|
Free
Electronic Newsletter
(click
here for our privacy statement)
You Can't
Think With Your Tool Belt OnTM
My feeling is that
it is difficult to think about the big picture when you are caught up in day
to day activities. This newsletter is designed to help you keep perspective.
Return to the main
page of this site
Back Issue - March 2004
My belief is that it is difficult to be thinking while you
are doing. This month I’m reading between the lines. My insights are based
on my observations of organizations and individuals I have worked with, as
well as my own experiences, but for those of you glued to your TV sets every
week, I am relating them to what I have witnessed while watching “the
Apprentice.”
Wait, don’t run away yet. Aside form the bad hair there are some lessons
here if you look for them.
WHAT YOU CAN LEARN FROM DONALD TRUMP
1. First and foremost, remember that the basic
premise for the show is that contestants are competing for a job leading a
company, not simply working for a company. As such, there really are only
two important criteria to measure prospects against:
JUDGEMENT and INFLUENCE
2. In the first episode, the leader of the
losing team had to answer for their poor lemonade sales. He showed
leadership by delegating effectively but lacked judgment by setting up shop
next to a stinky fish market. You might argue that he dodged a bullet by not
getting himself fired, but at the boardroom table, both he and Sammy (a poor
performing team member) were influential in stating their case. They did not
beg for their jobs, but showed more leadership potential than the third team
member who was highly educated but lacked the people skills necessary to
survive this round. While you can learn from mistakes, it is difficult to
change one’s character. (Score: geeks zero).
3. In the second episode, the new team leader
was given the task of preparing an ad campaign for a client. His technical
experience as someone who has worked in advertising worked against him since
the “know it all” didn’t take input from his team, didn’t gain their
respect, and therefore did not do a very good job of influencing them, but
that’s only part of it. The team lost and Trump had to hold someone’s feet
to the fire. Would it be the seemingly underperforming Sammy who was accused
of sleeping on the job?
Remember that this is a competition to choose a leader, and as in real life
it is very likely that any team will have its share of underperformers.
While it may be necessary some times, you can’t improve performance by
continually focusing on trimming the poorest performers. If overall team
performance continues to be less than ideal, eventually you will begin
trimming muscle.
No, in this case the leader is to blame. He arrogantly decided that his
technical ability to produce an ad campaign meant that the client did not
need to be consulted. Foolish! An amateur mistake. Remember that at this
level, technical ability is not the
key to success. The background may help, but the key measures are judgment
and influence.
Poor strategy has a much greater negative effect on outcomes than a poor
performer on an otherwise strong team, and it is the leader who is
responsible for strategy. In fact, I’ll argue that poor strategists can be
saved by poor performers since they don’t move fast enough in the wrong
direction to do much damage. A poor strategy in the hands of top performers
can get you into trouble way faster. Its like four wheel drive. It won’t get
you out of a snow bank, it’ll just get you further in before you get stuck.
Its the leaders job to chose a strong team, but if I own the company I'm
looking for a strong leader.
4. The next challenge was lost badly as Sammy
had his opportunity. Up to this point he had attracted the negative
attention of Trump more than once. He exhibited potential but was largely an
unknown quantity. Rather than fire him earlier, Trump had decided to watch
him for a while and see if he could hit a home run. Sammy was an all or
nothing hitter and in the end Sammy proved to be a liability and did not
deliver as a leader.
What of Sammy’s influence in the board room? Sammy was confused between
assertions and evidence. Up to this point he has made the assertion that he
could do well. When he had his opportunity to produce evidence by leading a
team to victory, he did not have the support of his team and failed. You
could argue again that it was the team that underperformed by not producing
results, but it was up to the leader to put a strategy in place (judgement)
and motivate the team to implement the strategy (influence). Ironically the
challenge his team lost involved negotiating (Sammy's strenght), and in this
instance, he may have been a much better doer than a leader.
5. The next episode was an interesting one in
that Trump chose to personally call Amerossa on her behaviour when in a
leadership role she treated her team poorly. That was a warning shot.
Meanwhile a weaker team member was dismissed for not standing up to Amerossa
on her own. Remember Even though a single underperformer is not our first
target, the criteria for a leader is judgement and influence, and someone
who cannot stand up for themselves cannot make a strong team leader who may
one day be asked to defend their strategy or influence a decision.. The
lesson here is that leaders need strong character (the strong survive), but
this does not include bullying. (Think strong positive influence)
6. Once again in the latest episode the leader
of the losing team survives. Instead a team member gets the axe, though we
have already said that underperformers are not yet our primary target. This
team member was not fired for being an underperformer, but for being a
disruptive force on the team. By continually deviating from the strategy on
previous challenges, and eventually being disloyal to her team at the board
room table, she became a liability, and required too much of the leaders
energy to manage. It is not simply that this sort of person cannot implement
as well as the others on the team, it is that she made it difficult for the
team to implement at all. She would have been more of an asset sleeping in
the broom closet. Maybe not for her contribution, but at least there she
couldn’t mess things up.
7. Amarossa finally gets the axe. In a
challenge to select and sell art at a gallery, her superior knowledge of art
gave way to her inferior treatment of team members, but where she really
messed up was in the board room.
-rather than accept any responsibility she made excuses
-rather than defending her actions she was begging
-rather than appeal to Trumps self interest, she based her response on her
own need.
To top it off she lost control, lacked respect for Trump and barged back
into the board room, sealing her fate. Finally, regardless of what she had
said (assertions) she demonstrated (evidence) that she was not one to roll
up her sleeves and get her hands dirty when the job required it.
Stay tuned, the low hanging fruit has already been picked. Now the real
competition begins...
| Tips and articles | Products
| Talks |
Papers | Contact Us | Home
|
© 2000
Wayne McKinnon. All rights reserved.
| 
