That last word conjures up images of barriers that reach skyward, and sometimes the walls that managers erect around themselves and their teams seem almost insurmountable. One top leader says she feels like she has to climb the world’s tallest ladder to get inside one manager’s unit. Getting through is not an easy task, but discovering the prize inside—an able and skilled manager who needs clarity about his job—can make the climb worthwhile.

Haven’t we all watched a strong manager who believes that his/her duty to his department holds more importance than his/her obligation to the organization? Such devotion to the team is admirable, but when carried to extremes, it’s likely to keep the manager stuck in his/her silo while others who can see the big picture climb over him to get to the top.

As we note in our report, “Five Critical Management Derailers: Symptoms & Remedies” silo-building managers risk their organizations’ well being as well as their own. You can recognize the signs in your own organization if you have managers who:

• Refuses to deal with co-workers outside their immediate unit
• Habitually makes decisions beneficial to their team but not beneficial to the organization
• Balks at making changes that affect them, even if the change helps the organization
• Keeps beneficial information inside the “team tent”
• Appears not to grasp the organization’s mission/vision

One organization deals with the problem of “silo-managers” by never letting the manager build the silo in the first place.
How? One way is by establishing regular meetings in which different departmental leaders share information, discuss problems and plans, and generally see the organization from different perspectives.

The same organization also annually appoints a different manager to a committee made up of leaders outside the organization. This panel of appointees serves as the fundraising arm for a community nonprofit agency. The organizations participating raise their profiles in the community while performing good works. Each manager on the panel learns more about his organization and the role it plays in the community. This appointment accomplishes several in-house goals as well:

First, it avoids continually drawing water from the same well. Every CEO can point to one or more departments that turn in exceptional performance year after year. The temptation of working with thoroughbreds, however, is that we go back to them—and only them—race after race. At the very least, this practice risks tiring high performers to the point of indifference.

Second, passing around the committee membership gives new performers a chance to develop and show off new skills. The thoroughbreds set the benchmark. Others can then strive to meet it, or even reach beyond.

Third, regularly working with people outside of a unit brings down the silo walls more quickly than any well chosen words of a CEO. Why? People often learn best while doing.

Envision reaching over a wall to grab a hand. Doing so is almost impossible when the walls are silo-high. For effective collaboration, committee members must emerge from their silos and meet in a brand new environment.

Leaders can also use a cross-functional in-house team. One example is a team that examines the impact of implementing a change in customer service or some other crucial operation. Such a committee could be composed of managers in each of an organization’s departments.

Other remedies to bring down the silo walls include:
• Explaining how each spoke is important to the wheel. In other words, establishing in clear language how the manager’s team fits into the organizational big picture. This is especially important for a new manager who may just be learning how to run his department. Direct supervisors should demonstrate early on that the wheel is only as strong as its individual spokes, and that one spoke alone isn’t strong enough to support the wheel.
• Establishing a cross-functional goal for the manager. In this scenario, the manager reports to someone else who can monitor progress, facilitate discussion, offer advice, and drive accountability. This is ideally someone who has been in charge of a department and now holds more than departmental responsibility.
• Three-point monitoring to hold the manager accountable. The three points of access are the manager’s manager or boss, his peers and his subordinates. Why three points instead of just one? Because it’s next to impossible to monitor a person’s performance all by yourself. You would have to be at the same place as this manager all the time, from the time he reports to work to the time he leaves the parking lot at the end of his workday. Most supervisors have more than one person and one task to attend to in a day, so this helps establish a way for the manager to be accountable to his peers and subordinates too. Make it known that you will be asking each point of access to evaluate his performance. Do this for everyone and it becomes less threatening—and everyone is accountable to everyone!

If you are tired of looking at the silo walls from the outside, imagine the limited view from within. It’s time to bring those walls down, permanently.

In this regard, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s recent fall from grace should serve as an object lesson for anyone who has a job…and especially for anyone who is seeking a job.

Social media can be a friendly extension of personal and professional interaction. It is important to remember, however, that any online post falls under the watchful eye of ‘Big Brother.’ And as the use of online social media grows, job seekers should be aware that employers’ use of social media investigations will understandably grow as well.

Internet searches enable employers to discover critical traits and behaviors that help them assess an applicant’s suitability. And social media sites, in particular, provide a wealth of valuable information, much of it self-generated by prospective employees, themselves…

…and not all of it flattering.

Just as Weiner’s opponents undoubtedly scoured the Internet hoping to find ‘dirt’ that would sully his reputation and bury his political career, employers are searching the Internet, too. No longer simply checking references, mid- and large-sized companies are using the web to dig more deeply into the qualifications, background, and emotional stability of future hires.

There are some that would say keeping personal information ‘private’ is simply a matter of logic. It’s true. In an age of transparency, uploading inappropriate comments and photos does seem to speak to a lack of common sense and emotional intelligence.

Common Sense and Uncommon Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence is a phrase originated by psychologist Daniel Goleman. It refers to a cluster of traits/abilities that relate to the emotional side of life, including the ability to

• Recognize and manage one’s own and others’ emotions

• Motivate oneself

• Keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in check

• Handle interpersonal relationships effectively.

Increasingly, employers are focusing on employees’ emotional intelligence skillset because of its enormous impact on job performance. According to survey conducted by careerbuilder.co.uk published in the London Telegraph, “more than four in ten employers discarded a job seekers resume after finding incriminating material on their Facebook pages.”

The articles goes on to detail major ‘offenses’:

• 38% of job seekers were rejected for lying about their qualifications, the lies uncovered because of real academic records available on social media sites

• 10% of applicants were rejected for online posts boasting about drinking and drugs online

• 13% were rejected for making racist comments

• 9% were rejected for placing racy photos on their Facebook page.

Learning What Others Are Born With
Some people are born with common sense and have a built-in barometer when it comes to emotional intelligence. Others have to learn it. One option is to sign up for self-improvement classes.

Another is to hire a professional business coach. Many of my clients turn to me to help them navigate the ‘new normal’ where a carefully constructed business persona can be completely undone by an inflammatory tweet, a snarky Facebook status comment, or an inappropriate YouTube video.

I remind them that every time they post online, they are indirectly communicating with potential employers.

How Weiner Went from Winner to Loser
Like many of his peers who have had their business and personal lives collide, crash, and burn because of the Internet, Weiner went through the ‘four stages’ of being found out. In Stage One – the denial stage – Weiner said that he did not send lewd photos. In Stage Two – the whiner stage – he complained that he had been victimized by a hacker and called a CNN producer a jackass for questioning him about the photos.

Ultimately, Weiner reached Stage Four – the accountability stage. Faced with the irrefutable proof of his actions, Weiner finally stepped forward and accepted full responsibility for his actions and lack of common sense. And thus Weiner, a ‘winner’ in the eyes of the voters and a man many considered a shoe-in as the next mayor of New York City, became a loser.

Job seekers wishing to avoid a similar fate should post with care.

Executive coaching reflects bottom-line benefits by increasing profits and reducing costs. All this is to be achieved within a defined timeframe.
To be effective, a balance must be struck between the needs of the organization and the needs of the individual. To engage and motivate individuals, coaching must be tailored to the needs and aspirations of the individual executive being coached. To deliver business results, the coaching must be tailored to the strategy, vision, and values of the organization.

Effective strategic coaching is in marked contrast to other approaches that concentrate on solving a specific perceived problem with individuals such as attempts to change something about their personality or to make them more affable and approachable. The spotlight should be on effecting business results; other benefits are important but subordinate to the primary strategic goals of the organization.

Perhaps one of the most important and direct benefit of good strategic coaching is the development of high-impact future leadership. More effective leadership throughout the organization will in turn drive many other important business results. For example “improved customer loyalty” is one of the business benefits of improved leadership and therefore of the executive coaching that drives improvement in these skills.

High impact coaching helps executives become more effective and effective executives create more satisfied employees; satisfied employees create more satisfied customers; and satisfied, loyal customers create higher profits.

Retention of key employees is another outcome of effective leadership coaching. Retaining key, competent people is an important competitive strategy. For example, a new hire can accomplish only 60% as much in the first three months and as experienced worker. A new hire tends to serve customers less well.

Our experience in developing business leaders reinforces this conclusion: Strategic Leadership Coaching produces more effective leaders, who create employee satisfaction, competence, and customer loyalty necessary to drive profit and reduce costs. Moreover, by improving leadership skills throughout the organization, executive coaching makes the organization a more attractive place to work for high potential people.

Rather than greeting customers with a smile, his manner was surly, and when customers asked questions about different products, he simply shrugged and said, “I’m not sure.” Rather than performing his duties at a brisk clip to get moviegoers into the theatre on time, he was working at a snail’s pace. The line for refreshments was long and many people simply decided not to wait. And when someone ordered small popcorn, he failed to suggest ‘a larger size for just a dollar more’ and didn’t ask if they wanted a beverage.

He was costing his employer money on every transaction.

Now I had arrived early for my film, so I decided to do a little ‘professional digging.’ I told the young man that I had a son (I do) who was looking for a summer job (he’s not) and wondered if my offspring might like working for this prestigious movie chain.

My question opened the floodgates. For the next ten minutes, the employee denigrated his employer, the products they sold at the snack counter, the salary he earned, and the training he received. “The managers completely ignore the workers after they’re hired,” he told me. “They don’t take time to explain things to us properly. Those of us who deal with customers every day have a lot of ideas about how to improve things, but management doesn’t listen to our suggestions.”

“What’s the point of trying?” he asked.

Clearly the worker felt overlooked and under-valued. He was working at the theatre because he needed a job, but he was consciously operating far beneath his potential and that was costing his employer money.

I had stumbled into a microcosm of American business. Most companies understand they need to actively engage their customers to build loyalty, deepen relationships, and gain access to insights that inspire future actions. But where companies fall down is in engaging their own workforce.

Is employee engagement really that important? Yes, and the proof is in the statistics…

According to the research experts at Gallup, teams that scored in the top 25% of ‘engagement’ are three times more likely to succeed as those in the bottom 25%., averaging 18% higher productivity and 12% higher profitability.

On the flip side, employee disengagement is estimated to cost the U.S. economy as much as $350 billion dollars per year in lost productivity, accidents, theft and turnover. The bottom line: the difference between an engaged and disengaged workforce can ultimately mean success or failure for an organization. And while there is an expense related to employee engagement, it is likely the best investment a company can make.

Disengaged employees wear their apathy on their sleeves, putting forth minimal effort. Engaged employees, on the other hand, focus all their energy, intelligence, skills and experience to achieve success for themselves and their organization. They go the extra mile, putting effort into work that is above and beyond the expectations of both customers and employers.

Employees thrive and stay highly engaged when they are working in a positive, supportive corporate culture that offers ongoing training and assessment, in addition to financial rewards.

And by the way…

When I returned to the theatre a few weeks later, Mr. Disengaged was no longer working there. That was great for customers, but not so good for the movie chain that had to invest time and effort (translation: profits) into hiring and training a replacement…who was likely to be just as disengaged as his predecessor.

The same is true with American businesses.

Innovation is the intersection of the past and present that leads to the future. That’s why it is so important that business leaders publicly acknowledge the contribution of each generation, applaud the unique strengths brought to the table by workers of different ages, and encourage everyone to share their viewpoints as a way to make a strong team even stronger.

The 21st Century workplace brings together an unprecedented number of chronological generations whose life experience influences behaviors and attitudes…including the ‘carrots’ that motivate them in the workplace. Some hold tightly to the ‘old ways’ while others eagerly anticipate the future.

• Traditionalists – born from 1922-1946. The Great Depression and WWII shaped the thinking of this generation. They have been influenced by the experiences of their parents…whose values go back to the 19th Century. Traditionalists prioritize privacy, hard work, and formality, in both attire and organizational structures. They have a great deal of respect for authority and preserving the existing ‘social order.’

• Baby Boomers - born from 1946-1964. Civil Rights, Woodstock, and the Beatles created the ‘Me Generation.’ Sometimes considered self-centered and egotistical, Boomers are committed to personal achievement. They were ‘born’ to climb the ladder of success, eager to replace command and control style of their Traditionalist predecessors with a team-oriented approach to doing business.

• Generation X’-ers - born from 1965-1980. The ‘defining moments’ for this generation include The Gulf War, Atari, and Nintendo. Unlike their predecessors, they do not rely on institutions for their long-term security and do not value loyalty. And while they are hard-working, This generation works hard, but they would rather find quicker more efficient ways of working so that they have time for fun. While Boomers are working hard to move up the ladder, Xers are working hard so that they can have more time to balance work and life responsibilities.

• Millennials (also called Generation Y’-ers) - born from 1981-2000. Gen Y’ers are highly technical and part of an ‘information now’ culture. They never known a world without speed dial, ATMs, and high speed Internet access. The ‘defining moments’ for this generation include the Internet and social networking. They value speed and autonomy.

Because they may be unaccustomed to new strategies for problem-solving and uncomfortable with their lack of knowledge regarding technology and the Internet, Traditionalist and Baby Boomers may label the progressive thinking and ground-breaking ideas that their younger employees offer as ‘impulsive’ or ‘too risky.’ By the same token, the Gen X and Gen Y workers may dismiss the input of older employees as ‘out of touch’ or ‘rigid.’

Leaders in business and international politics must first understand and then celebrate generational differences. Creating organizational methodologies to engage people by tapping into their unique generational needs and style will enable corporate America (and the people of Egypt) to make the most of their ‘human capital.’

A Satisfied Customer is NOT always a Loyal Customer!
In business, the goal has always been satisfied customers. While satisfaction is important, it is not sufficient to guarantee that your customers will continue to buy from you. The world changes quickly and the minute you get complacent, BANG, a new competitor surfaces with a solution they claim is better, faster or cheaper. Suddenly your customer no longer needs you. We all know it costs more to acquire a new customer than to keep an existing one.

So, what really drives customer loyalty? We believe that you build loyalty when you and your customers are aligned on seven key factors. These factors are:

1. Emotional Dependence - psychological commitment from the customer. It is the customer’s reliance on an organization for support, guidance, and decision-making – the tendency of the customer to seek help from you as a supplier in making decisions. Emotional Dependence includes; integrity, reliability, depth of relationship, and empathy.
2. Structural dependence - common cause between the buyer and seller. This enables clients to run their businesses more efficiently and focus on their core business, and it allows businesses to provide services at a lower cost by building scale and operating expertise. Structural dependence is among the most powerful loyalty builders.
3. Business Dependence - marketing positioning of the relationship. This includes how you help your customer create go-to-market solutions, grow and retain their client base, and be competitively sound in their market.
4. Customer Satisfaction - often an indication of how well your organization performed during a recent event. This often includes elements of service, support and delivery - delivering a new product or service; solving a service or maintenance issue; or executing a campaign, pilot program or evaluation.
5. Performance - how a product or service holds up to expectations and required standards. Typically, performance is measured over a longer period of time and with more objective criteria than the measurement of satisfaction, which is event-based and emotionally influenced.
6. Economic Value Proposition - refers to the financial implications in the relationship with a customer, such as the economic impact of having or not having a supplier’s products or services.
7. Alignment and Fit - in a buy/sell relationship includes factors such as shared mission and vision, culture, collaborative practices, leadership and expectations. The higher the degree of alignment and fit, the greater the degree of loyalty.

Each company is unique and for that reason you may not be able to measure all 7 Loyalty Indicators. It is very important to gather insights from multiple players in the customer organization to get the most accurate measure of loyalty. Your success in an account will increase exponentially as you increase your collective knowledge, relationships and economic value. Remember, a strategic account is an extremely valuable asset and must be managed accordingly.

How companies deal with job security is one of the defining characteristics of a company in it’s employees eyes. In addition to it’s economic effects, a decision to lay people off sends a message of fundamental importance to the workforce about the way the company views it’s people: as assets or as costs (necessary evils).

The fact is that workers often experience layoffs not as prudent business stewardship but rather as base inequitable treatment. So, where does this attitude come from? The answer has two parts: the sense of substantive equity (whether the thing itself is fair), and the sense of procedural equity (whether what is done is done fairly).

So what message does today’s corporate management practices convey? It might be an encouraging message to the investment community but to the workers it is simply:

“Forget all the talk about being an asset to the company; you are a cost and a disposable commodity. And, we will keep our costs down”!

People react strongly to loss of security and the lost sense of fair treatment. We have seen that although companies can preach forever that “our people are our most important asset”, that means little when dismissing workers in times of economic difficulty is the first thing a company does instead of the least. There is no magic potion which exists, and no one would rationally suggest that companies should not lay off workers when there is no other choice.

Unfortunately, lots of American companies not seem to operate, by essentially using downsizing as a strategic maneuver rather than as the last resort compelled by economic necessity, is largely misguided and self-defeating.

On the flip side, equally momentous is a company’s decision not to downsize when other companies in the industry take that path. And, yes such companies do exist.

Reflections

So, as the current economy continuous to recover as it is being reported and as some companies will see a large percentage of their workforce “jump ship”. . . . . perhaps the old saying “you get what you give” should be emblazoned on the office walls of all executives wondering why their employees are indifferent to the goals of the company. Something HR can ponder on as well. . . . after all, HR has many clients within an organization and “employees” are a segment as well.

How will your organization compete in this global economic climate?

The same is true with American businesses.

Innovation is the intersection of the past and present that leads to the future. That’s why it is so important that business leaders publicly acknowledge the contribution of each generation, applaud the unique strengths brought to the table by workers of different ages, and encourage everyone to share their viewpoints as a way to make a strong team even stronger.

The 21st Century workplace brings together an unprecedented number of chronological generations whose life experience influences behaviors and attitudes…including the ‘carrots’ that motivate them in the workplace. Some hold tightly to the ‘old ways’ while others eagerly anticipate the future.

• Traditionalists – born from 1922-1946. The Great Depression and WWII shaped the thinking of this generation. They have been influenced by the experiences of their parents…whose values go back to the 19th Century. Traditionalists prioritize privacy, hard work, and formality, in both attire and organizational structures. They have a great deal of respect for authority and preserving the existing ‘social order.’

• Baby Boomers - born from 1946-1964. Civil Rights, Woodstock, and the Beatles created the ‘Me Generation.’ Sometimes considered self-centered and egotistical, Boomers are committed to personal achievement. They were ‘born’ to climb the ladder of success, eager to replace command and control style of their Traditionalist predecessors with a team-oriented approach to doing business.

• Generation X’-ers - born from 1965-1980. The ‘defining moments’ for this generation include The Gulf War, Atari, and Nintendo. Unlike their predecessors, they do not rely on institutions for their long-term security and do not value loyalty. And while they are hard-working, This generation works hard, but they would rather find quicker more efficient ways of working so that they have time for fun. While Boomers are working hard to move up the ladder, Xers are working hard so that they can have more time to balance work and life responsibilities.

• Millennials (also called Generation Y’-ers) - born from 1981-2000. Gen Y’ers are highly technical and part of an ‘information now’ culture. They never known a world without speed dial, ATMs, and high speed Internet access. The ‘defining moments’ for this generation include the Internet and social networking. They value speed and autonomy.

Because they may be unaccustomed to new strategies for problem-solving and uncomfortable with their lack of knowledge regarding technology and the Internet, Traditionalist and Baby Boomers may label the progressive thinking and ground-breaking ideas that their younger employees offer as ‘impulsive’ or ‘too risky.’ By the same token, the Gen X and Gen Y workers may dismiss the input of older employees as ‘out of touch’ or ‘rigid.’

Leaders in business and international politics must first understand and then celebrate generational differences. Creating organizational methodologies to engage people by tapping into their unique generational needs and style will enable corporate America (and the people of Egypt) to make the most of their ‘human capital.’

Arthur C. Clarke famously said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” It is a classic human tendency to describe anything we do not fully understand in magical or mystical terms.

The ancient Greeks observed that some people, generally their leaders, had what they perceived to be a “mysterious quality” that enthralled others and made them want to follow them. Because they didn’t understand what this quality was, and because they couldn’t quite pin it down, they decided that it must be a “magical” or “ God given gift”. They even created a special word for this mysterious attribute. They called it kharisma – “a divinely conferred gift or power” (www.dictionary.com).

That word from ancient Greece has found its way, largely unchanged, into many modern languages. In all of those languages you’ll find definitions of charisma similar to the one the Greeks used several thousand years ago. In one modern dictionary charisma is defined as “a gift or power believed to be divinely bestowed” .

If you look at some of the other dictionary definitions of charisma, however, it becomes obvious that there is more than a passing connection between charisma and employee engagement. Look at the definitions of employee engagement and charisma below.

The observation of the closeness of these two definitions is the premise.

Employee engagement defined
“… a heightened emotional connection that an employee feels for his or her organization, that influences him or her to exert greater discretionary effort to his or her work.” (Definition from “The Conference Board”)

Charisma Defined
“… a special quality of leadership that captures the popular imagination and inspires allegiance and devotion.” (Definition from www.yourdictionary.com)

The Importance of Leadership Charisma

What became abundantly clear was the direct connection between a leader’s charisma and business results. Employee engagement drives business results; charismatic leaders bring people onboard, driving employee engagement. So focusing on becoming a more charismatic leader is a clear way toward obtaining superior results from people. Director of Research at the Rofley Park Institute, Jo Hennessy, put it perfectly:
“Charismatic leaders can gather people behind them. They’re inspiring and strong and, if they’re able to engage staff, the results will follow.”

You Can Be a Charismatic Leader

The reason that most people confer magical status on charisma is that they mistakenly think of it as an attribute that an individual possesses – and nothing could be further from the truth. Charisma is not an attribute, but a perception one person has of another whose personality he or she finds appealing. No one can be charismatic on his or her own. It takes two people – one to observe what he or she describes as charisma, and another to behave in a manner that the observer perceives as being charismatic.

Charisma is truly like beauty – in the eye of the beholder. If I find you charismatic, then, for me at least, you are.

Charisma is simply the combination of the impact of a wide variety of behaviors that people observe practiced, consciously or unconsciously, by those they term charismatic. Ask ten people to explain why they find someone charismatic and you’ll probably get ten different answers. Some will talk about the person’s ability to speak in an inspiring manner. Others will describe his or her genuine friendliness. Still more will talk about the interest he or she shows in other people’s well-being. And others will mention many more things.

And they would all be right – charisma is whatever others observe it to be. Charisma is a term applied to us when someone likes the combination of how we behave, the actions we take, the face we present to the world, the words we use, our body language and myriad other things. All of these contribute to a greater or lesser degree to our perceived charisma. So charisma is not a particular quality that a person either possesses or doesn’t possess; and it’s based on behaviors, so it’s definitely not something that is innate.

When you think of charisma in this manner then it becomes clear why some people are perceived as charismatic in one setting but not another. Someone who has developed superior oratory, presentation and performance skills may come across as a charismatic speaker when addressing a group of hundreds of people, but be singularly uncharismatic immediately afterward when talking one to one with members of the audience – because of a lack of one-on-one social and communication skills. Similarly, someone may be charismatic for one group of people who finds his or her behaviors appealing and not be at all charismatic to a group that does not.

Everything we do contributes to or detracts from our charisma. Those who are charismatic simply display more of the behaviors that promote a “charismatic response” in those others who matter to them. Some people do this quite effortlessly – there is something in their genes or in their upbringing that makes this the most natural thing in the world; the rest of us must learn how. And learn we can.

The good news is that, because charisma is based on behavior, it can be measured – and it can be cultivated. Anyone can decide to become more charismatic and, simply by assimilating the behaviors that will be deemed charismatic by his or her target audience, that person can raise his or her perceived charisma in pretty much any situation. This is especially good news for business leaders, for whom charisma is an absolutely indispensable element of success in modern business. If you wish to, you can become a genuinely charismatic leader.

The most dangerous leadership myth … asserts that people simply either have certain charismatic qualities or not. That’s nonsense; in fact, the opposite is true. Leaders are made rather than born.
— Warren Bennis, Leadership Scholar