Marilyn Carlson Nelson retired in 2008 as CEO of Carlson Companies, a multi-billion dollar international company. Her story is an interesting one though since she is the daughter of Curt Carlson who lead the company in its early days. While one might think being the CEO’s child would have helped her to quickly move up the corporate ladder, Ms. Nelson’s experiences were just the opposite.
Ms. Nelson’s early leadership challenges came when working for her father’s company which clearly operated in the male dominated good ole boy tradition where only men were leaders and women worked in supportive roles. While Ms. Nelson was very successful at the company in various leadership roles, her chance to lead the company did not occur until she left the company, proved her leadership abilities at other organizations, and returned to eventually become CEO.
What’s even more interesting is the contrast in leadership styles between Ms. Nelson and her father. In many ways, the contrast is a clear example of the clear differences that exist between past and present approaches to leadership. Let’s examine some of these differences.
The first difference and likely the most prevalent is the general view of employees and their roles in the successful operation of an organization. When Carlson was run by the elder father, employees were viewed as a resource which was easily replaceable. This approach was based on a premise the external workforce was plentiful and employees better perform well since they were lucky just to have a job.
In contrast, Ms. Nelson’s approach to leading people is very different. Her approach is clearly to view employees as human capital, a valuable resource needed to make the company profitable. Since employees are highly valued in this new culture, the company benefits in two primary ways. First, the current employees are more valued and are more likely to have job satisfaction. Second, prospective employees are more likely to be drawn towards the company when considering their career choices.
The second difference in leadership styles between Ms. Nelson and her father is the view of chain of command at the company. Mr. Carlson, used to a very autocratic approach, lead with a strong allegiance to the chain of command. In other words, one must work through their chain of command before discussing any matters with someone in management higher in the chain.
Ms. Nelson’s approach is very different in that she values collaboration more than chain of command and looks to a stronger team approach to solving problems. Her view is more around making the most effective decisions with each member of her management team providing their specific area of expertise.
The last major difference is more around the influence of stereotypes and there influence of leadership styles. Mr. Carlson, had a very limiting view of women. For years, the company’s external benefit plans only covered men and not women. While the company did create a private plan to cover some of the single women in the company, it was clear Mr. Carlson’s view included stereotypes where women should only stay in the home and take care of their husband. As a result, opportunities for women were limited and leaders at Carlson did not view women as potential leaders.
In contrast, Ms. Nelson’s approach has revolutionized the company and changed the culture to become more inclusive. In fact, women now make up forty percent of the executives at Carlson. One can bet that prospective female employees are now motivated to work within Carlson and contribute to such an inclusive work environment.
This blog entry is based on an internet article written by Jennifer Pellet for chiefexecutive.net (Pellet, Jennifer. Posted 10/8/2008. An Upside Down Career Path to the Top, Retrieved October 29, 2009 from http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=E34BB7DCFFD6411AA2FBC1E87F2E2812&AudID=AE720E7DE3FE473693930869A5157C27).
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
An Effective Leader in My Past
In thinking over my years at Dominion, I began to think about my own experiences and those leaders that I have followed. Was there a leader that exemplified many of the traits associated with progressive and effective leadership? Were there leaders that stood out in my memory as extraordinary who I would gladly follow into any potential challenge?
While I’ve followed many leaders in my day, it was actually difficult to think of leaders that I admired. I could think of one leader that stood out in my memory though. I began to wonder what was so special about this leader that she stood above all the rest.
As I reflected, I did begin to see many of the traits that leadership books espouse. While she had many great traits, I will reflect on three specific traits that stood out.
First, this leader knew how to empower her people. She knew how to give assignments, provide the needed resources and support, and let her people get the job done. In this role, I worked as an Human Resources Specialist with my specific roles including the creation and maintenance of employee policies. This leader had a special way of assigning tasks while providing personal support and encouragement as you completed the tasks. You knew as a subordinate that she wanted you to succeed.
In that role at the time, my customers were generalists in field human resources groups providing services to business units. As I’ve learned from my leadership readings (Regaining Public Trust from The Leader of the Future 2, Ken Blanchard and Dennis Carey, p. 160), I benefited from her leadership abilities by allowing me to be direct my energies to my customers rather than trying to cater to a leadership hierarchy. In fact, one of her strongest traits was dealing with upper leadership while letting her employees focus on getting the job done.
Second, this leader had a high level of integrity. She stood behind what she said and you could depend on her word. In a number of cases, it would have been easier for her to waver on her word and just get by but she did not. While one might expect integrity to be a must for effective leadership, the public has seen an increasing lack of integrity from leaders from political to economic fronts. What once was a foundation for leadership behavior has become a trait hard to find among the leaders of today. Even Peter Drucker included integrity as one of the primary prerequisites for establishing a high level of performance (Peter Drucker on Executive Leadership and Effectiveness from The Leader of the Future 2, Joseph A. Maciariello, p. 5). This leader exhibited integrity in all she did.
Third, this leader knew how to instill confidence in her people. When I worked for this leader, the company was going through a very difficult period. Dominion had just merged with Consolidated Natural Gas (CNG) and the company was downsizing and severing employees. The mood was very somber at the time and employees were insecure about their futures.
This leader had a way of helping her employees through this difficult time. Her ability to build a level of confidence in her employees was based on providing needed support and encouragement. Her ability to instill this confidence is very similar to traits of successful cosmopolitan leaders who are able to instill a level of confidence within their workers and in the organization as a whole (How Cosmopolitan Leaders Inspire Confidence-A Profile of the Future from The Leader of the Future 2, Rosabeth M. Kanter, p. 65). She had a way of letting you know that she had confidence in your ability and if help was needed, she would provide assistance to help you through.
My experiences with Dominion leaders have been positive. Many of these leaders have provided guidance and direction without being overly autocratic. Without a doubt though, the leader referred to in this blog entry has exceptional abilities. My desire is to see leaders of this type to succeed and spread their talents to others within the company. May her success live on.
While I’ve followed many leaders in my day, it was actually difficult to think of leaders that I admired. I could think of one leader that stood out in my memory though. I began to wonder what was so special about this leader that she stood above all the rest.
As I reflected, I did begin to see many of the traits that leadership books espouse. While she had many great traits, I will reflect on three specific traits that stood out.
First, this leader knew how to empower her people. She knew how to give assignments, provide the needed resources and support, and let her people get the job done. In this role, I worked as an Human Resources Specialist with my specific roles including the creation and maintenance of employee policies. This leader had a special way of assigning tasks while providing personal support and encouragement as you completed the tasks. You knew as a subordinate that she wanted you to succeed.
In that role at the time, my customers were generalists in field human resources groups providing services to business units. As I’ve learned from my leadership readings (Regaining Public Trust from The Leader of the Future 2, Ken Blanchard and Dennis Carey, p. 160), I benefited from her leadership abilities by allowing me to be direct my energies to my customers rather than trying to cater to a leadership hierarchy. In fact, one of her strongest traits was dealing with upper leadership while letting her employees focus on getting the job done.
Second, this leader had a high level of integrity. She stood behind what she said and you could depend on her word. In a number of cases, it would have been easier for her to waver on her word and just get by but she did not. While one might expect integrity to be a must for effective leadership, the public has seen an increasing lack of integrity from leaders from political to economic fronts. What once was a foundation for leadership behavior has become a trait hard to find among the leaders of today. Even Peter Drucker included integrity as one of the primary prerequisites for establishing a high level of performance (Peter Drucker on Executive Leadership and Effectiveness from The Leader of the Future 2, Joseph A. Maciariello, p. 5). This leader exhibited integrity in all she did.
Third, this leader knew how to instill confidence in her people. When I worked for this leader, the company was going through a very difficult period. Dominion had just merged with Consolidated Natural Gas (CNG) and the company was downsizing and severing employees. The mood was very somber at the time and employees were insecure about their futures.
This leader had a way of helping her employees through this difficult time. Her ability to build a level of confidence in her employees was based on providing needed support and encouragement. Her ability to instill this confidence is very similar to traits of successful cosmopolitan leaders who are able to instill a level of confidence within their workers and in the organization as a whole (How Cosmopolitan Leaders Inspire Confidence-A Profile of the Future from The Leader of the Future 2, Rosabeth M. Kanter, p. 65). She had a way of letting you know that she had confidence in your ability and if help was needed, she would provide assistance to help you through.
My experiences with Dominion leaders have been positive. Many of these leaders have provided guidance and direction without being overly autocratic. Without a doubt though, the leader referred to in this blog entry has exceptional abilities. My desire is to see leaders of this type to succeed and spread their talents to others within the company. May her success live on.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Jim Press – Lead By Example
Over the last year, we have heard many stories about the big three automakers and the billions of dollars spent to bail them out and keep them from bankruptcy. Only a few years ago, would anyone have thought these automakers would need such large sums of money to keep them in operations? While these companies were losing market share in those years, they were still viable companies with many loyal customers, employees and shareholders.
Chrysler was one of those viable companies trying different approaches to turn the company around and improve market position. In 2007, they hired Jim Press who was an acclaimed leader at Toyota to help them in this effort (Linebaugh, K. (2009, September 19-20). Chrysler’s Press in Debt Squeeze. Wall Street Journal, p.B5). In his case, they were hiring a proven leader in the industry who had the connections and possible leadership skills to bring Chrysler back into prominence. Now, let’s see how effective their CEO screening process was in that decision.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, we find Mr. Press is not only leading Chrysler out of bankruptcy but he is falling behind on his own bills, not paying his mortgage payments or his back taxes (Linbaugh, p.B5). In fact, Mr. Press finds himself under a September 2009 tax lien for taxes owed in 2007 (Linbaugh, p.B5). To add to the debt load, liens have been filed against his $2.2 million Michigan home and his $12.96 million townhouse in Manhattan (Linbaugh, p.B5).
It seems hard to understand how the Mr. Press can be leading a company in efforts to avoid bankruptcy while buying extravagant purchases which place him in debt beyond his means (Linbaugh, p.B5). Specifically, is this the same person who is making decisions about significant debt load and the future financial viability of Chrysler?
When companies like Chrysler make decisions concerning their leadership in tough times, what screening process do they go through? Do they employ the same screening criteria as used for first line management or middle management? Does that screening process include credit checks? Is the process thorough and time consuming? After all, they are hiring the leader of the company and the person who needs to set an example on a day-to-day basis.
While the screening criteria for executive selection is likely set by outsiders such executive search firms, I would propose that the selection process should be lead by insiders with clear input concerning culture and shared values. In this case, I think someone missed the mark and Chrysler is likely to pay for such a misstep.
Chrysler was one of those viable companies trying different approaches to turn the company around and improve market position. In 2007, they hired Jim Press who was an acclaimed leader at Toyota to help them in this effort (Linebaugh, K. (2009, September 19-20). Chrysler’s Press in Debt Squeeze. Wall Street Journal, p.B5). In his case, they were hiring a proven leader in the industry who had the connections and possible leadership skills to bring Chrysler back into prominence. Now, let’s see how effective their CEO screening process was in that decision.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, we find Mr. Press is not only leading Chrysler out of bankruptcy but he is falling behind on his own bills, not paying his mortgage payments or his back taxes (Linbaugh, p.B5). In fact, Mr. Press finds himself under a September 2009 tax lien for taxes owed in 2007 (Linbaugh, p.B5). To add to the debt load, liens have been filed against his $2.2 million Michigan home and his $12.96 million townhouse in Manhattan (Linbaugh, p.B5).
It seems hard to understand how the Mr. Press can be leading a company in efforts to avoid bankruptcy while buying extravagant purchases which place him in debt beyond his means (Linbaugh, p.B5). Specifically, is this the same person who is making decisions about significant debt load and the future financial viability of Chrysler?
When companies like Chrysler make decisions concerning their leadership in tough times, what screening process do they go through? Do they employ the same screening criteria as used for first line management or middle management? Does that screening process include credit checks? Is the process thorough and time consuming? After all, they are hiring the leader of the company and the person who needs to set an example on a day-to-day basis.
While the screening criteria for executive selection is likely set by outsiders such executive search firms, I would propose that the selection process should be lead by insiders with clear input concerning culture and shared values. In this case, I think someone missed the mark and Chrysler is likely to pay for such a misstep.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Ukrop’s – A Passion for the Grocery Business
As a young man, I moved into the Richmond area knowing nothing about Ukrop’s stores. I was in Richmond a short time before the name meant something to me. In fact, as a high school student, it was the place to work. At 18, I got at the job at the grocery store icon and worked for seven years. The corporate culture was one of family and close relationships. Sure, some of the employees could go elsewhere and possibly make more money but many stayed because they felt at home and comfortable in the Ukrop's setting.
Fast forward almost 30 years and Ukrop’s is still a major player in the Richmond grocery market. The company has grown, the founder has passed away, and the culture seems to have changed into a big town company with a big town atmosphere. This change in culture has unfortunately affected the loyalty of employees and customers. People don’t seem to have the same affection towards Ukrop’s as they did at one time.
So, at this point, one might ask the following questions
Does company management see the changes as others have?
Is the culture really changing or is it just bad press?
Is the company actively trying to determine the current culture of employees and customers and if changes have occurred, what forces are causing these changes?
These are just three questions the leadership at Ukrop’s should be asking. I think one could rest assured that effective leaders would be trying to determine the answers to these questions to ensure survival of the company. After all, this company has been in existence nearly 75 years with a strong tradition of providing excellent customer and community service.
We are forgetting one thing though; this company has been lead by the Ukrop’s family and they are are now beginning to transition leadership to a third generation. Does this third generation have the same passion for the grocery business as the past two generations? Are they interested in modeling the way, inspiring a shared company vision and challenging the status quo ((James Kouzes and Barry Posner, 2007, The Leadership Challenge, p. 15-18)? If not, is the current generation going to stay in the game and lead or just give up?
With the recent news from the Richmond Times-Dispatch of Ukrop’s efforts to solicit bids to sell the chain, its becoming clear generation is beginning to check out of the game (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/UKROGAT14_20090714-170001/279912/P20/). This news, which was further confirmed this month, makes it clear that the interest in the grocery business is growing weaker within the Ukrop family (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/UKROGAT06_20091006-095802/297752/).
At this point in the game, the most important question for me is not whether Ukrop’s will be sold in the near future. My most pressing question is “Will company leadership provide the wisdom and guidance needed during this time to keep the company a leader in the business?” My concern is the answer to this question is "no" and company leadership is already moving their furniture out. For the employees, remember to play all nine innings, not just the first eight.
Fast forward almost 30 years and Ukrop’s is still a major player in the Richmond grocery market. The company has grown, the founder has passed away, and the culture seems to have changed into a big town company with a big town atmosphere. This change in culture has unfortunately affected the loyalty of employees and customers. People don’t seem to have the same affection towards Ukrop’s as they did at one time.
So, at this point, one might ask the following questions
Does company management see the changes as others have?
Is the culture really changing or is it just bad press?
Is the company actively trying to determine the current culture of employees and customers and if changes have occurred, what forces are causing these changes?
These are just three questions the leadership at Ukrop’s should be asking. I think one could rest assured that effective leaders would be trying to determine the answers to these questions to ensure survival of the company. After all, this company has been in existence nearly 75 years with a strong tradition of providing excellent customer and community service.
We are forgetting one thing though; this company has been lead by the Ukrop’s family and they are are now beginning to transition leadership to a third generation. Does this third generation have the same passion for the grocery business as the past two generations? Are they interested in modeling the way, inspiring a shared company vision and challenging the status quo ((James Kouzes and Barry Posner, 2007, The Leadership Challenge, p. 15-18)? If not, is the current generation going to stay in the game and lead or just give up?
With the recent news from the Richmond Times-Dispatch of Ukrop’s efforts to solicit bids to sell the chain, its becoming clear generation is beginning to check out of the game (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/UKROGAT14_20090714-170001/279912/P20/). This news, which was further confirmed this month, makes it clear that the interest in the grocery business is growing weaker within the Ukrop family (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/UKROGAT06_20091006-095802/297752/).
At this point in the game, the most important question for me is not whether Ukrop’s will be sold in the near future. My most pressing question is “Will company leadership provide the wisdom and guidance needed during this time to keep the company a leader in the business?” My concern is the answer to this question is "no" and company leadership is already moving their furniture out. For the employees, remember to play all nine innings, not just the first eight.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
John Muir - Leadership Marked By Passion
John Muir, the celebrated preservationist, was a man marked by passion. As one of the founders of the Sierra Club, John Muir used his passion for nature to lead others in a pursuit of preserving million of acres of land for the enjoyment of generations of Americans.
What marked John Muir’s ability to lead so many to help in his cause? I venture to say it was his passion, credibility and knowledge that helped lead him to a place of prominence and power in the early days of preservation. Clearly in my mind, it was his passion that took the forefront.
According to book The Leadership Challenge, one of the primary responsibilities of a leader is to “create an environment where people are passionate about what they’re doing” (James Kouzes and Barry Posner, 2007, The Leadership Challenge, p. 130). John Muir was surely a master at creating this type of environment through sharing his passion with others. He also had the ability to bring to life the vision and value of natural settings, especially since these visions were initially dormant in many of his followers. Muir had one of the established qualities of a leader, to “connect to what’s meaningful to others” (James Kouzes and Barry Posner, 2007, The Leadership Challenge, p. 134).
All people are passionate about something in life. So what made John Muir so special that he could influence millions to take up his cause for natural preservation? Wouldn’t we all love to have that same passion for something in life that others would take up our cause and follow?
While starting his life with little direction or purpose, a passion for nature did not occur until his first class in botany at the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the age of 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir). This class sparked an interest which would last a lifetime and yielded the preservation of such locations as Yosemite National Park and countless other parks throughout the United States.
As the case in many successful lives, part of John Muir’s passion came from tragedy. At the age of 28, he was working at a sawmill when a sharp file pierced his eye and a possibility of losing his eyesight appeared probable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir). After spending nearly a month in a darkened room and his eye almost completely healed, Muir went for a walk in nature. When he returned from that walk, he became determined to be true to himself and spend his life in the study of plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir).
So is tragedy necessary to be a great leader with passionate pursuits? Probably not, but for John Muir, it was tragedy that ignited a passion that lasted a lifetime. His leadership in the area of preservation allow the current generation and generations to come the opportunity to appreciate the natural beauties of this country. May the fruits of our leadership yield similar good.
What marked John Muir’s ability to lead so many to help in his cause? I venture to say it was his passion, credibility and knowledge that helped lead him to a place of prominence and power in the early days of preservation. Clearly in my mind, it was his passion that took the forefront.
According to book The Leadership Challenge, one of the primary responsibilities of a leader is to “create an environment where people are passionate about what they’re doing” (James Kouzes and Barry Posner, 2007, The Leadership Challenge, p. 130). John Muir was surely a master at creating this type of environment through sharing his passion with others. He also had the ability to bring to life the vision and value of natural settings, especially since these visions were initially dormant in many of his followers. Muir had one of the established qualities of a leader, to “connect to what’s meaningful to others” (James Kouzes and Barry Posner, 2007, The Leadership Challenge, p. 134).
All people are passionate about something in life. So what made John Muir so special that he could influence millions to take up his cause for natural preservation? Wouldn’t we all love to have that same passion for something in life that others would take up our cause and follow?
While starting his life with little direction or purpose, a passion for nature did not occur until his first class in botany at the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the age of 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir). This class sparked an interest which would last a lifetime and yielded the preservation of such locations as Yosemite National Park and countless other parks throughout the United States.
As the case in many successful lives, part of John Muir’s passion came from tragedy. At the age of 28, he was working at a sawmill when a sharp file pierced his eye and a possibility of losing his eyesight appeared probable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir). After spending nearly a month in a darkened room and his eye almost completely healed, Muir went for a walk in nature. When he returned from that walk, he became determined to be true to himself and spend his life in the study of plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir).
So is tragedy necessary to be a great leader with passionate pursuits? Probably not, but for John Muir, it was tragedy that ignited a passion that lasted a lifetime. His leadership in the area of preservation allow the current generation and generations to come the opportunity to appreciate the natural beauties of this country. May the fruits of our leadership yield similar good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)