Anita Emoff leads a fast-growing company, Boost Technologies, LLC, part of Shumsky Enterprises.  The Dayton Business Journal (DBJ) published an interview with Emoff in February. The Dayton Daily News (DDN) featured her in a story in early June. According to the Dayton Daily News, the Womens Presidents' Organization ranked Boost as one of the ten fastest-growing companies in the United States led by women.  Reading the two articles, I found management and leadership insights worth sharing and commenting about. Quotations from Emoff in DBJ unless otherwise identified.

• The importance of sales positions.  “Most of my professional life has been spent in sales. It’s a great way to really learn everything you can about a company.”  If you really want to learn a business, it is hard to beat a job in sales. I recommend starting in sales to my business students. Sales are central, foundational, at the core.

• Don’t grow your business faster than you can handle. “A lot of people make that mistake. They say, ‘Sure we can do that’ and then you can’t manage that from an operations perspective.” (DDN) 

• Know what you are not good at and really work hard to learn it. Gary Ball, a two year interim president at Shumsky, described Anita Emoff as being very good at this. My $.02: Work hard to learn it if you need it. The hard part is good, honest feedback or monitoring of your own performance to realize you don’t know something, do not have the skill or knowledge needed. Listening to others openly, noncritically, active listening are keys to self-knowledge. 

• “Believe in yourself . . . ” Echoes the need for leaders to be confident, a theme in Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In. From an earlier blog:  Trait research decades ago found confidence a key factor in leadership, be it the confidence to lead a large organization or confidence to lead a small team. Developing confidence, being confident, regardless of gender, is important to being an effective leader. 

• “Don’t take shortcuts . . .” I grew up with my father saying, “If it’s worth doing, it is worth doing right”, a common saying. Excellence comes from attention to the details. Major disasters from inattention to small details are legend. 

• “Understand the importance of hard work and trust”, “put in your blood, sweat, and tears.”  Two themes here. The value of hard work, having the energy needed to achieve, the dedication. But also one word: “trust” – the bedrock of relationships and successful corporate cultures.

• Invest in people. “Employees shine the brightest if they are in the right position.” From Gary Ball in DDN, “Over two years she had people re-interview for positions within the company, not to replace them, but to find the right way to use their talents.” This echoes the NBA Spurs approach of player development, previous blog. If you are a manager, do you know your people? Do you really know their talents? My consulting and managerial experiences suggest this is often not the case. Why? In some organizational cultures, people are treated primarily as costs, not assets. In other situations, it seems there is simply no time. Nice to do but when do you do it? My suggestion over the years has been consistent: Find the time. 

Hats off to Olivia Barrow, DBJ, and Thomas Gnau, DDN, for informative articles.

Barrow, O. (Feb 1, 2013). Multicultural Dayton: Anita Emoff, Boost Rewards. Dayton Business Journal (online).

Gnau, T. (Jun 2, 2013). Woman at top pushes quality. Dayton Daily News. 

The National Basketball Association championships this year were very exciting – The Miami Heat vs. the San Antonio Spurs. The Heat won in the seventh game. I am not knowledgeable about what happens behind the closed doors in these organizations. I only have my perceptions and what I read. My impression is that the Heat and the Spurs represent two different approaches to sustained excellence. And there are lessons here for organizational leadership.

The story of the Heat is well known. “The Decision.” LeBron James leaves Cleveland to join Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami. The purpose: To win championships, multiple championships, to create a basketball dynasty in Miami. The result: NBA Finals three years in a row, with back-to-back championships in 2012 and this year. 

The Miami Heat took a strategic leap approach to organizational success. They acquired the top player in the game to play with two other brilliant players.  They built a different team. A radically different team. Some journalists referred to it as the experiment in Miami. It took time for the Miami big three to figure out how to work together. But with the help of Coach Erik Spoelstra, they made it work. Sometimes a radical shift, a strategic leap, can be the path to success.

The San Antonio Spurs have sustained excellence. In the past 14 years they have been to the NBA Finals five times, winning four NBA championships. The Spurs take more of a kaizen approach, incremental steps with an emphasis on player development. R. C. Buford, Spurs’ General Manager, has called it “organizational patience.” Writers often describe San Antonio’s big three, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili, as aging players. A New York Times article by Billy Witz on June 2 was titled: “Spurs, as They Age, Remain Sustainable.” Witz wrote the Spurs “rely on shrewd evaluation and devotion to development.” Through “shrewd evaluation”, the Spurs acquire players with potential, players in leagues other than the NBA, international players, players perceived as lesser quality, and then develop that potential, grow that talent, fit that talent around the Spurs’ big three. Gregg Popovich, the Spurs’ coach, not only emphasizes discipline (see a previous blog) but also gives leadership credit to these big three: “Those three guys have a lot of character and they make it easy for whoever we bring in to adjust and understand their role on the team. They help me do my job.”

My take-away: Organizations are made – and die based on their ability to acquire the talent. At the heart of these two great NBA teams are the players. Using different strategies, both acquired the type of talent needed to be effective, to be excellent. Smart human resource acquisition is fundamental to success.  How good is your organization at obtaining and sustaining talent? 

Image of Tim Duncan and Tony Parker from  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tony_parker_spurs_vs_wizards_cropped.jpg
Permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

How many hours do we need to work to produce the income to meet our needs? The answer to this question probably varies considerably from person to person. Many people on our planet still do not produce enough income or food, shelter, to meet their needs.  But others work 60-70 hours a week to stay afloat while others work those hours to get ahead. So many reasons. So many situations.

That is why I found a recently published research study in a journal of the Association for Psychological Science somewhat intriguing. It is about why do we work so hard if our “needs” are met. The authors asked -- if technological gains allow us to produce more with less, why are we still working so many hours? They acknowledge John Maynard Keynes's prediction 50 years ago that by 2030 we will need to work only 15 hours a week, the rest will be leisure. But in the United States the work week is largely unchanged for over 70 years.

Because there are so many factors affected how hard we work, the researchers conducted laboratory experiments. In the first, participants earned chocolates at different rates by enduring unpleasant noise. They found people who could earn chocolate with less work (high earning rate) greatly overearned, earning twice as many chocolates as they would eat. In another experiment participants  earned jokes but then they had to read all them in the second part of the experiment. Again those with a high earning rate overearned even though they had to read all the jokes.  In a third experiment some people were given a limit on how much chocolate they could earn. Others were not. Those not given a limit overearned. Those with a limit did not, although they could have listened to more noise without reward. On a happiness scale, those with the limit reported being happier than those who overearned.

The authors suggested that to earn and accumulate is part of our DNA, for centuries it has been fundamental to our survival. Today in situations where earning and accumulating more is not essential, we do it anyway. So what? As the authors noted, a common phrase is “It never hurts to earn more.”  But they suggested this may not be true. We fail to devote time and energy  to other activities, in some cases, more pleasurable activities, or perhaps more important activities.

My take-away: Work meets many needs besides economic ones. However as a society it is interesting that we seem to have chosen more goods and services over more leisure time. Did we chose it or is that just the way it has evolved? Some people try to downsize their lives, to simplify. Perhaps most important is that we be aware of the choices that we make with our time. In the past week several older men have mentioned to me how they wish they had been there to watch their children grow up, how they worked hard to provide but how much they missed. I think the key is to understand our choices.

Hsee, C. K., Zhang, J. , Cai, C. F., & Zhang, S. (2013). Overearning. Psychological Science, 24 (6), 852-859.

Image of chocolates adapted from image by User:Pfctdayelise from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melting_chocolate_-_step_3.JPG
Used with permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en

Should employees be treated equally? In my consulting experience the manager who treated everyone equally was usually a poor leader. Equal opportunity and equal treatment are not the same. The key is to treat people equitably, to treat people fairly. As one manager told me, “Why should I treat people equally. They don’t perform equally.” The employee who is more productive probably deserves more rewards. Good managers reward performance.

Peggy Drexler discussed this in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “The Upside of Favoritism.” Drexler gives examples of two types of “favoritism”. One type is simply treating people equitably based on their performance. As one manager stated, “I rewarded good work on its own . . .”  You do better work than your peers, you reap greater rewards, or should. I do not see this really as favoritism. Just good management. The caveat is the manager needs to be sure everyone who wants opportunities to excel have them (equal opportunities).

But Drexler’s other type is clearly favoritism and not good. She described a manager who did not use work-related criteria for rewarding subordinates. Rather the manager rewarded based on friendship, common interests, etc. Drexler noted that  this type of favoritism can “be damaging to morale and productivity."

In some cases favoritism may be illegal. Lisa Guerin, J.D., in an online article states, “If favoritism is rooted in discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, however, it crosses the line from poor management to illegal behavior”(para 2).

In 2012 Forbes article Jacquelyn Smith cited several consultants who indicated favoritism was common in the workplace. However they differentiated the “teacher’s pet” syndrome from “performance recognition." But one source suggested not treating people equally could sow seeds of unrest and demotivate. So how to resolve?

I agree with Drexler that the key is transparency. How can one be a transparent leader?  According to Collen Payne-Nabors:

• Share information
  
• Convey your principles and beliefs
  
• Be trustworthy and reliable

• Listen to your inner voice
  
• Admit when you are wrong and learn from it

For a discussion of these suggestions, see an earlier blog.

Favoritism? Be transparent, treat fairly, provide equal opportunities. 


Image from http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2008/12/09/new-lights-from-oleds/basf-pems-under-uv-light/        Free to use and share per Google Advanced Image Search. 

More from the files of the Dr. Juran "An Immigrant's Gift" Archival Project, research and dissemination of information from the interviews conducted about Joseph Juran for the PBS Special, An Immigrant's Gift.

From an interview with Steve Jobs, December 19, 1991, in Redwood City, California. 

Here Jobs answers a question about how much private time he spent with Joseph Juran – and then discusses the role of sacrifices in making great contributions.

STEVE JOBS:  . . .Fair bit  . . .  I never visited him at his home. I think you learn a lot by doing that. I never met his wife, and I think you learn a lot by meeting someone's family.

Joe Juran  . . . is clearly a person that spent his life on one thing. He found his great subject early in life, and he pursued it over decades. And he's made a deep, deep, deep contribution -- that will last well beyond his physical years.

And like most people that do that, there is, below the surface, great sacrifices they've made to do that. In some cases, with their family. In some cases, with a lot of other things they might have wanted to do with their lives. And I don't think Joe Juran would be an exception . . . And I imagine that if one scratches the surface a little bit, one will find some sacrifices in his life that he's made to follow the pure path that he has, that most people don't see . . . I don't know them myself. You can sense that they're there.

My  take-away: Can anyone achieve anything without sacrificing something? We make choices with our time. My guess is Steve Jobs is probably right. Those among us who achieve the most have probably make the greatest sacrifices. 

Therese S. Kinal wrote a candid opinion column on women in the workplace in the May 20th Business Matters (a United Kingdom business magazine). Kinal is CEO and co-founder of Unleash, a management consulting firm headquartered in London, UK. She discussed nine “Sins of Gender Equality”, sins committed by both men and women.  I recommend her article. Here are her main points with my thoughts. (Any misinterpretations are mine.)

1. “Ignorance in high places.” Having women in senior leadership positions, on boards, is just good business. It’s not about tokenism or quotas. It’s about more effective decisions, better decisions. Research supports the increasing benefit to organizations and the bottomline as gender diversity increases.

2. “Thinking structural change = culture change.” Establishing quotas and/or making changes to structures are not sufficient. Kinal said it well: “Culture trumps quotas, guidelines, and systems any day.” National cultures impact work norms (when does the workday end, perceptions of work vs. family, etc.). These may correspond with Hofstede’s masculinity versus femininity dimension of national culture. I would add that quotas/structural changes may also have little impact on an organization’s culture.

3. “We [women] are our own worst enemies.”  Kinal expresses two opinions: (1) Some women by dress and behavior try to use their gender to get what they want, thus reinforcing sex role stereotypes. (2) Some “women act bitchy” and may bully, mistreat other women.

4. “Not speaking up.” Sheryl Sandberg emphasizes this point in Lean In. Speak up. Lean in. Sit at the table.

5. “Not all women want it.” Another point discussed in Sandberg’s Lean In.

6. “Men are scared of strong women.” Kinal wrote: “Many men are scared of strong and intelligent women. There, I said it!” I am sure there are probably some men who have this attitude. May vary by profession and/or culturally but I’d like to see some survey data. My guess is that more likely some men have trouble working with strong, intelligent women due to having well-established sex role stereotypes.

7. “Choosing the wrong life partner.”  Or as Sandberg affirmatively put it in a chapter title: “Make Your Partner a Real Partner.”

8. “How we raise our daughters . . . and sons.” Expectations, sex role behaviors, potential. Do our sons learn to wash clothes and iron?

9. “Playing the victim.” Kinal: “Some women spend too much energy playing the victim or blaming the system. . . spend your energy participating, learning and growing as a strong, female leader. The sooner you do that, the sooner other people will start treating you like one.”

Image courtesy of Therese S. Kinal. Used with permission.