Keyword: management style

James McNerney took over as CEO of Boeing a little more than a year ago.  But you haven’t heard much about him for the last year.  That might lead you to think he’s not been busy.

But he’s been doing what any good deciple of Jack Welch would do when taking over a company — “deep dives”, taking a long hard look way down in the organization to see what he inheritted.  I’m sure it was an eye-opener.

Jim McNerney

Boeing has taken a lot of hits for a long time, not just in the recent ethics scandals.  In Seattle, Boeing has been ridiculed as the epitomy of bloated big business.  One nickname from the late 20th century was “the lazy B”.  Around here, you can pick out the Boeing employees just like the Microsoft ones.  They are stereotypical nerds all, differing largely only by the generation.

The tens of thousands of proud Boeing plane builders are local fixtures, and their relationship with company management has been rocky since the beginning.  Not aided by a argumentative union (see my post on that here), the ebb and flow of the company’s fortunes take the larger local economy with it.  This effect has been lessened, but by no means removed, by the additional of software and biotech to the local scene.

Boeing’s relationship wtih Seattle hit a big low, when the former CEO Phil Condit made the rather absurd move to take it’s headquarters to Chicago.  This choice was ridiculous because the company had essentially no business operations nearby (and was shuttering those it did have).

In an amazing show of hubris, Condit held a public contest to see which city would give the most largesse to Boeing for moving their headquarters there.  In an over-hyped press event, the company selected Chicago while on board a Boeing jet headed for…  may I have the envelope, please…  Chicago!  It was a ridiculous spectacle, it moved less than 0.1% of the employees there, and (rumor has it) was only done because Condit and his wife wanted better restaurants and night life.  The reasoning was to put them in the middle of their customers, within a short flight to them all.  But, in point of fact, their largest growth market for the company is the Pacific Rim, and Seattle is far closer to those customers.  Yet another reason why Condit is long gone.

All of this makes McNerney’s challenge even more important especially to those around here.  He needs to restore a sense of sanity in a company that seems to lost its way much like Enron, Worldcom, and the other famous debacles of the end of the last Century.

His biggest challenge may well be finding a a way to get this behemoth, famous for everything from commercial aircraft, huge government contracts, and questionable ethics, to focus on something…  anything.  The company appears to be involved in all manner of large military and aerospace projects and master of none.  As I have said repeatedly, focus on some vision, any vision, is important.  McNerney seems to agree.

With recent wins in the big plane arena, whether because Airbus is stepping on its own tail or not, McNerney has a great chance to celebrate some successes, and move toward the future.  Their new “Dreamliner”, the 787, looks to be a hit — just what the company needs right now.  If they can actually ship the thing (friends inside tell me this will be no small accomplishment) they stand to regain their crown as the world’s planemaker.

This gives Jim McNerney one great leg upon which to rebuild the company, and I wish him the best of luck.  Not only because my own selfish interests wish well for Seattle, or because Boeing is the strongest exporter fighting in our national balance of trade war.  Mostly I wish them well because the whole country needs to see a large company that clearly lost its way in the last century regain it in this new one.

They have decided to leave, now you have to decide how long to keep them around.  In general, there are two schools of thought:

• Get them out the door as fast as you can.
• Get as much work out of them as you can.

There are a lot of variations in between, and a lot of contingent factors to consider, of course.  But in general, all the choices boil down to something approaching these.

I’ll cut to the chase scene and tell you, I’m firmly in the “show them the door” camp, unless there are some extenuating circumstances.  The key reason is that the person has already committed to the new job, they are mentally there already.  Also, they are a short-timer, and even the most dedicated and faithful of employees gets “short-timer syndrome”.  They will introduce, even unintentionally, an “I’m outta here” mood with it’s lax attention to detail, a poor attitude toward their peers, and worst of all, make others think about leaving.  So, most of the time, I’m in favor of “thanks for playing our game” and a quick exit…  measured in hours.

The only real exception is when the person holds essential responsibilities that simply no one else knows enough to handle, and you think the extra time will help train a replacement.  In this case, where the outgoing person essentially has your organization hostage, a little extra time is worth the downside.  But I rarely see value in more than the customary two weeks, and always recommend that you keep your options open and monitor the situation on a daily basis.  If the mood is going south, cut the person loose, immediately.

I talk about replacement training elsewhere, but it’s important to be realistic, if not pessimistic about it.  In my experience, short-timer syndrome takes over and completely engulfs any potential knowledge transfer you may gain from the departing employee.  They usually are leaving their job because they don’t like it, or see it as a dead end, and there is zero chance they won’t (even unintentionally) pass this attitude on to their replacement.

And as a side benefit, I usually find that a complete re-think of the job, with the new employee revitalizing the position, can work wonders for both the effectiveness of a position, and the morale of the incoming replacement.  So don’t rely on the outgoing person for knowledge transfer.  Assign a new employee, give them the essentials, and tell them you are looking for their input on how the job would best work.

So, unless you have done a very poor job in providing backup on an ongoing basis, or you have allowed an employee to develop unique and secret knowledge about their work (both mortal sins — on your part), prompt exits are the best.  Simply thank people for their work, and offer to help them clean out their desk.  Seriously.

Same day exits are the best.  This leaves the least amount of time for morale damage to the rest of the team, for questions from all concerned (and not concerned) about why, where, how much, etc., and perhaps often overlooked in this information age, the least amount of time for them to steal or damage essential information.  Change their password immediately, get them out the door with the least amount of stuff possible, and offer to settle up on all other issues (pay, COBRA, personal items left in the office, business items still at home, etc.) later.

And, for your amusement, it usually catches people off guard and sends a wonderfully strong signal to the rest of the organization: Thinking about leaving?  Fine, but don’t expect me to beg you to stay.  That’s never a bad signal to send.

What better time to ponder what we learn from dad than Father’s Day?  It certainly made me think about what I’ve learned from my father.  And, shock of shocks, it’s way more than I’ve always wanted to believe.

My Dad

Not that I didn’t want to be like him.  No, it’s more that I always thought much of who I was was a thoughtful and conscious choice on my part.  The more I reflect on it, the more I realize that, nature or nurture, I have too much in common with my dad for it to be coincidental.  I am my father’s son, there’s no argument there.

My father worked for decades in the Fortune 500, ending his tenure as a VP of Research and Development.  Although I can’t say from direct experience what his management style was at work, I’ve seen many decades of it at home.  He is a kind and gentle man who always wants to see the best in people.  He is also conflict averse and quick to compromise.  And I find my own style reflects all that’s good and not so good in him.

No, I don’t imitate it directly, as I like to believe I see the down sides and try to correct them.  But I, too, am always the optimist, forever believing in the core goodness of people, and almost always taking a kinder, gentler approach to issues.  I like to be the calm and reasoned voice in amongst the chaos.

But like my father, I am also conflict averse.  I have to push myself into good healthy conflicts, even when I know that standing my ground will bring great benefits.  I watched as this tendency effected me in a company with a “prove it” culture like Microsoft.  I have always wondered why I had this problem, I guess I had to wait until my 50th Father’s Day to realize it.

Reflecting on my experience and comparing it with the many leaders I’ve seen over the years, I think I see two basic trends in inheritted leadership traits.  Some, like me, get a great deal from their parents, trying to take the best, and resist the worst.  Others I’ve seen go exactly the other way, trying to be as different from their parents as they can be.

But in either case, it is fascinating and instructive to see what we’ve learned about our leadership styles from our dads (and moms).  What better time than Father’s Day (or Mother’s Day) to do this healthy introspection?