weLEAD Online Magazine

leadingtoday.org

weLEAD Leadership Series

Exclusive interview with Denis Orme

Interviewed by Greg Thomas

Denis Orme has served as a management consultant to over 200 prestigious international organizations and companies. He is president of the Leadership Success Institute, a national seminar presenter, and has written articles for prominent publications including The National Law Journal, The Forbes Report, and the National Business Review. Denis has been consulting various organizations for over 20 years and his effective “hands-on” approach has proven successful. You can learn more about his organization and services at www.leader-success.com

To read the weLEAD book review of Lessons from Leadership Failures: The Greenfields Approach

Please click here

Denis your new book entitled Lessons from Leadership Failures: The Greenfields Approach (Five Star Publications) has recently been released. What events or experience inspired you to write this book?

My career started by being involved in company liquidations and receiverships and it continued through my involvement with over 200 organizations both internationally and in the U.S. I successfully led twenty-two startups, provided the impetus in many instances of business restructuring, and in other situations I built teams while implementing growth strategies of businesses.

Throughout all of those experiences the single common denominator for success, failure or just mediocre performance resulted from effective or poor leadership. You could say in some cases that the company simply ran out of cash, was under capitalized or saw the market for its products or services evaporate etc. These were the effects, not the causes.

In my opinion, the results experienced by companies and government entities were all consequences of poor or ineffective leadership. The objective of the book was not to be sensational (no names are given), but to provide business owners, executives and managers a description of what went wrong and more importantly “How to do it Differently” to avoid making the same mistakes.

You mention that the single common denominator for performance was either effective or poor leadership. In your experience what was the most common trait or quality of an effective leader?

I wish there were just one trait or quality, but in my experience out of the 35 leadership characteristics I evaluate with self-evaluation and the 360-degree feedback instruments, there are five (personal characteristics such as trust and honesty are a given) that consistently rank with outstanding leaders. These include:

· Vision & Change Leadership - a clear focus on the strategic direction for their organization, the ability to articulate that vision and get people on board through demonstrating a plan which can not only be fun and exciting, but which will work and from which there will be shared benefit.

Change Leadership itself is a special skill. As just one example, during the implementation of plans, conflict occurs. An effective leader not only resolves the conflict, but resolves it in such a way that egos are not bruised.

Change Leadership includes staying focused on the desired outcome, anticipating roadblocks and becoming solution focused, together with an ability to fold the interests and concerns of those impacted by the change into positive outcomes.

· Leadership of Personnel and Teams - this follows on from the ability to articulate a clear vision by not just getting people to buy-in to the vision, but by clearly demonstrating week after week that “people are our greatest asset.” That means a relationship with people, not just conversations in relation to driving the implementation of plans. It translates into exploring and implementing plans to help grow the careers of personnel and team members so they can see their personal benefit.

· Building coalitions - effective leaders build long-term relationships with customers, suppliers and their personnel. Often I will question a senior executive on when he or she last had face-to-face contact with say the top 20 – 30 customers. If the senior executive is not close to customers, then not only are they always vulnerable to customer loss particularly when things go wrong (the customer will not tell you and just move to another vendor) but without a flow of customer ideas there will be little information on potential new products or services customers are seeking.

Without that input future business and strategic plans will be created without really knowing what the market wants.

· Business Acumen – In this information age we are overwhelmed with information, but in many instances it is necessary to make decisions without complete information or before you have had time to scrutinize all information at hand. You cannot teach judgment, but if a senior executive has had a broad base of experience, has made mistakes and learned from them, then more often than not he or she will have developed sound judgment.

· Results Drive - many executives get caught up in “process”, and the process develops its own life while all the while the purpose of the process is lost sight of. Remember those who pursued quality processes largely to the exclusion of customer focus, or in maintaining a strong financial result? At least one Baldridge winner went out of business.

Effective executives stay focused on the business or outcome result.

In your experience what was the most common trait or quality of a poor or ineffective leader?

This is an area where it would be nice to say “Well of course that is the Command and Control Leader.”

However the answer is more subtle than that. The most common thing I find is a lack of open communication and not practicing “people are our greatest asset.”

Communication is an open, honest and free-flowing two-way dialog with the people you are working with. Too often open communication is missing, and in this economy there is a tendency to guard information in the belief that this will help you preserve your job. Unfortunately for many this has just not been true.

People are our strongest asset - Corporate America is missing the boat by not practicing this philosophy. You can take two similar sized businesses in the same industry where products and pricing are very similar, so why is it then that one is wildly successful and the other just mediocre?

In every case the difference is in their people, their sense of belonging and purpose, together with an understanding that management cares about them and their career. This strong belief in people gives the company an edge in performance, customer service and customer satisfaction.

A central focus of this powerful book is your examination of past business failures. Why do you believe we have been reluctant to look to the past and learn the lessons of those who have failed?

We love talking about success and idolize business heroes, but not failures. We carefully wrap our egos up in our business and careers and are reluctant to admit not only our failures, but also actions that result in mediocre performance. So our reluctance I believe is wrapped up in two ways. The first I mentioned, our ego and not liking to publicly admit our mistakes.

The second is that business failure is not newsworthy except in the case of something the magnitude of Enron. The Enron experience is newsworthy not just because of the dollars involved, but also because of the ‘emotional stories’ around families of those being laid off, and the “human tragedy” elements of those losing their life savings in 401K plans or pension funds.

There are over 45,000 business failures impacting the lives of over a million people each year. Add to that the permanent loss of over one million manufacturing jobs since 1999, but because of the small size of most failures and the fact that there are few “human dramas” associated with the failures, they don’t make the press. On those occasions where there is a newsworthy component, we don’t want to admit or talk about our mistakes so the story simply cannot be built. Mediocre performance, mistakes and failures are powerful teachers and that is why I have included my own mistakes and mis-steps.

In your book you discuss the difference between leadership and autocratic management. Could you expand upon this for us?

There are over thirty-five components of leadership I regularly evaluate through 360-degree feedback evaluation and self-evaluation, but in this economy leadership comes down to five key things:

- Vision and Change Leadership. Providing the direction for a profitable long- term future so that it is something people can believe in, and subscribe to, and then effectively leading the required changes in the direction of that vision.

- Leadership of Personnel and Teams. Effective leaders deliver on the statement “People Are Our Strongest Asset” and through words and actions believe in their people. They always make sure there is a shared benefit. Leaders are interested in the people they work with, their life outside the workplace, and provide good career direction.

- Building Coalitions and Communicating effectively. This includes building long term relationships with customers, vendors and personnel alike. Communication does not refer to the ability to speak, but rather an open communication style and a free flowing two-way dialog.

- Business Acumen. Sound business judgment is the mark of a great leader.

- Results Drive. In larger organizations and government entities, too often executives get caught up in “process” and not results. Effective leaders remain focused on, and through sustained high-performance consistently deliver results.

Effective leaders consistently rank very high in these five core components.

On the other hand, Autocratic management has never worked really effectively. “Command and control” managers hire followers and not people as good as, or better than them. The norm is “Just do as I say”. They never seek feedback, or ask to have the rationale for their decisions tested. Personnel in this environment either “stay and play” the system, or those with initiative simply leave. In many instances I have seen those who stay in a group led by an autocratic manager merrily go down paths of business self-destruction.

Denis, you use an interesting phrase in your book. You state that an incremental approach to planning typically occurs in organizations, and this approach provides self-limiting outcomes. Why does this happen and how can leaders avoid this common problem?

In a small business setting more often than not you will find that there is no annual planning process and the company just drifts forward from year to year. In larger companies or government entities, people get into a system of planning which entails them dusting off last year’s plan as a starting point and saying “Well what has changed since we wrote this?” More often than not I believe it just results from following the same planning system and not thinking about planning as a process.

On other occasions managers and executives are under pressure just to get the plan done “to meet the head office deadline.” Often the executive in the head office will have changed, and the new person will not look back at last year’s plan, and will just move this year’s plan through their administrative process.

One factor not to overlook, however,is the fact that planning under the Greenfields Approach I am about to describe will produce a plan so different from prior plans that it may be perceived as a criticism as to what has been done in the past, or there may be the fear that because it is so different it may not be accepted.

You can avoid self-limiting outcomes by adopting the Greenfields Planning approach. “If I were starting this business today, or planning say the accounting function or the production line for the first time, would I do it this way?” This approach allows you to plan and prioritize all facets of the business without any initial self-limiting alternatives.

All businesses have constraints and having completed the initial phases of the Greenfields Plan without constraint. The next stage is to determine: What is realistic and possible given our finances, personnel, processes, production and marketing etc? If you apply this test initially you have eliminated some viable options.

Where does the term “Greenfields” approach or planning process come from, and how can it help senior management to develop a new leadership style and approach toward business?

The Greenfields Approach has an analogy.

Imagine for a moment that you are a farmer, and when you look outside all you see for miles and miles are Green Fields. At that point it is safe to assume 1.) That the land is fertile, and 2.) That there is an abundance of water.

No rocks to clear, no trees to fell, just rich fertile land ready for the planting of any crop of your choosing.

Applying the Greenfields Approach to business, you can look at your business and potential opportunities in the same way, without constraint. In doing so, many of the opportunities will be new or different.

Why? Because the marketplace, your competitors and technology will have changed dramatically since the business, business unit or process was set in place. At the end of the planning cycle where you have determined what is realistic and possible, the final step is to reprioritize all Action Plans and benchmarked potential results.

Will adopting the Greenfields approach require a dramatic change in the organization’s culture or values?

The Greenfields Approach does not necessarily require a dramatic change in culture or values, but more often than not it will provide the stimulus for a very positive shift.

Take an organization that has a culture of excuses “We can’t,” “We tried it before and it didn’t work,” “It was in our plan last year,” “We have always done it this way.”’ By adopting the Greenfields Approach where constraints are removed, you are removing the excuses. In this example a cultural shift may well be to adopt an Excuse-Free culture in the development and execution of business plans.

For example, whereas previously excuses were made, the management team may adopt a plan and move towards a culture where people are encouraged not just to surface problems, but to bring forward at least one or two ideas for resolving them. By adopting this approach then, over time the culture will shift to one of being Excuse-Free and solution focused.

Organizational values are frequently impacted by the Greenfields Approach to the extent that the planning process gives rise to the need for changes in leadership styles and practices. For example, values may change in relation to HR practices by members of the senior executive team (where currently people are not considered the company’s strongest asset); or in better defining and implementing Customer Relationship Management programs in order to build long-term customer coalitions. Implementation of the planning process may result in the adoption of new values, but more frequently it will be placing specific emphasis on existing values in the direct pursuit of business goals.

What can a single individual learn from the “Greenfields” approach and can these principles be applied to one’s personal life?

How many people do we know who have a life or a career plan?

Most people are without a life plan, and less than 3% with a career plan. We meander through our life and career and have either a good or bad experience. It is like getting on the freeway without a destination in mind…. probably we will have a bad trip. Now think about all the major events in your life. Most of them occurred because you made a decision: to lose weight, to change jobs, to relocate etc.

The Greenfields Approach should be applied to our life and career.

Using career as the example, if we just think about it in terms of what we are today, perhaps in a role we do not even like very much. Well, we can tinker with what we are doing by joining a new work group, taking some training etc. However, none of these things will provide us with a rewarding and more importantly, satisfying future.

Without being a “Pollyanna” and by using the Greenfields Approach, the basic question to be asked is “If I were starting my career today would I head in the same direction or make the same career steps?" If the answer to that is “No” then you have a starting point to look at all career options, the skills you will need, and the timeline to make the change. These questions provide answers to “What is realistic and possible?” and sets you in the direction of a rewarding future.

Thanks Denis!

Comments to: editor@leadingtoday.org

BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE