Does success justify bad behaviour?

The other night, I read an article in Maclean's magazine on Marcel Aubut, president of the Canadian Olympic Committee. To quote Maclean's, "At 66, Aubut has no intention of slowing down. "I'm built like a Caterpillar work boot. I'm an unusually high performer. I think I was born to make a difference in the world," he says.""

Mr. Aubut is driven to succeed at any cost. His path to success is figuratively littered with the bodies of those who try and support him, but cannot meet his expectations. "Every other month, on average, one of Aubut's assistants quits, often in tears. "It looks like we have a huge turnover," he says. "All I can say is, it's hard to find the right person for the job.""

I have never met Mr. Aubut, but clearly he shares some traits with similarly driven senior managers such as Steve Jobs and Winston Churchill. Messianic in their views, they believe they are unique, put here on earth to make a special contribution.

And Mr. Aubut has made a special contribution. The coffers of the COC have never been so replete with funds.

So the question is: does success justify bad behaviour?

Leaders who shout at and intimidate their staff remind me of feudal lords of the manor. Somehow the extent of their achievements silences peers, shareholders and employees, and this tacit acceptance of their behaviour allows them to continue in their ways. Jobs was legendary for his offensive behaviour. He was ruthless on destroying the self-worth of anyone he considered a fool. But he is (and was) hailed as a great leader, due to the success of the product he created.

History is awash with stories of great achievers who became so consumed with their end goal that anything - or anyone - perceived to be blocking their way was deemed expendable.

There is too much bullying in business. Of course, a CEO who understands task achievement is critical. But success can be achieved if tasks are requested in a respectfully demanding manner from employees, by setting clear expectations, and through the provision of space to apply the employees' own creativity and solutions to the challenges delegated to them.

I believe that CEOs are accountable to create great places to work, and not a concentration camp, a place where employees dread coming into work as they may be subject to retribution, ridicule, pain and disgrace.

Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/02/02/lord-of-the-olympic-rings/

When should leaders abandon their principles?

Along with many of my fellow Torontonians (and comedians everywhere) I follow via the media the latest on our mayor, Rob Ford. Let's put aside his policies and deeds to date, and focus instead on his recent announcement that as he cannot change who he is (“I can’t change who I am”), he will continue to refuse to attend the city's Pride parade.

When should a leader stick to their principles, and when should they cut their losses and embrace change?

One can argue that Rob Ford made no secret of his personal views on Pride in his pre-mayoral career as a city councillor. He fulminated against special interest groups, and decried the antics of the parade's revellers. So citizens who voted for him knew what they were buying, and his steadfast refusal to change those ingrained views demonstrate an adherence to his principles.

On the other hand, when he assumed the city's reins as leader and manager in chief, he accepted the obligation to represent all citizens, and not just his followers.

In corporate life, sometimes CEOs need to accept that their vision may not be the right one for their company. CEOs can draw upon a number of sources to retain best advice: their executive team, the board of directors, and perhaps a select number of peers they trust. Ultimately, however, the decision for which strategic path to pursue is their alone. That's why they get the job.

And ultimately, if that path turns out to be the wrong one, the CEO, and no-one else, is accountable for the results. It takes a special kind of person to be humble enough to realize that their direction is leading the company into murky waters, and to change direction.

Justin Trudeau: Aspiring Chessmaster

Justin Trudeau’s surprise action of expelling senators from the Liberal caucus appears to be a brilliant opening move in the political chess game that is on-going in Ottawa.

In one deft move he has established his credentials as a leader. The reaction around our office was: “Wow! That is pretty cool! Match that one, Mr. Harper!”

His simple, clear decision has changed the Senate game and, to my mind, demonstrated that he is a serious contender in the coming political battles.

Justin Trudeau’s decision has:

·        changed the game in Ottawa;

·        got everyone talking – he has wrestled the agenda from the PMO;

·        amused people by the blatancy and novelty of his decision;

·        shown a political brazenness that people would not have suspected of him;

·        demonstrated political selflessness and shrewdness;

·        acted in a manner that may win the approval of many Canadians;

·        demonstrated a level of assertiveness, courage and clarity as found in an effective leader.

He has dared to manage.

No clarity, no authority = job failure

My last blog was impassioned, occasioned by the pain the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) inflicts on passengers passing through Pearson Airport.

The cause of this highly visible incompetence is the creation of an organization that provides its employees with no clarity around work roles and, even worse, gives them no authority to carry out their work. A role that exists without the necessary authority is simply unfair and virtually ensures job failure. It is not possible to hold an employee accountable for a level of work if this work has not been clearly defined.

To experience the frustration this lack of management inflicts on passengers, I dare you to fly into Toronto on a Sunday evening, arriving on an international flight. Once through immigration, you are destined to wait for your baggage (my longest wait last year was an hour and a half, my shortest was 35 minutes).  There are no information announcements, no employees are readily available to assuage and inform passengers of the situation, and when you finally track an employee down, they blame the airline. Managers are invisible.

As I say in my book, how dare the CEOs manage this way and inflict such pain on their employees... not to mention on their customers - the passengers!

Who runs the freaking airport??

This week Canadians who had the dubious pleasure of flying in and out of Lester B. Pearson airport were exposed to a series of exasperating and seemingly incompetent moves by airport officials. Thousands of travelers had their plans disrupted: there were cancellations and delays galore; luggage was lost or retained without explanation; contradictory messages from those “in charge” abounded.

Then we heard that Howard Eng, the CEO of the GTAA, was not prepared to be forthcoming on what had gone wrong. In my world, the CEO is accountable for everything – yes, everything. And if he has not put the necessary systems and processes and a framework in place to enable smooth operations, that’s indefensible.

For instance, when there is an unexplained two-hour delay with the luggage carousels in the summer, that’s a failure – let along a two-day delay in the winter!

And please don’t give as an excuse the weather. Do we not live in Canada? Is this not winter? Yes, storms occur, but when the GTAA fails to competently manage the situation, that’s plain wrong.

Officials at the GTAA have even used as an excuse that unloading larger planes has caused the luggage woes.  Pardon me, I thought Toronto is a world class city. Can the GTAA not accommodate large planes? Heathrow doesn’t have these issues, so why do we?

Nick Forrest