CEOs must be Masters of the Craft of CEO Management

Over the years I have asked hundreds of CEOs to relate their management philosophy. How do they describe their view of the Craft of CEO Management?  Most could not answer the question succinctly or clearly.  Many had "bits" of an answer, but few could describe a comprehensive integrated management process that directs and integrates the work of hundreds or thousands of employees.

For instance the question, "What is the difference between leadership and management?" runs most managers onto the rocks.  They cannot answer and, most revealing, plainly have not considered the difference.  So they tell their management team to be both... but cannot define what this expectation means and as a result garner the predictable disappointing results of under-performance.

I define the mastery of a craft as the lifelong pursuit of proficiency in a chosen profession - the profession in this case being CEO management.  When you take on the management mantle of CEO of a company, you need to be as trained and as confident as a 747 pilot sitting on the runway preparing to take off: that is, somebody who knows the ropes and has trained thoroughly for the job.  CEOs often have not had the hours of training an airline pilot undergoes, nor are forced to learn and inculcate a philosophy, a structure, a set of principles, processes and disciplines and then practice them to an exemplary standard with clear accountability for performance.

But CEOs have the opportunity to choose a management philosophy, a structure, a set of principles, processes and disciplines and then practice using them for the rest of their career.  Unfortunately, most do not and are not held accountable by their Board to do so. 

Here lies such a great opportunity for performance improvement.  CEOs who adopt a craft, reflect on it, learn and integrate all the management work of their company tend to get higher levels of engagement and better results.  Without this locked down, they can behave and be perceived as inconsistent, unfair loose cannons.

Year-end Perspective

To paraphrase (badly) Jane Austen, it is a truth universally acknowledged, that the end of the year brings introspection.

Let's not get into new year's resolutions, which almost always begin with enthusiasm and end in ignominy. But it may be salutary to assess what you have learned from the past year, and celebrate, recalibrate and plan for the following year.

Find some free time and ask yourself these questions - and write down your answers.

The past year:

What were my biggest successes in 2014? What were my biggest setbacks? (Keep both to a maximum of three.)

What are my biggest strengths? How can I leverage these strengths in order to overcome challenges?

What did I learn in 2014?

What did I lose track of in 2014? (These could be relationships or commitments.)

The coming year:

Looking forward for 2015, what will make it a successful year for you? (You need to define success in order to set goals and know when you've arrived.)

What needs to be cleared up?

What relationships require your focus?

Having answered honestly the above questions, you may wish to revisit your answers at least quarterly during the coming year to measure your progress. And remember, success means many things to different people.

Happy holidays!

Why do managers keep making the same mistakes? (Part 2)

In last week's blog, I related the story of my friend who over the last four years, has been bounced around like a Ping-Pong ball due to the actions of his company's executive team.

He went from a full-time employee to being outsourced, then called back into the fold of his original employer. The latest corporate decision, due to a change in CEOs, is that outsourcing is back on.

This all-too-familiar tale has led him to question upper management's strategy (which to be honest, has never been made clear to him).

So let's look at why managers appear to keep on making the same mistakes.

I call this Executive "Whiplash" Leadership. Its first cousin is, "I have a dream", followed by a direct decision bereft of a thought-through management implementation process. The result for employees is to be whiplashed from one extreme to the other, exacerbated by poor communication. This leads to a misunderstanding of why and what is happening to them.

The fundamental mistake made at the executive level is to ignore managerial accountability and process. Only with it can a CEO engage, explain and adjust the plan relative to feedback from their 'greatest asset': the employees.

Perhaps if the above had happened, my friend would be effectively working to help implement his CEO's plan. He would have been aligned, and understanding and accepting of tough decisions made in the interest of the employees' and company's survival and long-term prosperity.

Why do we keep making the same mistakes?

A friend told me this story.

He heads the IT department for the Canadian division of an international telecommunications company that has more than 60,000 employees world-wide. Four years ago, in preparation for a proposed merger, the executive management decided to divest itself of several functions. Accordingly, IT, facilities management and a few other bits and pieces were all outsourced.

My friend found himself working for a company to whom he felt no loyalty, reporting to a invisible and practically unreachable manager at the other end of the globe. His benefits and salary were cut, but in these difficult times, he considered himself lucky to have a job. So he soldiered on.

Two years after the outsourcing move, the telecomm company reconsidered its decision. The merger had gone through, but the anticipated savings had never materialized. Worse still, due to the presence of a middle organization, IT projects proceeded at a glacial pace and duplications of work abounded in a confusing mishmash of divisions and functions. So the telecomm decided to rehire all (well, almost all) of its IT people. Naturally, the clock reset itself for these people in terms of seniority and other benefits.

This month, my friend has just been informed that with a new CEO at the helm, the decision has been made to - surprise! - outsource IT yet again. The message from the top is that this is being done "to promote efficiency".

If my friend still had hair (sorry, mate), he would have torn it out by now. Once again, the employees with the least amount of control over their working environments are having the stuffing kicked out of them.

My friend tells me, "Nick, I'm good at my job. I encourage innovation within my team. I bring projects in on time and on budget, with the resources that are allocated to me. But it often seems I do this despite hindrance from upper management. I know that they will do anything, absolutely anything, to save a buck. They don't care about their employees, even though their website states, 'Our people are our greatest asset'. They are disconnected from the reality of our business, and incapable of communicating with and supporting their employees. It's like working for morons! My resume is up to date and if I can get something elsewhere, I am gone."

Does this sound familiar? I'm sure many of you have heard versions of this sad tale. Maybe you have lived through something like it yourself. And I can't believe, that with all the knowledge that we have, with all the management books that have been written, that the same mistakes keep happening, over and over again.

Next week in Part II: I'll explore some of the reasons (and a different point of view) for this uncomfortable situation.

Where do you place employees on the balance sheet?

"It is easy for us to sit here and take potshots at CEOs who put their stock price and their shareholders before their employees.[...] But that's their fiduciary duty. They have a duty to their shareholders, legally, before almost anyone else, and certainly before the employees. The employees are just assets."

Reading David Berman's recent article, "Greed still works", in the Globe and Mail's Report on Business I was struck by how many CEOs still don't see the relationship they have with their employees as sacred. In the article, Berman interviews Bryan Burrough, the author of Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco, a seminal book that explores the backroom deals that featured so prominently (and infamously) in the late 1980s' leveraged buyouts.

It was a good read when first published, and it's still a great book - pick up a copy if you haven't already - but the above quote made me stop and think. Thirty years on the majority of CEOs still don't appreciate the importance of the relationship they have with their employees. CEOs have a duty to provide an environment where employees can do their best work, which, in turn, helps to deliver value for shareholders.

In my recent conversations with CEOs and senior executives of large companies, all of them were crystal clear in stating that businesses exist to make a profit - no-one disputes that. But perhaps the "greed still works" title of the piece is misleading. What shone forth with every word spoken by the executives I interviewed were the strong links everyone had with their employees. These are critical to the success of any organization.

I'd argue that while many see employees as liabilities on the balance sheet, effective CEOs see them as key to the fulfillment of their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders. Without productive, well-managed employees it is impossible for the core function of a business to operate.

Each and every executive I spoke with recognizes this. Employees bring value to the business, and the person at the top is accountable for providing a work environment that engages every employee.

Talking with CEOs

I had the honour of interviewing seven outstanding CEOs and senior executives this week. What an amazing group of people! Collectively, they have amassed hundreds of years' worth of experience in corporate business. Their skillsets and knowledge are impressive.

Even though they all work in different sectors and industries, several themes quickly became apparent:

They really like people. As one CEO said to me, when I asked him if he liked people, "I LOVE people!" These individuals deeply care about people; it's what energizes them. They know that the decisions they make affect their employees (and the communities in which they operate) and they feel the weight of those implications on their shoulders.

They never stop learning. The CEOs and senior executives with whom I spoke are humble enough to realize that the learning never stops. They actively seek out feedback, welcome best advice from their direct reports, enter into spirited dialogue with their peers, and read avidly. They know that their managerial path is a long one, and don't delude themselves into believing that they have reached the end of it.

They make fun an essential part of their life. There was a lot of humour, a lot of laughter during the interviews. These people like to have fun! And they know that their employees relish a great working environment, where their talents are valued and nourished, where their roles are clear and their authorities to do their work well established. But above all this, employees appreciate laughter. Successful CEOs and senior executives know and encourage this.

They understand the difference between leadership and management. One CEO said, "Leadership is like a Mars bar. It picks you up and you feel great. But then at 3 o'clock, the sugar rush is over." Management, on the other hand, makes things happen. And without great managers, there are no followers for leaders.

We will be releasing portions of these interviews in the upcoming months. Stay tuned by checking out www.howdareyoumanage.com for more information.

The Halliburton-Baker Hughes Merger: What Are the Implications?

The big story this week is the $34B buyout by Halliburton Company of rival drilling company Baker Hughes Inc. There are still regulatory hurdles to cross and shareholders to persuade, but if the deal passes, what will be some of the implications for the company?

Well, for starters, its combined workforce will be a major challenge to manage. Halliburton states on its website that is has approximately 80,000 employees world-wide; Baker Hughes has more than 59,000. With a merged employee population of 139,000 spread out in more than 80 countries, the super-charged organization will dominate an already extremely competitive industry, offering hydraulic fracturing and oil field services.

How can one person manage such a large number of employees? Naturally, there is little doubt that post-merger, the number of employees will retract, due to elimination of duplicated departments and the scaling back of more expensive and riskier, less desirable, ventures. However, even if a fifth of the combined workforce is terminated, that still leaves an enormous number of employees to be led and managed. That's a tremendous accountability for one individual.

In my experience, the key insights for a CEO heading a large workforce are:
1. Understanding that they have more, not fewer people to manage;
2. Realizing that they are accountable for everything; and
3. Appreciating that they need to manage, and not lead, more.

It's a whole different ballgame when one commands such a large employee population. It's the CEO's accountability to maximize the productivity of each and everyone of their employees.

A Pause to Reflect on the Concept of Sacrifice

Today is November 11th, Remembrance Day (Veterans' Day in the U.S.A.). This is the day we remember the sacrifices made by fellow citizens in order to preserve our cherished constitutionalized freedoms.

We do not use this time to glorify war; instead, we pause to reflect on the implications of it. We recollect the hardships endured by our fathers and mothers, grandparents, brothers and sisters. We mourn those who suffered and those who lost their lives.

Is the concept of sacrifice a vanishing one? For many of us who live in North America, we have been insulated from the direct hits of war. Yes, our countries have active armed forces and all of us know of someone who has served in some way, either abroad or at home.

But now the word "sacrifice" means different things to different people. I asked several people this morning in the line-up at my local coffee shop what the word means to them, and got various responses, ranging from, "Not having my morning coffee!", to "Tightening my spending". Not one person correlated sacrifice to the importance of November 11th. How sad that over the decades since the Great War the word "sacrifice" has become trivialized and its impact minimized.

We are just so lucky, and we don't know it. We really don't have a clue. Let us all pause to reflect today at 11 a.m. what sacrifice truly means.

Management Lessons from the Ghomeshi Situation

Whatever side of the fence you find yourself regarding the allegations concerning CBC journalist and host Jian Ghomeshi, the fact is that Mr Ghomeshi, an employee of the Canadian broadcasting corporation, was terminated from his position.

From a managerial leadership point of view, a dismissal is unpleasant. But it's the manager's job to apply consequences to disappointing actions, subpar performance, and/or a failure to meet behavioural expectations.

In my book, How Dare You Manage? Seven Principles to Close the CEO Skill Gap, I write about how CEOs are accountable for making sure that within their organization, managers add value. And the "sacred relationship" of manager and direct report must be protected and respected. A functional relationship employs truthfulness as a key driver. On the other hand, a dysfunctional relationship will thrive when anaklesis (i.e., the inability of individuals to hold honest conversations about issues with others due to a fear of damaging the relationship) takes root.

Perhaps anaklesis reigned for some time at the CBC before the axe fell. Only time (and it appears that a lengthy legal battle is about to begin) will reveal all the details and steps taken during Mr Ghomeshi's tenure.

At the simplest level, in the Ghomeshi case, a manager made a decision to terminate an employee. Given the star power of the former CBC employee, no doubt this decision was escalated to the highest ranks. A recent statement issued by CBC CEO Hubert T. Lacroix, confirms this. The corporation is supporting its management's decision to avoid internal dissonance by taking what it considers to be a fully justifiable managerial step.

Dave Lewis must manage

Retail giant Tesco has been in the media spotlight after a spectacular turnaround in fortunes in recent years.  The third largest retailer in the world is battling a changing retail landscape as well as a profit mis-reporting scandal that has seen its share price halve.

The media is having a morale-destroying heyday with the company. All the advice I have read about helping Tesco appears to ignore their key asset: 500,000 thousand employees.

New CEO, Dave Lewis, is reported to have emailed staff asking for their ideas on things the company can do to fix the troubled retailer. You may ask employees for advice, but the frontline also require some clear declarative statement of direction before the ship runs right onto the rocks.

Does Lewis know how to manage 500,000 employees?  Not many leaders do. Leadership is all about engaging and encouraging employees that the future will be better.  But management makes it happen. The employees of Tesco need their management team to clarify their work and integrate it, ensuring all divisions are well aligned and working seamlessly together to get today's work done efficiently and effectively.

There is obviously the key step of steadying the ship at retail giant Tesco with the right strategy, but more immediately, now is the time to step in and lead and manage the situation.

First, right the ship: have immediate management reassure their employees and get on with engaging their shoppers. Plunging morale without strong counter arguments from all levels of management is a recipe for disaster. It won’t be enough. Energizing the workforce gives senior management time to develop the new strategy and then implement it.

Next, Dave Lewis needs to take a long hard look at the entire business: its structure, operations, defining key roles and accountabilities. Finally, he must identify the people he needs to implement it. A good way to test the resilience of a company is the health of the manager/subordinate relationship in the organization. This is the relationship that binds polyester together and gets stuff done through thick and thin. How good is the management team at Tesco? Only time will tell.

There is a lot of gas left in Tesco's tank. It is a great company going through difficult times. Effective CEO management is the only way it will return to its former glory.

Repertoire is destiny

I recently came across a quote that deeply resonates with me.

"Repertoire is destiny".

I did some investigative work and found out that it's from the autobiography of Glenn Kurtz, Practicing: A Musician’s Return to Music. Mr Kurtz used the phrase to express his feelings about his repertoire as a classical guitarist: he felt that because the world's arguably best composers such as Beethoven had not written music for his instrument, he was relegated to a second class of artists.

But I've been thinking about that phrase from the point of view of a CEO. What is a senior executive's repertoire? What makes you stand out from the jostling pack of young, bright, capable executives? It used to be an MBA - now not any more. MBAs are just another generic requirement to an executive's career. Undergraduate degree: check. MBA: check. Progressive experience: check. Mentor who can ease my transition into a top tier position: check.

So what's in your toolbox? What is your repertoire?

For me, repertoire all starts with attitude. Executives should ask themselves the question: why am I doing this work? Honest answers might include: for the money, for the power, for the prestige.

I do not denigrate the human desire for social advancement or financial success. But if a manager manages, he or she should understand from the very beginning that it's all about the people being managed! That relationship between manager and direct reports is a sacred one, one that should be respected by everyone in the organization.

I often talk about the Craft of Management as an essential component of a CEO. Yes, you are expected to raise the performance of your company in order to satisfy the Board and the various shareholders. Practicing a craft, however, means much more than just achieving monetary success. It means constant lifelong improvement; it means aiming to be the best one can be ... in the craft you have chosen to excel in your life.

Because of the impact a CEO has upon the organization, he or she affects the lives of potentially thousands of employees. The CEO also affects the environment beyond the company: communities feel the repercussions of corporate decisions.

Returning to Mr Kurtz and his wistful take on "repertoire is destiny": a CEO's repertoire encompasses the types of behaviour he or she exhibits. If a CEO sincerely approaches management as a craft, their destiny will be a rich and full one. Their legacy will be amazing. Their employees will be happy and productive. And their organization will sing.

Can you describe your repertoire?

The Sacred Relationship

Last week I was working with two client groups where the discussion turned to the manager-direct report relationship. The sustainability of a company flows directly from the protection and nurture of that interaction, which is why I call this the “sacred relationship of the organization.” Organizations thrive, plane or even die depending on the health of this relationship.  The chief reason employees leave a company is a dysfunctional relationship with their immediate manager.  Senior managers need to ensure that the manger-direct report relationship is highly functional.  

In business (and in my book) I make a distinction between accountability and responsibility. I define the former as “a contract between managers and their direct reports” and the latter as “a feeling of obligation and caring, which, if it is not tied to accountability, can end at the level of feeling…and may or may not lead to action.”  

Consider the number of these types of relationships in your organization, hundreds? Thousands? Each one is a costly investment by you. It is critically important for you to clarify the language that’s used in this relationship. Companies succeed when every employee is working on what their managers hold them accountable to do – not on what they choose to do.

A slap in the face to Lac Mégantic's 47 dead

Canadian Pacific Railway's CEO Hunter Harrison just doesn't get it. Or worse, he gets it - but is a master at deflecting blame.

Mr. Harrison is on record as stating that the Lac Mégantic tragedy occurred as the result of the actions of one person (i.e., the train operator). He's in a lather about the recently released Canadian Transportation Safety Board's report, saying that the new safety procedures are out of proportion and would not have prevented this accident.

That one employee has been singled out for blame is lamentable. Why are the CEO and the executive team not in the dock as well? This accident was not the fault of a lone employee.

A CEO is accountable for creating the environment, policies, processes and managing the behaviours of all their employees.

So maybe because of one person's behaviour the accident was triggered. However, the CEO is accountable for this behaviour. It is his company, his strategy, his capital equipment (underserviced as evidenced by fires and brake failures), his employees who are trained to operate the trains at specified levels. If they fail, he fails. There is no such thing as "teflon management" for any manager. His employees' mistakes are his mistakes.

Any incident, such as the terrible one that occurred at Lac Mégantic where 47 innocent people lost their lives, does not just occur as the result of the actions of one lone employee. Instead, it occurred because of a series of systemic failures in an organization headed by a full-steam-ahead CEO who failed to provide the required management and resources to enable employees to successfully carry out their work.

Mr. Harrison appears to miss this point.

The CEO's Challenge

This is an open letter to CEOs everywhere.

Dear CEO,

You have to dare to be the greatest CEO you can be, or you should not take the job.

You say that your employees are important... your "most valuable asset". But when you make that statement, do you actually believe it to be true? What does that really mean to you?

For example, do all your employees feel useful at work? Are they fully engaged with their assigned tasks and with the organization as a whole? Are they paid fairly? Do they have the right benefits?

If you have answered "yes" to the above questions, you are in a position to build a great company. Great companies emerge when all employees believe they are contributing to producing something that is good and worthwhile. And employees must be properly compensated for their work.

You, the CEO, have an incredible impact on your organization. Just by your day-to-day presence and actions, you enable the work environment.

The question is: What sort of a work environment will it be? Are you going to deliberately and consciously put in place systems that provide conditions under which every employee can do their best work?

You have the power. Use it wisely.

The dumbing down of business schools

Yesterday's newspaper featured the following headline: "Wharton Makes a Claim to the Business School Party Scene". How disillusioning that such a respected college at the University of Pennsylvania would brag about being a "party-hardy" school in order to attract a certain caliber of M.B.A. student.

But then, that seems to be the trend with North American institutions these days. I took a look at how M.B.A. schools in Canada market themselves and was puzzled with their positioning statements. To quote a few:

• "Make your degree pay quickly..." (Ted Rogers School of Business, Ryerson University, Toronto ON)
• "Over 94% of our graduates rate the program a good or excellent investment and, on average, achieve payback on their investment within 3-5 years." (Queen's School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston ON)
• "Our rigorous application process ensures you will be motivated, encouraged, inspired and challenged by others just like you." (Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS)
• "Stand apart from the competition..." (Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto ON)
• “[We] will give you an edge in your career…” (Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto ON)

It seems that the marketing for M.B.A. programs focuses on: the ability to score a high-paying position shortly after graduation; payback on investment; becoming a member of a unique, preclusive club; and lastly (and most alarmingly for future leaders), gaining a competitive edge within the rat race.

None of these four marketing appeals focus on humility and developing the ability to engage employees.

The students themselves don't dispel or disavow this strategy. For many of them, an M.B.A. means one thing and one thing only: money. In today's education environment, where an undergraduate degree is a given, a graduate degree becomes a necessity. But from the marketing I read, the students will be taught to step on someone else in order to get ahead. Self-absorption is encouraged. The quest for more money and a better position is a promised output.

There is nothing in business schools' marketing materials about sacrifice, about providing a service to others, about caring for employees. Nowhere do I see an appeal to future managers about how to build great teams of employees who can flourish in their own right.

This is the antithesis of what being a great manager is all about.

 

How did it come to this?

On September 18, 2014, the people of Scotland will decide on their country's future. Will they remain part of the United Kingdom or become a fully independent country?

You may ask yourself, what does this have to do with managerial leadership?

It all comes down to effective thinking. Effective thinking is the key prerequisite for a successful CEO. It is the core executive competency. Without effective thinking, everything an executive says and does is shaded with mediocrity and prone to dangers of a strategic nature. This type of executive brings an inherent ineptness to the table and can compromise, in the long term, the company they lead.

The Scottish reference is a great example, and this bring me back to the upcoming referendum. I have been thinking: How did it come to this? After 300-plus years of being in partnership with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, what set in motion this historic referendum?

From what I can see, this referendum was the result of politicians making decisions to gain short-term advantages, but failing to understand the long-term implications and consequences. Let's look at some of these decisions.

In November of 1996, the Stone of Scone was returned to Scotland. The return of this key symbol of Scottish independence was guaranteed to exacerbate passions of nationalism and independence. Congratulations, John Major! The construction of a Scottish parliamentary complex (begun in 1999 and opened in 2004) cemented the desire of Scottish nationalists to break away from the UK union and provided a platform and a process to do it. Way to go, Tony Blair! Finally, thanks to an agreement between the Scottish and the UK governments, the referendum question was decided. The question that may throw into disarray a historical union is, "Should Scotland be an independent country?" (Note that the question does not address what independence will actually mean.) A simple majority (50 per cent plus one) is required to pass it. Good going, David Cameron!

What is happening right now in the United Kingdom provides a severe lesson for CEOs and senior executives. Decisions undertaken today may have far-ranging implications ten, twenty or even thirty years down the road. Don't let your poor decisions create a poisoned chalice for your successors.

How to manage a whopping 135,000 employees

The equivalent of a tsunami of double-doubles and a mountain of fries has been written about the Burger King-Tim Hortons deal. Permit me to add my thoughts from a managerial leadership point of view.

A megadeal of this magnitude would create challenges for any CEO. As it happens, Burger King's CEO is the youthful 34-year-old Daniel Schwartz, who background is in "financial engineering". For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this field, financial engineering is defined  as the study of financial theory and the application of mathematical and computational finance. This is an fascinating choice for a CEO who now becomes accountable for the effective performance of 135,000 employees (about 35,000 from Burger King and 100,000 from Tim Hortons) in the fast food industry.

The Burger King CEO is used to managing numbers, and not people; he spent several years after college on Wall Street, primarily working for 3G Capital, the giant investor group who owns Burger King. For both the U.S. and Canada, there are several major questions to be answered: is this deal occurring so that Burger King can take advantage of the more favourable Canadian taxation rates? What repercussions would this have? And will the combined fast food chain undergo the process of slashing and selling that 3G Capital is infamous for? 

More immediately, what skills will Daniel Schwartz need to effectively manage a workforce of that size?  The employee count will triple and he will be overseeing two separate business units. With twice the work, will the complexity be twice as much?

My advice to Mr. Schwartz is this: remember the basic insights of CEO management! They are:

1. You have more, not less, people to manage.

You may think you only have to manage a few direct reports at the executive level, but in actual fact you are accountable for the management of thousands of employees. You need to make sure that the environment in which they work is energy-inducing as well as their performance is efficient and effective.

2. You are accountable for everything - yes, everything.

You are a manager-of-the-whole. That means you set the standards everywhere. It's your company, your structure, your results.

3. You need to manage more, rather than lead more.

You may think that leadership is the key element in a CEO role, but it's management that focuses, organizes, teaches and helps enable 135,000 employees succeed at their work. Leadership is hollow without the management processes to support it.

It will be interesting to see what philosophy of management Mr. Schwartz espouses and what he will extract from this merger.

What happens when a leader's story becomes stale?

I live in Toronto (Canada) and we are gearing up for what promises to be a thrilling municipal election this October. And that's not something you can say very often about city politics.

For those of you who don't watch Jimmy Kimmel or other late-night show hosts, our present mayor, Rob Ford, has been a comedian's dream. He has bounced from one calamity to another and despite a plethora of scandals, is now polling, unbelievably, in second place.

The mayoral candidates - and there are many -  have all tried to position themselves differently, by informing voters about who they are, why are they here, and what they are building. It's a fascinating display of the power of the story for a would-be leader. Let's examine the stories of the front-runners.

John Tory, currently leading in the polls, has a terrific resume (businessman, former provincial member of Parliament, active volunteer) but I haven't heard a story from him yet, just a list of accomplishments. He probably looks great on LinkedIn and his Wiki entry is lengthy, but a bullet-point list does not a compelling story make.

Rob Ford is "everyman's mayor". His story is a simple one. He downplays his family's wealth, instead preferring to stress the more humble beginnings of his family, his commitment to football coaching, and his penny-pinching approach to spending. He doggedly repeats his catch-phrases and never deviates from the script. It's a story that goes down very well with his voter base.

Olivia Chow stumbled at the beginning of her campaign when, in response to a question of what makes her different, answered, "I'm not male. Not white." Ouch! Her flippancy may have alienated many voters. Also, her insistence on her immigrant beginnings does not resonate in a city comprised of, overwhelmingly, immigrants. I wasn't born in Canada either. So what?

Finally, we come to the underdog, David Soknacki. Soknacki has struggled to have his story heard above the baying of his more PR-conscious opponents. He has chosen less expensive media (Twitter, indie newspapers) to broadcast his message. When I mention his name to friends, the inevitable response is, "He sounds good. I like him, he makes sense." But his story has not reached a sufficiently large population to make a difference to his polling numbers.

I often coach senior executives on how to develop their stories; many are hesitant in sharing personal experiences. But the value of these stories is incredibly powerful. Transparency leads to trust, which will eventually translate into greater commitment, and ultimately, extraordinary results.

A stale story, or one that is long on facts but short on emotion, will get these leaders nowhere. It's a lesson that we see in politics, as well as in the boardroom.

Is the modern CEO a feudal lord of the manor?

I often hear stories of CEOs losing their temper and angrily dressing down an employee in public. This is, plainly put, bullying and, when threats are used, it is unconscionable behaviour. The CEO has the power and ability to punish; the unfortunate employee has little recourse other than to resign – which could be a highly costly action in terms of the company’s reputation and money.

With the absolute power they yield, CEOs have become a quasi-replacement for the “feudal lords of the manor” and all too often many treat their staff like serfs. In doing so, it becomes obvious that they care nothing for their employees and lack the understanding of and adherence to a disciplined craft of management.

These senior leaders are ignorant of the impact of their actions or even worse, are satisfied that a threatened and unsettled workforce is apparently a productive one. This type of CEO surrounds themselves with sycophants who enable their dysfunctional behaviour. These toadies literally “tug their forelock” in obeisance to their boss like the farm labourers did of old when “M’Lord” met them on the estate.

The estate is now The Company.

Imagine a strong-minded, “my way or the highway” CEO, propped up with a group of direct reports with considerable non-vested share holdings. You have here a recipe for serfdom-like passiveness. Who wants to rock the boat if it compromises a big payout day? Direct reports will take a lot of abuse for a more secure future when stock vests.

Staff are cautious around such a CEO, especially if he or she has a history of emotional histrionics. They are careful to offer only sanitized best advice; they will say what they think the CEO wants to hear. Even worse, if there are uncomfortable truths that should be mentioned, these will get swept under the rug or even altered substantially to avoid a confrontation with the CEO.

As I wrote in last week’s blog, management is the preeminent profession of 21st century. At the top of the corporate pyramid are the CEOs, those individuals who expected to represent management in its best light. But because of a lack of adherence to a craft of CEO management, one that is transparent to today’s society, CEOs are not held to account for their behaviour. The feudal system still reigns.

Management versus Leadership: Does Anyone Care?

Recently I attended a business dinner with a group of senior executives and the subject of what is the difference between "leadership" and "management" came up. Despite an energized discussion, by the end of the evening we had not arrived at a common agreement.

To me, this demonstrates that the profession of management is in trouble. Actually, management is not even seen as a profession... and it should be!

Look around you where you are sitting reading this blog. Nothing in the room you are in was not touched at some point in its creation by a manager. The chair in which you sit, the building that shelters you, the coffee you drink - all came about thanks to processes and people being managed. Our society depends on managers, and management is the pre-eminent profession of the 21st century. Yet it has no coherent unified body of practices, discipline and processes, unlike, for example, the accounting and legal professions.

Why is that?

The sad truth is that anybody can become a manager, and there are few consequences if one mucks it up. Managerial philosophy, values and practices are inconsistent. Oh unfortunate employees!

What we need to do is to treat management as a craft. What's a craft? A craft is the lifelong pursuit of mastery of a body of knowledge. Practitioners of the craft of management would be expected to follow common principles, rules and standards of engagement.

If all this was in place, my colleagues and I would not have spent the evening arguing about the differences in meaning between leadership and management. We would know. Our profession would be defined by precedent and practice.

I believe companies would be very much better managed and employees would be more productive if management would be recognized as a profession. Everyone would benefit from increased respect, consistency, and clarity of expectations. And their managers would be held accountable to practice their craft in a clearly delineated manner to set standards.