It was a hot summer afternoon in the middle of July, and I had just come home after playing outside with my friends. A good time was had by all — or so I thought. When my mother heard me come in, she asked if I would come into the living room to speak with her. A little warning bell went off and I knew there was trouble afoot! It turns out that a neighbor, the mother of a friend of mine, had come to complain to my mother that I had put tar in her daughter’s hair. The city was re-tarring the streets in the neighborhood and the gooey, black tar had been too enticing, just made for a “new hairdo.”
Rather than assume I was guilty, my mother asked me whether or not I had done the misdeed. She said that she would never take anyone’s word before mine. In fact, she had told the mother of my friend the same thing. I remember at that young age being impressed that my mother would talk to me first to get my side of the story before accusing me of something based on someone else’s accounting of the facts. At the age of 5, I learned my first management lesson — a person in charge must understand the facts before taking action.
You might think that getting the facts before making a decision in business is common sense, and who doesn’t use common sense? Unfortunately, not being fully informed and making decisions anyway does happen, and the consequences can negatively impact employees, customers and the organization.
Not getting all the facts in a situation happens at all levels in an organization. I have seen new CEOs and other corporate management who do not yet know a company or its people make quick decisions and disrupt the organization without a full assessment of the repercussions. They either want to be seen as “action oriented,” attempting to make a quick impact, or they come from the management school that dictates that, in order to impress the board, press, analysts or shareholders, you need to do something quickly. Never mind that it may cause a problem down the road — tomorrow is another day.
I recall a situation where it was a new CEO’s first day. He called the management team into a room and showed us the new organization. We were all a little stunned as no one had even met with him yet. It doesn’t take much insight to guess that the new organization design didn’t last, and neither did he. This isn’t the only incident of this type that I have witnessed over my career. At Apple in the early 90’s there was a revolving door for executives who came in, made changes, and failed. They made decisions based on a context that was not Apple.
In another high profile story, in 2000, after Bob Nardelli learned he would never run GE when Jack Welch left office, he took the CEO job at Home Depot and quickly proceeded to make dramatic changes to the organization, replacing its entrepreneurial culture of innovative product design with one focused on relentless cost-cutting. In the book, “How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing,” the authors Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal highlight how Nardelli completely went against Home Depot’s traditions and culture that had made the company successful in his attempt to transform the company using the Six Sigma approach he learned at GE. At first his new strategy seemed to work and then the castle began to crumble with both employees and customers rebelling. In applying the Six Sigma process to Home Depot, it was clear that Nardelli did not make an effort to understand the business or culture and failed because of it.The Board of Directors ultimately ousted him from the company. (Despite this, eight months later, he became chairman and CEO of Chrysler.)
It can be tempting to skip fact-finding, and opt for taking quick action to remedy a situation. But resisting that temptation can be critical to ultimately making the right decision. In one case, I was the new head of marketing for a company with an existing team. I had “get-to-know” meetings with my staff and a number of them discussed with me a poor-performing colleague and asked that she be removed. I told them that I would monitor the situation and if my experience matched theirs, I would remove her. Within a month, I did indeed wind up asking her to leave the company, but I made sure that I personally understood what the issues were before firing her. It may have cost me some political capital with the team, but I hope it also demonstrated to them that they would get equal treatment in a similar situation.
A corollary to the example above is when the messenger is someone you know and trust. You’re busy, you want to fix the situation, and the person who relayed the information to you is someone you’ve worked with and have faith in. Regardless of who relates the information, you need to understand the truth. It may take more time than you would like to, but in the end, a clear understanding of the situation ensures that you make the right decision.
A number of years ago I worked in a company as the VP of Marketing. The CEO began exhibiting odd behaviors — sudden “organizational adjustments,” veiled negative comments and stalking people’s offices — but we all chalked it up to stress. We were a fast growing company and on the path to a liquidity event. I never understood why the majority of the executive staff had a strained relationship with the CEO until I left two years later and discovered the VP of Product had been feeding the CEO information that was untrue. This individual had worked with the CEO for several years, had his ear and was a trusted source.The CEO lost the respect of his team when people learned that he didn’t make the effort to check the facts.
Trusting the word of someone is important but it shouldn’t overshadow the need to get to the real truth. Whatever you may think of Julian Assange of Wikileaks, his perspective on this point nails it: “You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion.”
You may be asking, “How do I know when I have enough information — and the right information — to make a decision?” Ultimately, this is a judgement call you need to make based on the situation, your experience, or the immediacy required to fix something that’s broken or move the business forward. Take the time to get the facts — and you’ll know that your decisions are sound ones.
And if all of this hasn’t convinced you of the importance of getting the facts first, there’s the story of the new divisional CEO at a global steelmaking company who had been brought in to shake things up, and was determined to rid the company of all slackers. On a tour of the facilities, the new CEO noticed a guy leaning against a wall. The room was full of workers and he wanted to let them know that he meant business. He walked up to the guy at the wall and asked, “How much money do you make a week?”
A little surprised, the young man looked at him and replied, “I make about $400 a week, Why?”
The CEO then handed the guy $1,600 in cash and screamed, “Here's four weeks' pay, now GET OUT and don't come back!” The guy left without saying a word to the CEO.
Feeling pretty good about himself, the CEO looked around the room and asked, “Does anyone want to tell me what that goof-ball did here?”
From across the room came a voice, “Pizza delivery kid from Domino’s.”
Rather than assume I was guilty, my mother asked me whether or not I had done the misdeed. She said that she would never take anyone’s word before mine. In fact, she had told the mother of my friend the same thing. I remember at that young age being impressed that my mother would talk to me first to get my side of the story before accusing me of something based on someone else’s accounting of the facts. At the age of 5, I learned my first management lesson — a person in charge must understand the facts before taking action.
You might think that getting the facts before making a decision in business is common sense, and who doesn’t use common sense? Unfortunately, not being fully informed and making decisions anyway does happen, and the consequences can negatively impact employees, customers and the organization.
Not getting all the facts in a situation happens at all levels in an organization. I have seen new CEOs and other corporate management who do not yet know a company or its people make quick decisions and disrupt the organization without a full assessment of the repercussions. They either want to be seen as “action oriented,” attempting to make a quick impact, or they come from the management school that dictates that, in order to impress the board, press, analysts or shareholders, you need to do something quickly. Never mind that it may cause a problem down the road — tomorrow is another day.
I recall a situation where it was a new CEO’s first day. He called the management team into a room and showed us the new organization. We were all a little stunned as no one had even met with him yet. It doesn’t take much insight to guess that the new organization design didn’t last, and neither did he. This isn’t the only incident of this type that I have witnessed over my career. At Apple in the early 90’s there was a revolving door for executives who came in, made changes, and failed. They made decisions based on a context that was not Apple.
In another high profile story, in 2000, after Bob Nardelli learned he would never run GE when Jack Welch left office, he took the CEO job at Home Depot and quickly proceeded to make dramatic changes to the organization, replacing its entrepreneurial culture of innovative product design with one focused on relentless cost-cutting. In the book, “How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing,” the authors Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal highlight how Nardelli completely went against Home Depot’s traditions and culture that had made the company successful in his attempt to transform the company using the Six Sigma approach he learned at GE. At first his new strategy seemed to work and then the castle began to crumble with both employees and customers rebelling. In applying the Six Sigma process to Home Depot, it was clear that Nardelli did not make an effort to understand the business or culture and failed because of it.The Board of Directors ultimately ousted him from the company. (Despite this, eight months later, he became chairman and CEO of Chrysler.)
It can be tempting to skip fact-finding, and opt for taking quick action to remedy a situation. But resisting that temptation can be critical to ultimately making the right decision. In one case, I was the new head of marketing for a company with an existing team. I had “get-to-know” meetings with my staff and a number of them discussed with me a poor-performing colleague and asked that she be removed. I told them that I would monitor the situation and if my experience matched theirs, I would remove her. Within a month, I did indeed wind up asking her to leave the company, but I made sure that I personally understood what the issues were before firing her. It may have cost me some political capital with the team, but I hope it also demonstrated to them that they would get equal treatment in a similar situation.
A corollary to the example above is when the messenger is someone you know and trust. You’re busy, you want to fix the situation, and the person who relayed the information to you is someone you’ve worked with and have faith in. Regardless of who relates the information, you need to understand the truth. It may take more time than you would like to, but in the end, a clear understanding of the situation ensures that you make the right decision.
A number of years ago I worked in a company as the VP of Marketing. The CEO began exhibiting odd behaviors — sudden “organizational adjustments,” veiled negative comments and stalking people’s offices — but we all chalked it up to stress. We were a fast growing company and on the path to a liquidity event. I never understood why the majority of the executive staff had a strained relationship with the CEO until I left two years later and discovered the VP of Product had been feeding the CEO information that was untrue. This individual had worked with the CEO for several years, had his ear and was a trusted source.The CEO lost the respect of his team when people learned that he didn’t make the effort to check the facts.
Trusting the word of someone is important but it shouldn’t overshadow the need to get to the real truth. Whatever you may think of Julian Assange of Wikileaks, his perspective on this point nails it: “You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion.”
You may be asking, “How do I know when I have enough information — and the right information — to make a decision?” Ultimately, this is a judgement call you need to make based on the situation, your experience, or the immediacy required to fix something that’s broken or move the business forward. Take the time to get the facts — and you’ll know that your decisions are sound ones.
And if all of this hasn’t convinced you of the importance of getting the facts first, there’s the story of the new divisional CEO at a global steelmaking company who had been brought in to shake things up, and was determined to rid the company of all slackers. On a tour of the facilities, the new CEO noticed a guy leaning against a wall. The room was full of workers and he wanted to let them know that he meant business. He walked up to the guy at the wall and asked, “How much money do you make a week?”
A little surprised, the young man looked at him and replied, “I make about $400 a week, Why?”
The CEO then handed the guy $1,600 in cash and screamed, “Here's four weeks' pay, now GET OUT and don't come back!” The guy left without saying a word to the CEO.
Feeling pretty good about himself, the CEO looked around the room and asked, “Does anyone want to tell me what that goof-ball did here?”
From across the room came a voice, “Pizza delivery kid from Domino’s.”
RSS Feed
