countries

Acquirer’s Country of Origin

Total Number of Mega Deals

Acquirer’s Country of Origin

Total Number of Mega Deals

Angola 1 Papua New Guinea 1Brazil 63 Philippines 7Chile 2 Qatar 10China 72 Russia 72Columbia 7 Saudi Arabia 5Egypt 1 Singapore 24Equatorial Guinea 1 South Africa 17Hong Kong 19 South Korea 39India 19 Taiwan 4Kazakhstan 11 Thailand 10Kuwait 4 Turkey 2Malaysia 15 UAE 32Mauritius 2 Uganda 3Mexico 19 Ukraine 2Morocco 2 Venezuela 3

Source: Raw data provided by Thomson Financial.



cross-border M&A deals if measured by the number of transactions; this percentage jumped to 25 percent in 2010 (UNCTAD, 2011). In 2011 they completed a record 2,050 transactions worth $122 billion largely due to the apparent stabilization of global economic factors; of these transac-tions, almost one-third of value was earmarked for the developing world (ibid.).

State-influenced funds include state pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and SOEs. There has been a significant change in legislation regard-ing pension funds such as the relaxation of investment policies in terms of taking larger stake holdings that could further increase their international reach. For example, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund has more than $400 billion under management. It is anticipated that the enormous amount of available funds, combined with relaxing investment policies will make state pension funds more aggressive sources of foreign investment in the future (ibid.). We are already seeing the consequences with Canada’s Pension Plan Investment Board making the largest cross-border acquisition by a pension fund with their 2010 $3.1 billion purchase in Australia of Intoll Group (ibid.).

Sovereign wealth funds are those owned by a government for the express purpose of investment (ibid.). They are considerable influences on interna-tional investment with, as of 2012, over $5 trillion of assets (UNCTAD, 2012). The vast majority of sovereign wealth funds are from emerging coun-tries with the most active historically being from the Middle East. In fact over 20 sovereign wealth funds were established in 2009 alone almost all from the developing world (UNCTAD, 2010). An example of recent activity comprises the Qatar Investment Authority holding with an estimated $120 billion of foreign assets, including the purchase of Harrods in the UK for $2.3 billion in 2010 (ibid.). Similarly the China Investment Corporation (CITIC) continues to expand rapidly with an estimated $100–200 billion cash injection in 2010 by the Chinese government solely for the purpose of overseas expansion (ibid.).

SOEs present another type of investor and an increasingly important source of direct foreign investment. SOEs are relatively rare in terms of the overall number of transnational corporations numbering only around 650 in 2010. But of those transnationals, they number 19 of the world’s largest and 28 of the largest EWGs accounting for almost one-third of the emerg-ing world’s foreign direct investment (UNCTAD, 2011). Domestic SOEs are much more prevalent in the emerging world than in Europe—there are at least 150,000 businesses in China where the largest shareholder is either the Chinese government or a local municipality (UNCTAD, 2011).

SOEs are not a homogenous group and can be divided into four subgroups: emergency SOEs, sovereign wealth SOEs, privatized SOEs, and expansion vehicle SOEs. Emergency SOEs are those corporations that, usually through a form of mismanagement or massive economic


downturn, run into financial problems and are bailed out by the orga-nization’s government; usually the injection of capital is in the form of a shareholding. Recent examples include General Motors (US) and Royal Bank of Scotland (UK). The second type of SOE is a sovereign wealth SOE, which in reality resembles a pension fund-style sovereign wealth fund in behavior—taking sometimes significant stakes in various businesses in order to successfully manage the returns for the benefit of sharehold-ers (often government pensions). Examples include most of South Africa’s SOEs that have invested in a variety of South African businesses (ibid.). These investors are characterized by the government viewing these holdings as a portfolio investment and as such taking a “hands-off” attitude in their governance.

Privatized SOEs are those organizations that were once nationally held, and when privatized the government retained a stake ranging from a minority shareholding (Volkswagen’s 20 percent owned by the German government) to a majority stake (Statoil’s 67 percent holding by the Norwegian government after its 2001 privatization). While the increased visibility and aggressive international expansion of the leading Chinese SOEs have brought a fair degree of criticism in terms of unfair advantages (Athreye and Kapur, 2009; Szamosszegi and Kyle, 2011), nine of the ten largest SOEs are European (see Table 2.2) and include four French giants, two Italian, and two German (UNCTAD, 2011). Perhaps a bigger issue than the shareholding is the degree of government involvement in the organization’s operations. While there is a dearth of external research on this subject, the participants who discussed SOEs commented that their organizations were treated relatively fairly by European SOEs—there are legislative processes in place to ensure fair play between state and private corporations (UNCTAD, 2011). The only serious complaint was the obvi-ous nationalism that they experienced when competing against SOEs in their home country.

The greatest concerns voiced among participants against SOEs when operating in emerging markets was of blatant favoritism in dealing with host governments. These included the granting of favorable contracts, gen-erous funding, and work being awarded without tender offers. The banks complained of favoritism in privatization and listings in which only the indigenous (SOE) banks were given the work. One participant said, “You have to think that the IPO [initial public offering] business in China was three times that of the US last year. Now who’s getting that business? The medium-sized companies were working together with their Chinese state-owned banks that were then doing the IPO for them.”

The final type of SOE is the expansion vehicle SOE, which is cre-ated by the government with the express objective of pursuing that coun-try’s economic prerogatives both within its home territory and abroad. They are the mainstay of the emerging market with 56 percent of SOEs originating from those geographies (ibid.). They can run the gamut from


43 An Excerpt from Conquering Global Markets • 43

24

Table 2.2 Thirty largest state-owned enterprises

Company name Home country

Percentage of government ownership

Industry Assets (billions US$)

Enel SpA Italy 34.7 Utilities 231Volkswagen Group Germany 20.0 Motor vehicles 255GDF Suez France 36.4 Utilities 247EDF SA France 84.7 Utilities 348Deutsche Telekom AG

Germany 31.7 Telecommunications 184

Eni SpA Italy 30.3 Petroleum 169 General Motors Co. United States 32.0 Motor vehicles 136 France Telecom SA France 26.7 Telecommunications 133 EADS NV France 22.4 Aircraft 116 Vattenfall AB Sweden 100 Utilities 83 Veolia Environnement SA

France 10.7 Utilities 72

CITIC Group China 100 Diversified 315 Statoil ASA Norway 67.0 Petroleum 97 Deutsche Post AG Germany 30.5 Transport and storage 50 Vale SA Brazil 5.5 Mining and quarrying 102 Petronas—Petroliam Nasional Bhd

Malaysia 100 Petroleum 126

TeliaSonera AB Sweden 37.3 Telecommunications 37 Renault SA France 18.3 Motor vehicles 92 Japan Tobacco Inc. Japan 50.0 Food, beverages,

and tobacco 42

Finmeccanica Spa Italy 30.2 Machinery and equipment

44

China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company

China 100 Transport and storage

36

Lukoil OAO Russian Federation

13.4 Petroleum and natural gas

79

Singapore Telecommunications

Singapore 54.4 Telecommunications 27

Zain Kuwait 49.2 Telecommunications 20 Qatar Telecom Qatar 55.0 Telecommunications 23 Tata Steel Ltd India 12.9 Metal and metal

products 24

Petroleo Brasileiro SA

Brazil 39.8 Petroleum 200

Abu Dhabi National Energy Co. PJSC

United Arab Emirates

100 Utilities 25

Petróleos de Venezuela SA

Venezuela 100 Petroleum 150

China National Petroleum Corporation

China 100 Petroleum 325

Source: UNCTAD (2011).


full governmental control to “substantive inf luence” (ibid.). Expansion vehicle SOEs are involved in championing their country’s economic strat-egies both from within and increasingly outside that country’s borders and have grown in international importance. The Chinese campaign of “Go Global” (see Chapter 10) is a prime example of state-owned transna-tionals being given ample funding and encouragement to pursue global aspirations.

One participant summed up the issue of SOEs very well:

There’s a fair amount of alarmism about state-owned enterprises and their growth throughout the world. When they say Abu Dhabi Investment Authority et cetera, they tend to ignore the German and French banks. We all have to think a little wider about some of these things and what actually is happening. It’s really the controller of the funds rather than the fact that they are controlled by a sovereign body, that is, rightly, a more important question and the motivation behind the control. There’s clearly a state capitalist model and it is practiced to varying degrees in different countries. It’s not China and nowhere else. It’s a graduation where you’ve got the US and UK on the left-hand side, and I think it goes across and absolutely France does operate with a strong degree of state involvement … and it runs all the way through to North Korea. China comes somewhere in there in the different ways.

This combination of global trends means that the face of globalization is changing rapidly—no longer is it the remit of the Western or Japanese company investing in the emerging world. Instead it is far more compli-cated—with the landscape shifting quite dramatically. No doubt, the eco-nomic and political factors combined with globalfocussing have facilitated the shift, as highly attractive targets previously never considered for sale have changed hands, including privatized industries and blue chip subsid-iaries. And they have changed hands to an increasingly complicated group of buyers.

Conclusion

Not only is the business world seeing a dramatic shift in the globalization of industries, it is seeing the face of industry changing. Globalfocussing, or the repositioning of organizations along industry lines, has led to a wholesale shift in business priorities with organizations now prioritiz-ing their endeavors in narrower business lines. Those businesses not part of that platform are being divested and picked up by other globalfocus-sing businesses to which those businesses are core. EWGs are becoming increasingly prominent, with the rise of the emerging market corporations, state-owned globalizers, and venture capital globalizers, all of which are


45An Excerpt from Conquering Global Markets • 45CONQUERING GLOBAL MARKETS26

gaining confidence and moving outside their domestic markets, investing internationally to become global players in their own right. Mega acquisi-tions that were once the domain of the developed world are now occurring throughout the emerging world, with an increasing number of EWGs par-ticipating, fueled by deregulation and relaxation of markets. It is a trend set to continue.

46

9780230361287 | August US / July UK 2013$40 | $46 CAN | £26Hardback | 244 pages

What helps employees stay effective in the face of diffi cult circumstances and equips them to bounce back? When it comes to workplace pressure, managers’ actions can mean the difference between improving or permanently damaging such resilience in the workforce. Drawing on contemporary research and professional case studies, Building Resilience for Success examines the sources of work-related stress, and explores how personal resilience can be developed both within and outside the work context.


47 An Excerpt from Building Resilience for Success • 47

1

INTRODUCTION—SETTING THE SCENE

THE MEANING OF RESILIENCE AND THE PURPOSE OF OUR BOOK

The focus of this book is on building individual resilience—also known as psychological, emotional, or personal resilience. We use these terms interchangeably throughout, so what do we mean by them? The most straightforward, if somewhat narrow, answer is that this kind of resilience is being able to bounce back from setbacks and to stay effective in the face of tough demands and difficult cir-cumstances. Expanding on this, our definition goes beyond recovery from stressful or potentially stressful events, to include the sustain-ability of that recovery and the lasting benefit—the strength that builds through coping well with such situations. 1 The capability that is developed in this way applies to coping with everyday problems and challenges—the need for individual resilience is by no means restricted to extreme circumstances or heroic acts.

Our purpose has been to put together a resource on which managers, human resource specialists, learning and development professionals, and others can draw to commission, design, deliver, and evaluate workplace resilience-building interventions. We describe and discuss many different approaches, findings, and practical applications and we share our own experiences, suggestions, and recommendations. It is not our intention to provide a prescriptive self-help guide or trainer’s manual, but rather to offer a broad base of knowledge, ideas, and solutions that can be mined in various ways to meet different needs and organizational circumstances.

Firstly, in Part 1 , we review developments in the field over the past twenty years or so, with reference to both research and prac-tice. Based on this foundation of theory, evidence and experience we present a two-part framework that can be used to structure and facil-itate resilience development within organizations. The style of Part 1

4848 • An Excerpt from Building Resilience for SuccessBUILDING RESILIENCE FOR SUCCESS

2

reflects an emphasis on applying expert knowledge from research and practice to develop a robust framework for use in organizations, and we provide detailed references for those who are interested in the science behind our approach.

Following this, in Part 2 , we look further at the way practical resilience- building interventions have developed over the years in line with new research and theory, and we present detailed sugges-tions and examples to show what can be achieved in the organi-zational context. The style of this section reflects an emphasis on explaining different techniques and learning from the specific expe-riences of individuals and organizations. Key research references are provided where appropriate, but the main focus is on practical suggestions and examples.

Finally, in Part 3 , we offer a strategic overview and further illustra-tions of some of the main ways in which resilience-building can be positioned within the context of wider organizational objectives and interventions, such as leadership development, organizational trans-formation, and performance enhancement.

COPING WITH PRESSURE—INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

In referring to “individual” resilience we raise questions by high-lighting the fact that this ability varies from one person to another. Many people have probably at one time or another watched a politi-cian on television and doubted their own ability to remain as calm in the face of a storm of personal criticism. At other times they may be surprised by the vulnerability of a friend or colleague, recogniz-ing that they have been less affected by similar circumstances. So it is important to know more about how this works—what is the nature of these personal differences; are they set in stone or can anyone improve their resilience over time?

As far as the last of these questions is concerned, this book is founded on the very good evidence that resilience can indeed be developed. More on this evidence shortly, and in later chapters we will explore a number of practical activities and approaches that can help to achieve this objective. To start with, however, we need to look in more detail at the fact that some people cope better than others, and why this is a matter for organizations as well as for those who work in them.


49An Excerpt from Building Resilience for Success • 49INTRODUCTION

3

When we describe someone as resilient, we often mean that he or she copes well with pressure. We may even say they thrive on it. The opposite of this is generally referred to as “being vulnerable to stress, setbacks or disappointments.” From this it becomes clear that pressure can be “positive” (challenging but energizing) or “negative” (stressful), so to understand resilience we need to understand the nature of pressure and stress.

The first point to make is that the same situation may be posi-tively challenging for one person, but stressful for another. This could happen, for example, if a sales manager presents the quar-terly results, and makes it clear that he or she is not happy with the team’s performance. One member of the team may feel determined to try harder the following week, while another may feel anxious and discouraged. Another complication is that the same person may react quite differently from one week to the next, even if the message from the sales manager is very similar on both occasions.

There are many reasons for these different reactions, involving both situational factors and more intrinsic personal factors. Some of these influences may be obvious to the manager, or at least to the team member concerned. Other influences may be harder to pin down, but they nevertheless affect how each person feels as well as what he or she does next. Richard Lazarus 2 explained individual differences in the experience and expression of emotion in terms of a process he called “appraisal”, commenting that:

If two individuals appraise the same situation differently, their emotional responses will differ. And if they appraise different situ-ations in the same way, their emotional response will be the same. Even coping ... works by infl uencing and changing how the indi-vidual appraises the signifi cance of what is happening and how it might be dealt with. (p. 336)

This theoretical position is just one of many that emphasize the role of perception and belief in determining how we react to events. In this, it is entirely consistent with our definition of stress, as aris-ing when pressure exceeds your perceived ability to cope. 3 Richard Lazarus was talking about emotions in general, but many researchers and practicing psychologists have taken a similar view when focus-ing specifically on anxiety, depression, and stress. It is from this field of clinical psychology and mental health, including the study of


4

workplace stress, that much of our understanding of resilience has emerged.

It was, indeed, fortunate that during a long period when it was unfash-ionable in mainstream academic psychology to study emotions, an active interest in the causes and treatment of anxiety and depression ensured that knowledge of these issues continued to develop. However, the current, growing interest in resilience as a feature of the normal, adult life-cycle—outside the field of clinical psychology and mental ill-health—is a more recent development. We conclude at the end of this book that resilience, especially in organizational settings, has transitioned from a remedy for weakness to capacity builder to help the strong become stronger. Nonetheless, it is important to understand where the concept arose and why the need for it still has somewhat negative ring.

The normalization of resilience—the acceptance that it is a part of everyday life and work for everyone—comes at a time of rapidly growing interest in positive psychology. There is no doubt that the recent study of “positive emotions and experiences” has played an important role in emphasizing the potentially beneficial strength-building nature of “positive (or challenge) pressure.” In addition, it has broadened our understanding of the range of ways in which resilience can be developed.

AN INTRODUCTION TO RESILIENCE-BUILDING IN THE WORKPLACE

One of the first contexts in which the more general interest in resil-ience became apparent was that of the workplace. In the 1970s and ’80s, researchers in the United States began to investigate the quali-ties that helped some managers to cope more effectively with pro-longed stressful circumstances than others. 4 In the late 1980s, the American psychologist Martin Seligman, who had been involved in anxiety and depression research for many years, began to take an interest in how the findings could be applied to helping employees cope with challenging work situations. He developed a one-day resil-ience training course for insurance sales representatives, whose job involved cold calling (making unsolicited marketing calls to poten-tial customers) and a high level of rejection.

The success of Seligman’s training inspired researchers at London’s Institute of Psychiatry to develop a longer and more in-depth course,


51 An Excerpt from Building Resilience for Success • 51INTRODUCTION

5

which they tested in the insurance industry and also with profes-sionals and managers who had been continuously unemployed for more than a year. Again the results were very encouraging, with outcomes ranging from improved resilience and general well-being to higher sales and retention (in the insurance industry study), and a higher number of job interviews and job offers (among the unemployed participants) when compared with a control group who received different but relevant training. 5

These resilience-building courses were acknowledged as practical and effective, and the design was implemented within a number of corporate and government programs. There were, however, several barriers to the wider spread of the approach, even within organi-zations that had already benefitted financially and in other ways through their participation in the research. To those of us involved in promoting the training in the corporate sector in the 1990s, it became clear that the main obstacle was a lack of industry-wide organizational readiness. 6

This was indeed a problem, as “organizational readiness” is now known to be one of the main prerequisites for the successful imple-mentation of innovative training and development programs. In terms of winning the “hearts and minds” of budget holders and senior stakeholders, the sales figures and cost savings made a strong, rational argument for rolling out the resilience training. Yet there was a more emotional distrust of any training with a “psychological” founda-tion, and anxiety about engaging with an issue so closely associated with workplace stress. “Resilience training” carried a bit of a stigma. It seemed to be intended for those who were failing to cope, and this perception has impeded the take-up of resilience development in organizations despite the solid evidence of financial and other bene-fits. Related to these concerns, some people have a skeptical view of resilience-building programs as a manipulative “management trick”, designed to ensure that ever-increasing pressure can be applied to the workforce in the interests of maximizing output and profit.

While such reservations are still in evidence, they are under chal-lenge from a growing conviction that coping with pressure is a critical skill in today’s workplace. Acceptance has also been boosted by a shift away from remedial resilience training towards a “ strengths-based” approach that has its roots in the increasingly popular Positive Psychology movement. In addition, recent research and practice have demonstrated a strong and direct relationship between individual


6

well-being and organizational outcomes (including productivity). There is always a risk of any tool or method being used for cynical or exploitative purposes, but the expanding workplace well-being agenda helps to ensure that such interventions benefit both the indi-vidual and the organization.

Chapter 3 tells in more detail the story of how resilience develop-ment has found a place in organizations over the past twenty years, with momentum building up to the point where today it is widely seen as “an idea whose time has come.” As a result, forward-thinking leadership teams are now actively seeking suitable resilience devel-opment solutions for all organization members or groups who are in critical roles or who are subject to more extreme pressures. We are even seeing a greater recognition of the need for this kind of support among the senior executives themselves, although for many this is still a difficult admission to make.

A TALE OF TWO CHIEF EXECUTIVES

When it comes to the pressures of leadership, there is no doubt that any chief executive can expect to face challenges that seem insur-mountable at times. Just to get to that position in the first place requires a high level of personal resilience, but that is not the same thing as being invulnerable. More than one CEO has told us that appointment to the role presented the steepest—and loneliest—learning curve he or she had ever faced.

So consider the following stories. The first is of the founder of one of the world’s most successful hi-tech companies, who thrived on pressures the rest of us could hardly imagine only to succumb to what is widely considered to have been a treatable cancer. When asked why treatment had been delayed, Steve Jobs’ biographer is quoted as saying, “I think he kind of felt: if you ignore something you don’t want to exist, you can have magical thinking. It had worked for him in the past. He’d regret it.” 7

Our second tale is that of the CEO of the UK’s largest retail bank, who took an extended period of sick leave after “suffering fatigue due to over-work” yet about whom “colleagues say he is obsessive about detail, but is cool under pressure and shows few signs of stress.” 8

Of course we can never know the full truth of what went wrong in either case. However, just these short accounts make it clear that


53 An Excerpt from Building Resilience for Success • 53INTRODUCTION

7

personal resilience is not a simple matter, that even the strongest have their Achilles’ heel, and that there is always a risk of being undermined by the very qualities and beliefs that have been the foundation of our success for many years.

Reflecting on these stories gives us five core principles:

Individuals vary in both the nature and degree of their ability to 1. cope with pressures and setbacks. Psychological resilience is complex rather than one-dimensional. 2. It is not something we either have or lack altogether—most of us are resilient in some ways, but less so in others. Even the most resilient people have their limits, although they 3. may be less alert to when these limits are being reached. Certain qualities and beliefs, such as optimism or self-confidence, 4. may boost our resilience in most situations but can harm it if they are taken to extremes. Resilience results from the interaction of an individual and 5. their situation—it is not a fixed personality trait and it can be developed.

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

Throughout this book we aim to provide a framework that facilitates the integration of personal resilience development interventions with broad, strategic programs to improve individual well-being and organizational performance. Integral to our approach is the need to factor in an understanding of the work context—in particular an understanding of the main sources of workplace pressure and sup-port. Without this understanding it is difficult to make the most of opportunities to develop resilience on the job, yet this is a context that can produce far greater improvements than the widely used for-mat of a short, one-off training session.

Part 1

Understanding resilience

Chapter 1 addresses the question of individual differences, and sets out a framework for understanding personal resilience strengths and

54

MY COLLEGE ROOMMATE WAS VERY EXCITED WHEN

he called to tell me that he had been made regional manager of

the pharmaceutical distributor he worked for. He had worked

hard and fully deserved his promotion, which probably was overdue.

“Now I can fi nally make some decisions to get this place moving,” he

said. His enthusiasm was centered on something we all believe to be true:

managers make decisions and direct others. But in every company I have

worked with, this truism turns out to be not quite so true. In every com-

pany, large, controversial issues are left unresolved because decisions have

not been made. And these unresolved issues exist at every level of manage-

ment in even the best companies.

This happens because managers often deliberately avoid making con-

troversial decisions. One of the key skills of being a strong manager is

knowing which battles to fi ght and which to ignore. The best managers

have a knack for getting this just right. They have impeccable timing.

They know exactly when to make a decision. They also know that it is

sometimes easier and even wiser in the short run to leave things the way

they are rather than to make a decision that, although obviously the right

thing to do, may have other consequences. But leaders are expected to

deal with and resolve controversial issues. When they do not, however

good the reason, they can cause confusion, frustration, and misunder-

standing as well as ineffi ciency.

Avoiding controversy is one of the most signifi cant behavioral barri-

ers, and in its wake important issues remain unresolved, usually leaving

huge opportunities for change.

There are many reasons people avoid controversy and try to keep

the peace, but as Neville Chamberlain learned in the years before World

War II, “peace in our time” carries a high price indeed. In this chapter, I

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 12 4/11/2012 2:52:43 PM

9781137278401 | September US / October UK 2013$16 | $18.50 CAN | £9.99

Paperback | 240 pagesAlso available in hardback (out now)

How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things reveals the hidden barriers to success that exist in even the best-managed companies. Highlighting the principles managers need to apply in breaking down these barriers, Neil Smith offers a fast, proven solution to achieve remarkable results.


55 An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things • 55

CHAPTER 1

BARRIER 1: AVOIDING

CONTROVERSY

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 11 4/11/2012 2:52:43 PM

MY COLLEGE ROOMMATE WAS VERY EXCITED WHEN

he called to tell me that he had been made regional manager of

the pharmaceutical distributor he worked for. He had worked

hard and fully deserved his promotion, which probably was overdue.

“Now I can fi nally make some decisions to get this place moving,” he

said. His enthusiasm was centered on something we all believe to be true:

managers make decisions and direct others. But in every company I have

worked with, this truism turns out to be not quite so true. In every com-

pany, large, controversial issues are left unresolved because decisions have

not been made. And these unresolved issues exist at every level of manage-

ment in even the best companies.

This happens because managers often deliberately avoid making con-

troversial decisions. One of the key skills of being a strong manager is

knowing which battles to fi ght and which to ignore. The best managers

have a knack for getting this just right. They have impeccable timing.

They know exactly when to make a decision. They also know that it is

sometimes easier and even wiser in the short run to leave things the way

they are rather than to make a decision that, although obviously the right

thing to do, may have other consequences. But leaders are expected to

deal with and resolve controversial issues. When they do not, however

good the reason, they can cause confusion, frustration, and misunder-

standing as well as ineffi ciency.

Avoiding controversy is one of the most signifi cant behavioral barri-

ers, and in its wake important issues remain unresolved, usually leaving

huge opportunities for change.

There are many reasons people avoid controversy and try to keep

the peace, but as Neville Chamberlain learned in the years before World

War II, “peace in our time” carries a high price indeed. In this chapter, I

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 12 4/11/2012 2:52:43 PM

5656 • AAn Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb ThingsBARRIER 1: AVOIDING CONTROVERSY 13

demonstrate why managers avoid controversy and what can happen when

they do. And I show how a good change process can provide the air cover

to tackle controversial decisions.

As you will see with all the eight barriers we write about, recognizing

when a barrier exists is the fi rst step toward breaking it. The goal of a good

change process is to help companies see how each of the eight barriers

manifests itself in their organizations and how they can break them down.

In the case of the Avoiding Controversy barrier, it is usually very clear to

the organization that decisions are not being made, but it is unclear why

a manager is avoiding making them. There is usually a sound reason, but

the reason is often invisible. A good change process will force controver-

sial issues to be addressed and decisions to be made by spotlighting the

issues and making avoiding a decision very diffi cult.

HOW AVOIDING CONTROVERSY FORCES

COMPANIES TO DO DUMB THINGS

A chief executive offi cer of a Midwest industrial company had been living

for four years with the pet project of his chief operating offi cer—an expan-

sion into the “middle market,” a customer base that was smaller in size than

the company’s traditional customer base. The venture was still considered a

start-up and had yet to make a profi t. The argument, year after unprofi table

year, was “Oh, give us another year and we’ll make money next year.” The

project had been approved at a time when the economy was growing quickly

and it was hard for industrial companies that already served the market to

keep up with demand. After two years of solid investment, it should have

generated healthy profi ts in the third year.

This start-up was launched with much fanfare within the company.

A lot of effort and money were invested in it, and its progress was featured

prominently on the company’s intranet—until it became apparent that the

expansion wasn’t going well.

The CEO was in a tough spot. The COO had been at the company

much longer than he had, and many people who had thought the COO

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 13 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM

HOW EXCELLENT COMPANIES AVOID DUMB THINGS14

deserved the top job were disappointed when an outsider was brought in.

The CEO knew that he could justify keeping this project going for only so

long before the board and shareholders would ask questions, but he also

knew that killing the COO’s pet project would harm the COO’s reputation

and a relationship that was important to him.

The CEO didn’t feel comfortable turning to the COO and just saying,

“We need to close this down.” So the expansion continued . . . and continued

to lose money.

Why should a CEO feel uncomfortable telling a direct report, “Well,

we gave it a shot, but it’s just not working”? This is business, after all, and

everyone is a professional. The industrial company was publicly traded, so

the CEO had an obligation to shareholders to maximize profi ts by doing

away with money losers.

As surprising as it may seem, Avoiding Controversy is something I

have seen over and over in my work with companies. And like all of the

other barriers, it surfaces at all levels of management. But there are many

dynamics at play, as you will fi nd true of each of the eight barriers that we

explore.

This one misfi re notwithstanding, the COO had a great track record.

During his 15 years with the company, he had successfully overseen the

integration of several acquisitions. Ironically, they had included having

to make some tough decisions about jettisoning unprofi table parts of the

business. He was known to be fair-minded and reasonable, which earned

him the loyalty not only of his direct reports but of people several levels

down in the organization. This middle-market expansion was the COO’s

blind spot as he had invested much in making it a success—so much that

the CEO feared he would lose a key lieutenant if he shut down the project.

The CEO made a conscious decision: he rationalized that the disruption

caused by losing the COO would be more costly than this money-losing

project.

The CEO also realized that shutting down the project could be inter-

preted as a vote of no confi dence in the COO, thus robbing this key

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 14 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM


57 An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things • 57HOW EXCELLENT COMPANIES AVOID DUMB THINGS14

deserved the top job were disappointed when an outsider was brought in.

The CEO knew that he could justify keeping this project going for only so

long before the board and shareholders would ask questions, but he also

knew that killing the COO’s pet project would harm the COO’s reputation

and a relationship that was important to him.

The CEO didn’t feel comfortable turning to the COO and just saying,

“We need to close this down.” So the expansion continued . . . and continued

to lose money.

Why should a CEO feel uncomfortable telling a direct report, “Well,

we gave it a shot, but it’s just not working”? This is business, after all, and

everyone is a professional. The industrial company was publicly traded, so

the CEO had an obligation to shareholders to maximize profi ts by doing

away with money losers.

As surprising as it may seem, Avoiding Controversy is something I

have seen over and over in my work with companies. And like all of the

other barriers, it surfaces at all levels of management. But there are many

dynamics at play, as you will fi nd true of each of the eight barriers that we

explore.

This one misfi re notwithstanding, the COO had a great track record.

During his 15 years with the company, he had successfully overseen the

integration of several acquisitions. Ironically, they had included having

to make some tough decisions about jettisoning unprofi table parts of the

business. He was known to be fair-minded and reasonable, which earned

him the loyalty not only of his direct reports but of people several levels

down in the organization. This middle-market expansion was the COO’s

blind spot as he had invested much in making it a success—so much that

the CEO feared he would lose a key lieutenant if he shut down the project.

The CEO made a conscious decision: he rationalized that the disruption

caused by losing the COO would be more costly than this money-losing

project.

The CEO also realized that shutting down the project could be inter-

preted as a vote of no confi dence in the COO, thus robbing this key

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 14 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM

5858 • An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb ThingsBARRIER 1: AVOIDING CONTROVERSY 15

player of respect within the organization and possibly compromising his

ability to be effective going forward. So while on the surface it looked like

the CEO was merely taking the easy way out by not addressing the prob-

lem, he believed that it was benefi cial for the company to live with this

money-losing operation for a while longer. Of course, it was not easy for

the rest of the organization to understand why he was doing this.

A publishing company had two analytic units that essentially did the same

thing. Each provided market research for the company’s extensive prospect

mailing program to solicit subscriptions. The analytic units used research and

statistics to determine the type of people who would buy a particular type of

magazine. They then located appropriate mailing lists and monitored the

results. They also created, implemented, and monitored the success of different

types of offers (such as buy one, give one free as a gift).

One of the units reported directly into the fl agship magazine division.

The second unit reported to the centralized marketing division, which sup-

ported the other two publishing divisions. This duplication of effort stemmed

from a time many years earlier when the central analytic unit did a very poor

job of supporting the fl agship magazine. As a result, the fl agship magazine

division created its own unit. Since then the circumstances had changed.

An executive who was considered an industry leader was running the cen-

tral unit, and service levels had increased tremendously. Both heads of their

respective divisions now agreed there should only be one group doing analyt-

ics, but each believed that his own unit could do the job better. The executive

vice president (EVP) to whom both division heads reported did not want to

address this issue for fear of demoralizing either team member, each of whom

was a high performer. As a result, both analytic units were left untouched—

and duplication persisted.

Clearly it would have been far more effi cient to have one unit perform-

ing the analytics function. But the two executives in charge of the units were

fi ercely protective of their own units. Neither believed that a new, combined

analytics center of excellence should report to the other.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 15 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM


59BARRIER 1: AVOIDING CONTROVERSY 15

player of respect within the organization and possibly compromising his

ability to be effective going forward. So while on the surface it looked like

the CEO was merely taking the easy way out by not addressing the prob-

lem, he believed that it was benefi cial for the company to live with this

money-losing operation for a while longer. Of course, it was not easy for

the rest of the organization to understand why he was doing this.

A publishing company had two analytic units that essentially did the same

thing. Each provided market research for the company’s extensive prospect

mailing program to solicit subscriptions. The analytic units used research and

statistics to determine the type of people who would buy a particular type of

magazine. They then located appropriate mailing lists and monitored the

results. They also created, implemented, and monitored the success of different

types of offers (such as buy one, give one free as a gift).

One of the units reported directly into the fl agship magazine division.

The second unit reported to the centralized marketing division, which sup-

ported the other two publishing divisions. This duplication of effort stemmed

from a time many years earlier when the central analytic unit did a very poor

job of supporting the fl agship magazine. As a result, the fl agship magazine

division created its own unit. Since then the circumstances had changed.

An executive who was considered an industry leader was running the cen-

tral unit, and service levels had increased tremendously. Both heads of their

respective divisions now agreed there should only be one group doing analyt-

ics, but each believed that his own unit could do the job better. The executive

vice president (EVP) to whom both division heads reported did not want to

address this issue for fear of demoralizing either team member, each of whom

was a high performer. As a result, both analytic units were left untouched—

and duplication persisted.

Clearly it would have been far more effi cient to have one unit perform-

ing the analytics function. But the two executives in charge of the units were

fi ercely protective of their own units. Neither believed that a new, combined

analytics center of excellence should report to the other.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 15 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM

An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things • 59HOW EXCELLENT COMPANIES AVOID DUMB THINGS16

The EVP who oversaw the two divisions didn’t want to look like he

was favoring one manager over the other. Each of them had a large degree

of autonomy and responsibility, and it was important to him that each

was in control of his own resources. He knew there should only be one

unit, but he didn’t want to dictate the answer to them—he wanted them

to fi gure it out for themselves. If he chose a winner, by default there would

be a loser. This was a zero-sum game, and the EVP didn’t want to demoral-

ize either of his high-performing executives. And he had another concern.

One of the potential losers was very close to the EVP’s boss, the CEO. If, as

a result of his decision, the company lost an executive for whom it had high

hopes, the EVP didn’t relish the thought of facing the CEO’s wrath.

The customer service call center of a bank provided live service 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week, as was the industry standard. The head of operations

(to whom the call center employees reported) believed that keeping the

center open 24/7, 365 days a year was an unnecessary expense. He pro-

posed reducing the hours to 20 a day, shutting down between 1:00 AM and

5:00 AM. This four-hour-a-day reduction would allow him to move from

three eight-hour shifts to two ten-hour shifts and would save the bank

more than $2 million a year. The retail banking president, whose job it

was to keep customers satisfi ed, resisted the idea of reducing the hours. “We

can’t offer our customers less service than the competition does,” he argued.

He believed that customer service was one of the few areas in which the

bank could distinguish itself from its competitors. This line of reason-

ing was behind the retail banking president’s already-successful campaign

against outsourcing the call center function, as market research had shown

that the bank’s customers were against outsourcing.

Each executive had a strong argument—substantial cost savings ver-

sus keeping up with the competition. The details of the situation were

clear and the fi nancials were known, but the two executives couldn’t reach

an agreement. Neither of them wanted a showdown, and interference on

the part of the CEO, to whom both reported, could have been seen as

heavy-handedness.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 16 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM

6060 • An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb ThingsBARRIER 1: AVOIDING CONTROVERSY 17

These two departments shared responsibility for numerous initia-

tives, and they worked closely together and partnered on many other

projects. Outside the bank the two executives were best friends, a fact

that made it even more surprising that they couldn’t reach an agreement

on this simple issue. To the retail president, it was clearly important to

mirror what competitors were doing. To the head of operations, this was

a simple waste of money. This was a highly visible disagreement, and for

the CEO the choice was very diffi cult. Because the debate was so visible to

the organization, to side with one executive over the other would clearly

undermine the power of whichever executive’s suggestion was rejected and

potentially cause bitterness in the ranks.

BARING THE BARRIER

You may think the answers to these problems are obvious and that these

are just examples of weak managers unable to make decisions. But all

three of these companies were considered among the best in their indus-

try. Even the very best managers will have more than a couple of contro-

versial ideas they do not want to act on . . . and that includes the CEO.

Perhaps they don’t want to anger the person they don’t agree with,

because there is already tension there. Perhaps they don’t want to be seen

as empowering one person at the expense of another. I even know of one

executive who could not bring himself to fi re someone who was incom-

petent at running his division because, frankly, he liked the person too

much. Managers are human, after all.

The real reason the Avoiding Controversy barrier exists is because

everyone who makes decisions has to pick their battles—whether you have

just three people reporting to you or whether you are the CEO in charge

of the entire company, you leave some things undecided. That means

that issues—often big, controversial issues—are left untouched in every

organization.

Sometimes decision makers are essentially powerless. They may

have the authority to make a decision, but, from a political perspective,

it would make no sense for them to act. To be seen as a manager who

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 17 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM



These two departments shared responsibility for numerous initia-

tives, and they worked closely together and partnered on many other

projects. Outside the bank the two executives were best friends, a fact

that made it even more surprising that they couldn’t reach an agreement

on this simple issue. To the retail president, it was clearly important to

mirror what competitors were doing. To the head of operations, this was

a simple waste of money. This was a highly visible disagreement, and for

the CEO the choice was very diffi cult. Because the debate was so visible to

the organization, to side with one executive over the other would clearly

undermine the power of whichever executive’s suggestion was rejected and

potentially cause bitterness in the ranks.

BARING THE BARRIER

You may think the answers to these problems are obvious and that these

are just examples of weak managers unable to make decisions. But all

three of these companies were considered among the best in their indus-

try. Even the very best managers will have more than a couple of contro-

versial ideas they do not want to act on . . . and that includes the CEO.

Perhaps they don’t want to anger the person they don’t agree with,

because there is already tension there. Perhaps they don’t want to be seen

as empowering one person at the expense of another. I even know of one

executive who could not bring himself to fi re someone who was incom-

petent at running his division because, frankly, he liked the person too

much. Managers are human, after all.

The real reason the Avoiding Controversy barrier exists is because

everyone who makes decisions has to pick their battles—whether you have

just three people reporting to you or whether you are the CEO in charge

of the entire company, you leave some things undecided. That means

that issues—often big, controversial issues—are left untouched in every

organization.

Sometimes decision makers are essentially powerless. They may

have the authority to make a decision, but, from a political perspective,

it would make no sense for them to act. To be seen as a manager who

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 17 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM

An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things • 61HOW EXCELLENT COMPANIES AVOID DUMB THINGS18

wields decision-making authority in anything less than a deft way is to

run the risk of being viewed as heavy-handed and unfair. The best man-

agers always think carefully, for example, about a business decision that

produces a zero-sum game, where, if there is a winner, there is also a loser.

Decisions can become polarizing; people align with one side or the other.

Even CEOs can be powerless. True, the CEO is the ultimate boss, but

once he or she has designated a person to run a business, unit, or division,

for the CEO to intervene would be disrespectful and disruptive. The CEO

would be seen to be micromanaging and risk having a revolt on his or her

hands. If there is no decision, there is neither a winner nor a loser. So,

because of the Avoiding Controversy barrier, contentious matters remain

unresolved, because it can seem to make more sense to do nothing.

This is true regardless of whether a manager’s style is dictatorial, dem-

ocratic, or delegating. Even dictators have a power base that they cannot

risk offending by issuing a fi at. Democratic bosses, whose teams are accus-

tomed to sharing in the decision making, cannot suddenly switch gears.

And bosses who have delegated responsibility run the risk of destroying

their power base by taking away authority they have given others.

Another reason that some managers avoid controversy is that they are

deliberately confl ict adverse. I recently had lunch with one of my former

client CEOs, and he laid this problem bare. He said, “Some executives

will avoid confl ict as much as possible as they guide their career through

the organization. In my experience, controversy avoiders are often very

popular, and it is easy to promote them. Everyone feels good and no one

feels threatened when they are promoted. A very successful career path

can be built on avoiding controversy.”

The best managers know when to pick their battles and have a knack

for doing so. But even with deft use of this skill, important issues in

the organization are left unaddressed. The examples I have given—most

rooted in actual work I have done with companies—are just some ways

in which avoiding controversy plays out. One of the reasons a good change

process is so successful is that it removes the Avoiding Controversy barrier so

that managers no longer have to pick battles; the process does this by shining

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 18 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM


light on every aspect of the company’s operations and by forcing the right

decision to be made on each one of them.

Now, there are also times that managers do not act for reasons less

noble or rational than the situations I have described. Sometimes they

do things—or don’t do things—because they want to keep people below

them from becoming too powerful, for example. But regardless of the

reason for the lack of action or not making a decision, and regardless

of how a reason might be rationalized, when people avoid dealing with

controversy, the barrier is still there and the problems still remain.

BREAKING THE BARRIER

My fi rm gets hired to break down the barriers in companies and help them

achieve change that will make them more effi cient, more profi table, and

less complex. We do that with the PGI Promise® process, which has proven

to be extremely effective in allowing creative ideas to come forward. In

most cases in which people are Avoiding Controversy, they are aware that

they are doing it. Their motive is to avoid painful consequences. A big part

of my work in dealing with the Avoiding Controversy barrier is the crea-

tion of a short-term environment in which executives must face issues and

must determine the outcome together. Failing that, the CEO must make a

decision.

The CEO and other executives are “protected” by the process when

making decisions. It provides the ground cover for controversial issues to be

resolved and decisions to be made. When the entire organization sees an issue

and there is a structure in place to make decisions, it becomes hard to avoid

making them. The manager can blame the process: “Sorry—it is the process

that is making me decide this.” The process also makes it easier for “losers”

to accept decisions. And, the fact that there is now a change process in place

helps to depersonalize the issue. In fact, every idea is depersonalized—and so

is every solution. The process is driving the decision making. A key principle

of our change process is that ideas are easy to get in the system but hard to

take out (see Principle 6 in chapter 9). People have to defend their reasons for

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 19 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM

• An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things



light on every aspect of the company’s operations and by forcing the right

decision to be made on each one of them.

Now, there are also times that managers do not act for reasons less

noble or rational than the situations I have described. Sometimes they

do things—or don’t do things—because they want to keep people below

them from becoming too powerful, for example. But regardless of the

reason for the lack of action or not making a decision, and regardless

of how a reason might be rationalized, when people avoid dealing with

controversy, the barrier is still there and the problems still remain.

BREAKING THE BARRIER

My fi rm gets hired to break down the barriers in companies and help them

achieve change that will make them more effi cient, more profi table, and

less complex. We do that with the PGI Promise® process, which has proven

to be extremely effective in allowing creative ideas to come forward. In

most cases in which people are Avoiding Controversy, they are aware that

they are doing it. Their motive is to avoid painful consequences. A big part

of my work in dealing with the Avoiding Controversy barrier is the crea-

tion of a short-term environment in which executives must face issues and

must determine the outcome together. Failing that, the CEO must make a

decision.

The CEO and other executives are “protected” by the process when

making decisions. It provides the ground cover for controversial issues to be

resolved and decisions to be made. When the entire organization sees an issue

and there is a structure in place to make decisions, it becomes hard to avoid

making them. The manager can blame the process: “Sorry—it is the process

that is making me decide this.” The process also makes it easier for “losers”

to accept decisions. And, the fact that there is now a change process in place

helps to depersonalize the issue. In fact, every idea is depersonalized—and so

is every solution. The process is driving the decision making. A key principle

of our change process is that ideas are easy to get in the system but hard to

take out (see Principle 6 in chapter 9). People have to defend their reasons for

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 19 4/11/2012 2:52:44 PM


not doing something. This is the reverse of the way decision making usually

takes place. In a typical environment, one person’s dissent can be enough to

veto a suggestion for change. In the barrier-busting environment, the onus is

on a dissenter to say why an idea cannot work.

As a result, the idea becomes focused, and the senior management has

to make a decision. Attention is focused on the idea. The process forces a

decision to be made. The change process forces people to address a con-

troversial issue in a neutral way, armed with facts, as just one of hundreds

of decisions that are being made for the improvement of the entire com-

pany. In this environment, even the most controversial of ideas must be

resolved.

Let us see how the process played out in the three scenarios that we

talked about earlier in the chapter.

In the case of the COO’s pet project, the process gave him the oppor-

tunity to look like he was leading by example by suggesting himself that

his midmarket expansion be abandoned. This appeared to be a major

sacrifi ce. And it sent a strong message to the organization: “If I can give

up my pet project, I’d better not see you trying to keep yours.”

When there is a company-wide review and everything is being consid-

ered, it becomes clear that change is going to be occurring on a large scale

and that everyone is potentially affected. People are going to have to make

sacrifi ces. I was able to say to the COO, “This is your sacrifi ce. And if you

make that sacrifi ce—giving up your idea—imagine what a message that’s

sending to everybody else in the organization.” He was able to demon-

strate strong leadership; it looked like his decision, he did not have to lose

face, and the CEO did not have to risk alienating and losing an important

member of his team. And yes, the company saved money by shedding this

business in a nondisruptive manner and did not lose the COO.

With the analytic unit, remember, there were two highly qualifi ed,

high-performing executives—and no clear reason why one executive’s

unit should be chosen over the other. It was a simple (but not easy) matter

of just having to make a decision that could have seemed arbitrary and

clearly would have labeled one a winner and the other a loser.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 20 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM

An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things • 63


Ultimately, it did come down to the rather black-or-white decision

of Charlie’s department being kept rather than Dave’s and to combine the

units under the centralized marketing division. In this situation, however,

Dave was a lot less angry than he would have been because it was done in

the context of “it was the right decision for the company” and just one

of many being made, some of which made Dave a clear winner. In fact,

the process made the decision to lose his analytics unit seem more like a

trade-off.

Initially, Dave was not completely happy with the decision to lose ana-

lytics for his fl agship magazine division, but he stayed with the company—

after all, the impartial process ensured that he did not come out labeled a

loser. Funnily enough, after a year, he became very enamored with the new

centralized unit. The cost savings achieved by eliminating the duplication

allowed the new combined unit to afford better technology, which helped

Dave do his job better.

The resolution of the call center situation brings to light another

important aspect of breaking down barriers—that it is possible for people

who have been disagreeing to agree once their perspective shifts.

Now the onus was on the retail president of the bank to say why he

did not want to go to a 20-hour call center. It was not up to the opera-

tions manager to defend his idea for change. Sure, the retail president had

already said that he wanted to do what his competitors were doing. So

members of the Catalyst Team (see chapters 9 and 11) asked this simple

question: “What’s the value of the calls that come in between 1:00 and

5:00 in the morning?” He did not know, so they said, “Okay, well why

don’t you just go to the call center and check it out? Because if they’re

saying there’s no value in the calls, but you think there is, why don’t we

all get together in the call center at 1:00 in the morning and see what

happens?”

Here the decision was being driven by fact (see Principle 7 in chapter 9:

consideration of ideas must be based on facts and analysis, not opinion).

And in this case it was easy because the senior executive who was opposing

the change in hours, the retail president, actually changed his mind.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 21 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM

• An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things HOW EXCELLENT COMPANIES AVOID DUMB THINGS22

He went to sit in a call center for two consecutive mornings between

1:00 and 5:00 and listened to some of the calls that came in. He found

that many of the callers were lonely people who wanted someone to talk

to or just wanted to see what their balance was. The call center was almost

more of a Good Samaritan service than banking customer service! As soon

as the retail president recognized this, he had no hesitation in reducing

the call center hours.

He was open-minded enough to realize that the calls coming in really

were not that valuable in terms of providing excellent customer service,

and he was confi dent enough to be able to change his mind without losing

face.

In this case, the process kept the responsibility for resolution fi rmly

in the hands of the heads of retail and operations, with the true onus on

the retail president. And this is where it belonged. The process broke the

stalemate in this example of the Avoiding Controversy barrier. It forced

the responsible parties to make a decision together.

Now, the process cannot take all the credit for this resolution. The

retail president was an executive who did not feel threatened when the

facts contradicted his belief—and not all executives are as confi dent or as

wise. Some people will argue in spite of the facts. But it is a lot harder to

argue in the face of facts—and almost impossible to win when you do.

WHY PEOPLE AVOID CONTROVERSY

BY Dr. Richard Levak

Given human nature, it is hardly surprising that Avoiding

Controversy is a hidden barrier to change within companies.

Unfortunately, many of us don’t know how to successfully navigate

controversy, and because it is potentially upsetting, we have many

mechanisms to help us avoid dealing with it. This short essay dis-

cusses two common mechanisms and describes different personal-

ity types and what makes each of them avoid controversy. In reality,

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 22 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM



Ultimately, it did come down to the rather black-or-white decision

of Charlie’s department being kept rather than Dave’s and to combine the

units under the centralized marketing division. In this situation, however,

Dave was a lot less angry than he would have been because it was done in

the context of “it was the right decision for the company” and just one

of many being made, some of which made Dave a clear winner. In fact,

the process made the decision to lose his analytics unit seem more like a

trade-off.

Initially, Dave was not completely happy with the decision to lose ana-

lytics for his fl agship magazine division, but he stayed with the company—

after all, the impartial process ensured that he did not come out labeled a

loser. Funnily enough, after a year, he became very enamored with the new

centralized unit. The cost savings achieved by eliminating the duplication

allowed the new combined unit to afford better technology, which helped

Dave do his job better.

The resolution of the call center situation brings to light another

important aspect of breaking down barriers—that it is possible for people

who have been disagreeing to agree once their perspective shifts.

Now the onus was on the retail president of the bank to say why he

did not want to go to a 20-hour call center. It was not up to the opera-

tions manager to defend his idea for change. Sure, the retail president had

already said that he wanted to do what his competitors were doing. So

members of the Catalyst Team (see chapters 9 and 11) asked this simple

question: “What’s the value of the calls that come in between 1:00 and

5:00 in the morning?” He did not know, so they said, “Okay, well why

don’t you just go to the call center and check it out? Because if they’re

saying there’s no value in the calls, but you think there is, why don’t we

all get together in the call center at 1:00 in the morning and see what

happens?”

Here the decision was being driven by fact (see Principle 7 in chapter 9:

consideration of ideas must be based on facts and analysis, not opinion).

And in this case it was easy because the senior executive who was opposing

the change in hours, the retail president, actually changed his mind.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 21 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM


He went to sit in a call center for two consecutive mornings between

1:00 and 5:00 and listened to some of the calls that came in. He found

that many of the callers were lonely people who wanted someone to talk

to or just wanted to see what their balance was. The call center was almost

more of a Good Samaritan service than banking customer service! As soon

as the retail president recognized this, he had no hesitation in reducing

the call center hours.

He was open-minded enough to realize that the calls coming in really

were not that valuable in terms of providing excellent customer service,

and he was confi dent enough to be able to change his mind without losing

face.

In this case, the process kept the responsibility for resolution fi rmly

in the hands of the heads of retail and operations, with the true onus on

the retail president. And this is where it belonged. The process broke the

stalemate in this example of the Avoiding Controversy barrier. It forced

the responsible parties to make a decision together.

Now, the process cannot take all the credit for this resolution. The

retail president was an executive who did not feel threatened when the

facts contradicted his belief—and not all executives are as confi dent or as

wise. Some people will argue in spite of the facts. But it is a lot harder to

argue in the face of facts—and almost impossible to win when you do.

WHY PEOPLE AVOID CONTROVERSY

BY Dr. Richard Levak

Given human nature, it is hardly surprising that Avoiding

Controversy is a hidden barrier to change within companies.

Unfortunately, many of us don’t know how to successfully navigate

controversy, and because it is potentially upsetting, we have many

mechanisms to help us avoid dealing with it. This short essay dis-

cusses two common mechanisms and describes different personal-

ity types and what makes each of them avoid controversy. In reality,

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 22 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM



the brain is actually hardwired to deal with controversy and its

escalation, confl ict. Preparing to do battle is part of our evolution-

ary brain. We are also hardwired to enjoy the endorphin rush of the

successful resolution of controversy and confl ict. This essay ends

with strategies to face and resolve controversy productively.

Controversy is almost inevitable whenever choices exist. In fact,

research shows that the more choices there are, the more diffi cult and

controversial the decision making. Controversy in any interaction,

when not resolved, can readily turn to confl ict. It is the successful reso-

lution of controversy that is a hallmark of a successful marriage, busi-

ness relationship, or friendship.

But it is not diffi cult to understand why controversy is avoided.

During a controversial interaction, stress hormones are released into the

bloodstream. Blood vessels narrow, heart rate goes up, and we prepare

to fl ee or fi ght. Studies show that even thinking about a controversial

topic can signifi cantly raise blood pressure and release stress hormones.

These hormones act similarly to steroids, so over time, having constant

controversial interactions can break down the body’s immune system.

Working in a business environment where controversy is avoided may

appear to be less stressful.

As humans, we have a number of defenses that inhibit our moti-

vation to confront controversy. They can block and distort reality

in such ways that we think we can avoid dealing with controversy.

Avoiding controversy can, however, block creativity and potentially

evolve into confl ict.

Two primary psychological defenses are denial and rationalization.

DENIAL

Denial shields us from admitting unpleasant truths and allows us the

comfort of preserving the status quo. Denial usually collapses when

things go badly wrong and it becomes clear how obvious the situation

actually was.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 23 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM

• An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things HOW EXCELLENT COMPANIES AVOID DUMB THINGS24

RATIONALIZATION

Rationalization is another powerful defense protecting us from the

discomfort of controversy. Studies on cognitive dissonance show that

once we make a diffi cult decision, we have a tendency to rationalize

that it is the best decision we could have made. Consequently, we

can avoid controversy by rationalizing to ourselves that we are in

fact acting wisely and judiciously, keeping the peace and not being

pushy.

In one study, managers were given diffi cult management choices

in which there was no clear answer. Once they made a decision,

they argued for its wisdom even though after the experiment new

subjects could see the benefi ts of a different choice. (Once people

make a decision, they tend to build a case for it retroactively.) In

the case of Avoiding Controversy, many people rationalize the need

to get more data or wait and hope the problem resolves itself.

ROLE OF PERSONALITY

People are born with a certain personality type, and experiences shape

and enhance it. Three broad personality clusters (among others) are

predisposed to Avoiding Controversy.

1. Agreeable Confl ict Avoider

On the positive side, Agreeable Confl ict Avoiders are consensus

builders who have long fuses and go the extra mile to avoid contro-

versy. When they problem-solve, they think about how everybody

can win. The downside of this type is that they avoid controversy at

the expense of effi ciency and sound problem solving.

2. Conscientious, Detail-Oriented, Compulsive Type

On the positive side, these individuals think through decisions care-

fully, are highly attentive to details, and take their responsibilities

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 24 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM


67HOW EXCELLENT COMPANIES AVOID DUMB THINGS24

RATIONALIZATION

Rationalization is another powerful defense protecting us from the

discomfort of controversy. Studies on cognitive dissonance show that

once we make a diffi cult decision, we have a tendency to rationalize

that it is the best decision we could have made. Consequently, we

can avoid controversy by rationalizing to ourselves that we are in

fact acting wisely and judiciously, keeping the peace and not being

pushy.

In one study, managers were given diffi cult management choices

in which there was no clear answer. Once they made a decision,

they argued for its wisdom even though after the experiment new

subjects could see the benefi ts of a different choice. (Once people

make a decision, they tend to build a case for it retroactively.) In

the case of Avoiding Controversy, many people rationalize the need

to get more data or wait and hope the problem resolves itself.

ROLE OF PERSONALITY

People are born with a certain personality type, and experiences shape

and enhance it. Three broad personality clusters (among others) are

predisposed to Avoiding Controversy.

1. Agreeable Confl ict Avoider

On the positive side, Agreeable Confl ict Avoiders are consensus

builders who have long fuses and go the extra mile to avoid contro-

versy. When they problem-solve, they think about how everybody

can win. The downside of this type is that they avoid controversy at

the expense of effi ciency and sound problem solving.

2. Conscientious, Detail-Oriented, Compulsive Type

On the positive side, these individuals think through decisions care-

fully, are highly attentive to details, and take their responsibilities

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 24 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM



seriously. The downside is that they don’t want to make a mistake;

they are risk avoiders who will avoid controversy for fear that they will

be proven wrong and then feel humiliated. They rationalize the need

for more data and time before making decisions.

3. Sensitive Type

The positive side of the Sensitive type is an ability to fi t in and play

the right role in different situations and to be vigilant to keep things

on track. However, the negative side is that Sensitive types can make

mountains out of molehills, hold grudges, and overreact in crises.

Regardless of personality type, people fi nd Avoiding Controversy

easier than dealing with it. For that reason, we have evolved rituals

and rules of behavior, such as etiquette, to minimize controversy.

At the same time, humans are wired to feel the reward of suc-

cessful controversy resolution. When a controversy is successfully

resolved, the endorphins that are released into the bloodstream

lead to pleasurable positive emotions that promote human bond-

ing. Research shows that teams that resolve controversy success-

fully become bonded, creative, and loyal to one another. However,

people need a structure that can help them manage controversy.

If they can be made to feel safe and rewarded for seeing new

and creative ways of doing things, they will want to do so. Fear,

whether of looking foolish or of creating controversy, creates tun-

nel vision.

The change process outlined in this book, the PGI Promise®,

encourages people to identify controversy, highlight it, and resolve it

with fact-based analysis. If people are encouraged to do so in a safe

and transparent environment, they will work hard to contribute and

experience the endorphin rush that comes from successfully resolving

controversy.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 25 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM

• An Excerpt from How Excellent Companies Avoid Dumb Things



seriously. The downside is that they don’t want to make a mistake;

they are risk avoiders who will avoid controversy for fear that they will

be proven wrong and then feel humiliated. They rationalize the need

for more data and time before making decisions.

3. Sensitive Type

The positive side of the Sensitive type is an ability to fi t in and play

the right role in different situations and to be vigilant to keep things

on track. However, the negative side is that Sensitive types can make

mountains out of molehills, hold grudges, and overreact in crises.

Regardless of personality type, people fi nd Avoiding Controversy

easier than dealing with it. For that reason, we have evolved rituals

and rules of behavior, such as etiquette, to minimize controversy.

At the same time, humans are wired to feel the reward of suc-

cessful controversy resolution. When a controversy is successfully

resolved, the endorphins that are released into the bloodstream

lead to pleasurable positive emotions that promote human bond-

ing. Research shows that teams that resolve controversy success-

fully become bonded, creative, and loyal to one another. However,

people need a structure that can help them manage controversy.

If they can be made to feel safe and rewarded for seeing new

and creative ways of doing things, they will want to do so. Fear,

whether of looking foolish or of creating controversy, creates tun-

nel vision.

The change process outlined in this book, the PGI Promise®,

encourages people to identify controversy, highlight it, and resolve it

with fact-based analysis. If people are encouraged to do so in a safe

and transparent environment, they will work hard to contribute and

experience the endorphin rush that comes from successfully resolving

controversy.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 25 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM


IT IS NOT JUST CEOS

Controversial ideas are not just the domain of the C suite. Every manager

has to make decisions about what ideas he or she is going to act on, often

employing, on a smaller scale, the same mental gymnastics as the CEO. The

person who makes controversial decisions may well be doing the right things

for the company but could lose a lot of infl uential friends in the process.

While the CEO and other senior managers likely will know about

the big ideas with the largest potential for fi nancial impact, they will not

be aware of ones farther down the line. But other managers will. When

you add the impact of the big ideas at the top of the pyramid with the

impact of the countless ones farther down, you can see that unwillingness

and inability to deal with controversial ideas is costing your company a

great deal of money.

9781137003065_03_ch1.indd 26 4/11/2012 2:52:45 PM


70

MORE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP BOOKS

FROM PALGRAVE MACMILLAN

9781

1372

8222

4 | $

35 |

$40

CAN

| £2

1.99

April

9781

1372

9718

1 | $

30 |

$34.

50 C

AN |

£18.

99

Aug US / Sept UK

9781

1372

9389

3 | $

40 |

$46

CAN

| £2

9.99

9780

2303

0132

0 | $

40 |

$46

CAN

| £2

6

9781

1372

7617

9 | $

40 |

$46

CAN

| £2

6

9781

1373

4746

6 | $

40 |

$46

CAN

| £2

9.99

9781

1370

0811

4 | $

40 |

$46

CAN

| £2

4.99

9781

1373

2288

3 | $

40 |

$46

CAN

| £2

6

9781

1372

8675

8 | $

40 |

$46

CAN

| £2

6

Dec US / Nov UK

December Sept US / Aug UK Oct US / Dec UK

Dec US / Nov UK Sept US / Oct UK Dec US / Nov UK


71

Sign up to our monthly newsletterUSA and Canada: www.palgrave-usa.com/newsletters UK and Rest of World: www.palgrave.com/professionalbusiness

Find us on Facebookwww.facebook.com/palgravemacmillan

Follow us on Twitterwww.twitter.com/palgravebiz

Follow Palgrave Macmillan online for news, exclusive articles and

special offers.

At Palgrave Macmillan, we are rather excited about our Professional

Business list, which combines topical writing from a list of top-notch

business authors, with Palgrave Macmillan’s reputation for academic

rigour.

If you’re a professional looking to improve your skills and knowledge,

or are simply interested in the ever-changing world of professional

business, please sign up to our e-newsletter or follow us on social

media. You’ll receive news, information on our forthcoming books,

author interviews, videos and discounts.

All rights reserved. No part of this booklet may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations for critical articles or reviews.

www.palgrave.com/professionalbusiness

@palgravebiz

management titles - selected excerpts

Documents

board of directors

board behavior

century board

corporate board composition

boardnice companies

large companies

successhow excellent

essential books