A Leadership Position: Not always a replaceable cog in the machine

      Please feel free to repost, or restack, as I think it is past time for this to be discussed around the dining table, boardroom, or virtual water cooler.

     When, in 1983, Steve Jobs hired John Sculley to run Apple, the decision was made because it was felt that a person who had successfully run a campaign to improve Pepsi-Cola’s position versus Coca-Cola could also market Apple products amidst increasing competition. This was reasonable, and rational, on paper. But Apple, and its products, are not fashioned around something that anyone can do or produce. While “the power to be your best” wasn’t a bad campaign idea it could have been used by other competitors without much of a change.

1984

     There was a successful collaboration between Steve Jobs and John Sculley for a while with the peak being the iconic “1984” Apple commercial. But the approaches were just too different between the non-tech Sculley and the tech visionary Jobs and Sculley forced Jobs away from Apple in 1985. Jobs headed off to found NeXT where he wanted to re-create a new Apple from scratch using his experience at Apple. Technically, he was very successful with the NeXT cube used as the software and hardware base for Tim Berners-Lee initial work on the World Wide Web. Commercially, it was not as successful as the journey towards perfection tends to be a costly process. NeXT eventually folded and its modified UNIX® (the ancestor of Linux®) became the basis of Apple’s OS X operating system.

Beyond Apple

     So, is this a newsletter/blog about Apple? No, though the Apple/Sculley/Jobs situation is a great example. The board of Apple wanted Jobs to bring in an experienced executive to run the company. That might have worked for another company but not for Apple.

     This same attitude persists, through today. Boards of directors will compete against each other for the best-known, or highest “ranked”, executive. They treat them as cogs for a machine. If they can run a company making widgets at that place then they can do the same here. Maybe. If they are paid $200 million at Company A then they are surely worth it and they might come over here if we offer them $300 million and an espresso machine. It sounds silly and it is silly and it is a large part of the reason why the ratio of pay between CEOs and line workers is totally out-of-control nowadays within the USA.

Roles of a CEO

     A CEO basically has three roles. One of these is to be the figurehead, or icon, for the company. While the need for a figurehead is true for all companies, it is particularly true for companies that are trying to improve market perception of the product or brand. In this situation, perhaps pay can be justified as though they were a celebrity (sports, music, acting, …). Of course, I’m not at all certain that celebrities should be paid so much but the case can be made that, in some cases, the CEO is to be treated as a celebrity. Steve Jobs, Lee Iacocca, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, and more can be considered in this category. One of the first within US history was probably Henry Ford.

     While it is true that a small percentage of CEOs can be seen, and “justifiably” paid, like a celebrity or icon, the great majority do not qualify for such and should be paid much less. All of them, however, do function as the “head” of the company. Sometimes they are actively visible and sometimes they work behind the scenes.

     The second role is as an internal leader for the company. This is important (as Apple discovered within their fiasco). Even if the employees are not treated great, the employees need to feel like their efforts matter to the company. Decisions must be made and communicated in a constructive fashion. The CEO has the “last buck” stopping at their desk and it is vital they are aware, communicate, and take responsibility.

     Any leader can make bad decisions but good leaders recognize, acknowledge, and take responsibility for those bad decisions and redirect before harm occurs. Great leaders work with others whose skills, and expertise, compliment their own skills such that they make very good decisions most of the time. Bad leaders either fail to make timely decisions or make decisions without paying any attention to feedback or outside information. Terrible leaders not only mostly make poor decisions but surround themselves with sycophants (or “yes people”) who will reinforce the tendency to make poor decisions.

     The third role is in the area of networking. This is important for understanding what is happening in the market within which the company’s products are competing. It is also important for making others in the industry aware of what the CEO’s company is doing. New product ideas (and features) occur as a result of networking as well as internal feedback. Public collaboration (cabals and price fixing need not apply) may be of mutual advantage. To know, and be known, within the industry — THAT is the question.

Can a great soft drink CEO be a great tech CEO?

     In the case of Apple/Sculley, the answer was no. Is such a situation always a bad decision? I don’t have enough knowledge and experience to give a definitive answer but my basic feelings are that it CAN work for certain market segments. It is very difficult in the tech industry. In the processed food industry, it is likely very easy.

     If a company has an icon in the driver’s seat then that icon needs to know the product(s) of the company forward, backward, historically, and sideways. Or they have to present themselves as knowing such. If the company does not have an icon in charge, then that CEO can perform, or delegate, the other roles, as long as they have good supporting team members.

What about company employees other than the CEO?

     People filling certain roles can be critical within a company’s long-term plans and ability to support existing products. They can be considered to be mini-CEOs and, within their subdomain within the company, can be treated, and analyzed, in the same ways as the CEO. The head of a product division, for example, may be known within the industry for that product as well as having in-depth knowledge of the product, and people working on that product. This is certainly a definite advantage for the company.

Analysis of needs

     When a CEO is placed, or replaced, within a company there is a need to analyze just what roles is the person to fulfill. Although not titled a CEO, when Ronald Reagan was chosen by his party to be the Presidential candidate, it was to fill the first role of a CEO. He was to represent and be the figurehead of the company (USA). The second and third roles of leadership and networking were left to others behind the scenes and not in the spotlight.

     If the board believes that an icon is needed for the company then, by all means, compete with other companies for that iconic/celebrity position. But, make sure that either the person is capable of filling the other roles or make it clear to them that they will not be controlling such duties. It may be necessary to fill an additional position at the same time to formally (or informally behind the scenes) handle the other duties.

     What if an icon is not truly needed? It isn’t needed for most CEO-level positions. The board (or other group of searchers) must find someone who can be adequate at the figurehead position but who excels in the roles of leadership and networking. Pay them well, in accordance with company performance, but don’t treat them as a celebrity. They are a working stiff who is expected to do their job well and produce results.

Conclusion

     There are broadly known icons within business. They are stars and celebrities. But most are not such icons and should not be paid as celebrities. They are working stiffs expected to do their duties well and who should be well, but not extravagantly well, paid and treated. By paying attention to needs and matching such to a candidate’s abilities, good long-term choices can be made.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Wanted: A Plan for the Future: We have shown that we can do it -- so why don't we?

     Artemis II just splashed down upon returning to the Earth. The mission had a few hiccups but, in general, it went well. It had a goal, that goal had various components to make it happen, and we set it in motion. Other segments of the program are expected to happen — and I hope they do. Personally, I had always expected the first lunar colony around 1980 — but priorities shifted a lot after the 1960s.

     How did the priorities shift? Why did we say “well, we did as Kennedy challenged us to do — we had humans walking on the moon before the end of the 1960s — so that’s it?” A lot of it (in my opinion) had to do with the myriad numbers of problems that we had to deal with on the planet Earth. They existed in large numbers. And they still do. Of late, it seems that we are actually heading backward on a number of the areas that we seemed to make progress on in the 1960s and 1970s.

     We diverted our energies and focus from expansion into space to use those resources on problems on Earth? But did that happen?

A Shift from Leadership towards a Goal to a Government of Band-aids

     This is admittedly just my opinion, but why did this shift occur? I think that an emphasis on polls is one area of change. Rather than having a long-term view for the country and policies, the results of polls on particular issues became of more urgency. This is similar to the movement of businesses from long-term development and vision to quarterly reports.

     Ever since political parties developed in the late 1780s, there has been competition for voters such that one party (almost always only two primary parties in the US) will “win” over another. Each party has their “platform” which is a listing of their published priorities about issues. In theory, the voters will review those platforms and decide upon the party closest to their own points-of-view.

     Each individual legislator, or candidate, will have variations in their priorities from the political party platform. But, over my lifetime, the platform has been used less and less. This is true both during the election campaign and after the election has occurred. Once again, this means a shift towards the most hotly contested issues at the moment. Short term conquers long term.

     Perhaps this is an aspect of societal reduction of attention span?

The Journey towards Goals produces many Benefits

     In the 1960s, the US had a goal as a country — land humans on the moon. Note that this goal also had some effect on other countries. As part of that goal, we boosted our education system and encouraged both general learning and STEM focus. The government worked closely with private industry to solve problems needed for the goal. New materials. Transistors. Continued improvement in what would be known as computer technology. Medical instrumentation and monitoring. Communication. Cordless Tools. And so forth. Just do an Internet search on “things developed as a consequence of the space race of the 1960s”. You may be amazed.

     Was this due to the specific goal? Was it that we were challenging space? No. We had a focus. The goal might have been to establish a working laboratory on the ocean floor in the Pacific. It might have been to go a year without a war. It might have been to have accessible, healthy, drinking water for the world. The more general the positive goal, the more general the needs and the more widespread the benefits. The more difficult the goal, the more possibilities for side-effects. Note that negative goals (such as wars) also have spinoffs for developments that CAN be used for peace but, overall, are just not worth the price in human lives.

     Goals can also be very specific. Let’s find a cure for the “common cold”. Let’s eliminate obesity within the country. Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center went after the guinea worm disease and have almost eradicated it over the course of 40 years. Let’s cure cancer! Specific goals have side benefits also though those benefits are less likely to be widespread.

Goals are necessary

     Can you specify a national goal at present? For the USA? For your own country? I can’t for the USA.

     Oh, there are various “band-aid” approaches. The Affordable Care Act helped to decrease bankruptcies and the number of people without access to healthcare in the US — but it was only a bandaid on the road to taking proper care of all the people within the US. There are various regulations that have been put into effect (or, lately, repealed) that address an improvement in CO2 production but not a national goal. Please don’t think that I disparage band-aids. They can be useful in delaying final problems (even death). But they aren’t addressing the goal and they don’t have nearly the number of benefits.

     What will happen when (not if) AI and automation shift the economy such that we have many more people than available jobs? Climate change will create great shifts in populations, crops, living circumstances, and needs. As education improves and we shift away from manual agriculture the birthrate decreases. That means global populations are aging and need more general care. Can we? Are we prepared?

What happens without a goal?

     Read the newspaper. Read, or watch, the various news streams. Check out corporate media. The reality that we need to fact-check items that we are told is, in itself, a very important reflection on the health of society.

     If a person’s house burns down, the neighborhood comes bearing casseroles and blankets. These may be people that you have never met — but they come. A tornado hits a town and you can find people helping others all through the town. After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, stranger helped stranger and grew to know each other.

     Localized disasters rarely bring about long term changes in behaviors but they do show what people can do when they work together.

The specific positive goal isn’t as important as just having a goal

     People can (and do) argue that space exploration is not important. I disagree — but that isn’t important. The goal is what is important. Goals give purpose. Goals give direction. Goals foster unity rather than divisiveness.

Give me goals. Give me leaders who are leading the country toward positive goals.

Give our children futures.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. If you feel that these posts are worthwhile to you, please consider getting a subscription via my substack home. Paid subscriptions are very helpful to encourage me to keep putting down letters into the files -- but free subscriptions are still very welcome as my primary goal is to continue to give back to the community that has given so much to me.

Leadership: What it is and what it isn't

     I’m going to start off with the core of this newsletter. Leaders have goals and leadership is the set of skills and methods that encourage, persuade, and/or entice others to work towards that goal (or goals) together.

     So, what are goals? Goals are anything beyond the status quo — something that has not been achieved before. Goals can be applied to individuals, families, companies, cities, states, and countries. There can be good managers, even great managers, who succeed in maintaining a healthy status quo (a situation where the best possible situation exists for things as they are NOW). They can be admired and appreciated — but they are not leaders.

     Here in the US, the last President that I know of who put a goal into motion was John F. Kennedy — and he was assassinated. He said “we will put a man (no thought of women participating at the time, alas) on the moon by the end of this decade (the 1960s). This goal, which had to be pushed forward by his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, required a joint effort of Congress and the people of the US. And they did it! There were coordinated efforts which boosted the educational system towards the sciences. The process of making the physical elements happen had all sorts of side-effects which affected the country then and beyond. These include (but the list is enormous) solar panels, heart monitors, water purification technologies, lightweight building materials and methods, improved computer capabilities, and search and rescue methods, among many others. They provided a boost to technology which can be followed to everyday technologies such as GPS and smartphones and Internet capabilities.

     The 60s were a good time for trying to put goals into motion. Martin Luther King, Jr had a “dream” — a goal where all people would work together and respect one another no matter their external appearance or beliefs — and he was assassinated. At the time of his death, he was expanding the breadth of his concerns to that of the global community. Mahatma Gandhi had similar dreams two decades before (and, once again, he was assassinated for them).

     Martin Luther King Jr’s dream has not yet been achieved but his efforts, and those of many others working with him and alongside him, have achieved some significant progress. When I was around four years old, according to my mother (I don’t really remember), I brought home a young girl, whose skin color was not the same as ours, to play with. I was told “we don’t play with these people, the neighbors will see and we’ll never hear the end of it”. Later, in the 70s and 80s she took care of children of all external appearances but my mother, though she did have many positive qualities, did not have the courage of MLK Jr and the folks alongside of him.

     In short, among the many improvements has been the reality of people being able to associate with others who are not directly similar to themselves. Being allowed to associate is the first step to accepting others as people — it allows empathy, understanding, acceptance, and growth. But, as said before, it is only part of beginning steps towards the “dream” of MLK Jr — as “allowing” does not mean the same thing as everyone “doing”.

     There have been goals created by business leaders. All of the “new” businesses have been pushed forward by someone with a goal. Some such have already been mentioned — such as GPS and smartphones — but just about every “new” business has been achieved by striving towards a goal.

     Note that word “striving”. We haven’t reached MLK Jr’s “dream” yet. The goal is hopefully a worthy one (there are instances in history where the goal was NOT a worthy one) but the process of getting people to work together and attempting to make that goal happen is still worth the effort and brings many benefits. Even if we had NOT succeeded in putting a man on the moon, what benefits would we still have achieved?

     Was it a coincidence that the two people I mentioned from the 60s (and there are many others globally) were assassinated? Personally, I don’t think so. The reason that there are not more goals set, and worked towards, is because a goal inherently means CHANGE. There aren’t many people that take change calmly. Some may be positively excited but there will be many who will be terrified. For businesses, it is primarily a matter or risk and a likely hit on short-term results. For political and economic systems, any change will affect the profits and livelihoods of corporations and many wealthy individuals. Isaac Newton talked about inertia in terms of physical systems — but the inertia of groups of people can be even more difficult to change. The more people that are affected by a change, the more likely there will be someone who will, under strong negative emotions, do something violent.

     As politicians show us every day, a terrified (or angry) person can be persuaded to do things that they would never even consider if in a calm situation. Scared or angry people can easily be persuaded to do things that are not at all for their long term benefit — “to shoot themselves in the foot”. As Frank Herbert said in the book Dune, “fear is the mind killer”. In addition, there are many people, and corporations, who greatly benefit financially by keeping to the status quo.

     As I said, in my opinion, JFK was the last US President who succeeded in initiating a goal (but would have failed if LBJ had not taken over the initiative). In the US, in my opinion, we have had one other President who tried to be a leader and who initiated some change — but was soon thwarted by others who virulently did NOT want change. Thank goodness, he was not assassinated but might he have been if he had succeeded in initiating the changes he envisioned and that the country so badly needed? We’d have to move over to a parallel universe to find the answer to that.

     In my opinion, we have also had one President who showed that he (once again, that pronoun — but accurate) was a very good manager. He succeeded in having a balanced budget in the US. But that balancing of the budget was not appreciated by those benefitting from a continual increase in spending (or the decrease of taxes in a disproportionate manner). Certainly no one following has succeeded in doing such. It is not likely that it will happen in the near future unless a disaster (such as happened with the Great Depression) forces change. A balanced budget requires reduced spending and/or increased income (for governments, primarily from taxes). Such requires consensus and consensus requires a very good, or better, manager.

     To summarize, leadership is the set of skills and methods needed for a leader to get people to strive for a goal. A goal is something that goes beyond the status quo. Although the status quo can be maintained by a good, or better, manager — such is not leadership or being a leader. Setting a goal, and working towards it, can be frightening, as it means change and those benefitting from the status quo will resist with existing economic constraints providing them support.

     But, in a world that is undergoing constant and accelerating changes, goals are mandatory. And leaders must exist to take us towards those goals. As a caveat, remember that it is also possible to work towards negative, or regressive, goals. Let us, globally, support leaders to take us towards a positive, better, future.

https://charlesksummers.substack.com/p/leadership

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Group projects: Not for school only

 

     With three young men in college (one graduating this month with his CS degree and encountering the oxymoronic stonewall of "entry-level" requiring a year or two of experience) I have been hearing about the travails of group projects for at least a dozen years. I keep telling them that it is good practice for working in groups once they enter the job market. And that is true. However, the group projects in college seem to be even more haphazard than the ones we all went through in elementary and secondary school.

     This is second-hand, of course, since it has been a while since I have been in college. Apparently, the idea of forming a group is to pick out three or four people, either at random or in some type of alphabetical order, and then handing out an assignment to them. As much as I want to encourage my sons, and tell them the experience will lead to greater abilities in the work world, that's just not the way groups are "normally" formed in the business world (or, at least, successful groups).

     In elementary and secondary school, the teacher has a pretty good idea of personalities, strengths, and weaknesses after a couple of months with a class. Secondary school teachers have less knowledge because they deal with multiple classes with distinct classes but they still have some. So, there is knowledge behind the choices of composition of a group. (Because of lack of experience, an "ideal" group is often still a matter of luck.)

     A group needs a leader -- or a coordinator -- and it needs people who have specific known skills. Elementary school teachers know who the dominant children of the class are -- but may not know, or have enough children to choose from for, the type of leadership qualities that those dominant children may have. Thus, in some cases, there will not be a sufficient number of dominant children to have one per group and, in other cases, they might be someone who does all the work or who directs other children rather than working with them. In other words, just being dominant does not inherently mean a good leader.

     In elementary school, there is rarely a real aspect of evaluation of success. If, at the end of the group project time, they are all still alive and have something they can present -- success! If, at the end of the group project time, they are all still alive and have pieces of a bit of a mess -- success! It is hard to have a failure.

     In secondary school, they try to actively evaluate the results of the group but there is likely to be individual results presented as well as the group project. Evaluation can be weighted towards individual results with bonuses passed out for a successful group project. People who work within the group may grumble about those who are not showing an outstanding work ethic but they are not penalized much for them being part of a group.

     Let's skip college for a bit and head to "real life". In real life, the results of the group project are of primary importance. This is true for a group, department, laboratory, or company. If the project is successful, the management will try to give greater weight to rewards for those who seem to have contributed the most (they may not be correct in their evaluations but those are the goals). If the project is unsuccessful, then all in the group will suffer. The ones who did "better" or "more" may be recognized but it is not much to their credit as they will also have a greater share of responsibility for the desired success and any shortcomings that occurred.

     College groups appear to go above and beyond what is required in real life. All are rewarded for a success. All are penalized for failure and if you do your very best and it still fails, you still fail. The primary lesson learned is to do what one can to not become part of teams with less than optimum people in it. Perhaps a valuable lesson  but not something that is always possible within the corporate environment.

We Are All Influencers

 

     A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog on the effect of influencers within our society. All that is still actively happening but I started "taking a step back" to recognize that we are ALL influencers.

     To influence is to be noticed. You might be seen, heard, sensed, or noticed through the effects of your actions. Influence can be positive or negative -- though for remembering a name on a ballot, it seems that just the "name recognition" is the most important and whether that person is known for behaving well or poorly is of secondary importance. Positive influence generally encourages positive behavior on the part of the observer. We want to be like them and we want to be acknowledged as such. Negative influence is not as clear. Observation of someone, in a position of influence, doing negative behaviors may be interpreted as permission for the observer to do similar negative behaviors.

     A great teacher can help self-motivate a student for the rest of their educational ladder. A rotten teacher can knock them out of a groove -- but a good one, or great one, can put them back on their path. In all cases, the idea is to help the person internalize the feelings that occur when someone external acts as an inspiration or cheerleader. That person may be family, a friend of the family, a teacher, or a respected friend but the process is to lay the foundations to become our OWN inspiration and cheerleader.

     Most of the time, we do not know when we are being influencers. There are some, of course, who are deliberately trying to influence. But much of the most important influences upon our lives come from those who are just living their lives -- doing the best (or worst) that they see to do.

     A "foundation" of mores and behaviors is created in our very early years. A strong foundation is internalized quite early and can support the person throughout their lives. This foundation gives them strength to choose among later influences that will help mold their growth. But, in many different circumstances, the foundation may not get a chance to develop -- or for the person to internalize a set of values that can sustain them through the challenges of life.

     To the best of my knowledge and awareness, every person (unless raised in complete isolation) -- in the process of growing up -- is surrounded by a peer group and, as themselves, are a peer to others. Depending on the strength of their early foundation, the peer group can have a greater, or lesser, ability to impress upon someone growing up. Joining a gang can be choosing a specific peer group. based on perceived values, when a person's foundation is weak or absent.

     The purpose of a leader is to guide, inspire, and support. If they work hard, and we feel acknowledged and supported, then we work hard. If they are not seen/heard/known to do significant work, then their influence can become unimportant or even negative. If they are extremely highly paid and work only moderately then it does not inspire, and motivate, as it does when recompense is aligned with amount of work.

     Inspiration by leaders lets us have a reachable goal for our efforts --- having a poor example does not inspire our best efforts. It gives us a feeling that our efforts are not worthwhile. Working more than others and earning less than those people is not encouraging.

     The effect of influencing is not always such a "weighty" matter. A smile may be passed from one person to another -- lightening the heart of each that encounters it. A cheerful "hello" may mean much to someone -- even if their immediate reaction is to growl back at you.

     We are all influencers. We often do not know when we are influencing others. It is thus important to continue to strive to do our best and be the best example of which we are currently able to be. (And forgive ourselves when that "best for the moment" does not meet our standards.)

     

Catalyst: Sometimes presence is all that is needed

 

     Catalysts are used in all kinds of chemical events. The presence of the catalyst allows other reactions to happen -- or happen more efficiently. At the end of the process, a catalyst is unchanged -- though it sometimes is directly used as part of a series of reactions during the process. In physical chemistry events, catalysts are often metals.

     Catalysts are called enzymes in biochemical events. The enzyme may be a protein or it may be ribonucleic acid (RNA). A simple description of the action of an enzyme would be that it acts as a specific carrier, or receptacle, where components may gather. (It is not always initially clear as to how a catalyst performs its task -- but finding out how sometimes has significant benefits with new processes and understanding.) The close proximity within the space of the receptacle speeds up, or causes, the further reactions between components. Afterwards, the enzyme is still available for the gathering of more components and continued processing.

     Catalysts can also exist in living events. Most events that come to mind immediately are not catalysts because, although they may cause considerable effects, they change in the process. A deluge may cause a mudslide or a flood but the form of the water will continue to change. It is not a chemical change but it is a physical change.

     A process that is not a catalyst can produce a catalyst. An earthquake may cause a river to be dammed which will form a lake. The lake will potentially not change (the level may change due to rain or drought) but the very presence of the lake will change the ecosystem with some animals, and plants, better able to survive and others less able to survive.

     A rock sticking up from a lake bottom will still be a rock sticking up from a lake bottom after a boat has hit it, causing the boat to sink. The dropping of a seed by a bird may start the process of a huge tree growing and the tree may become the center of a community.

     As you can see from the last few examples, the definition of a catalyst stretches from a physical, or biochemical, substance to that of things existing, whose presence causes changes to the area just because of their existence.

     In the area of social interactions and in business, a speaker can be a catalyst for change. Whether it is an "I have a dream" speech or a "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech -- words do have the power to cause others to create change. These can be considered as transient catalysts. The speeches do not change but they continue to exist only in recorded forms.

     But what about a person who just exerts a presence? An adult sitting (awake) in a room of children will usually have a quieting effect on the group. The presence of a  leader, or managerial observer, will often cause debate and discussion to be of a more constructive level. Perhaps it is because of an awareness that the person is capable of more than static presence -- that they can have active responses -- but the presence still matters.

     Finally, a leader can be a nexus of active example. Since they are no longer remaining in the same state, perhaps it is not proper to call them a catalyst. But, by being an active part, in isolation, their presence and activity may encourage others to participate.