Obviously, there are probably thousands of lessons to be learned from studying Rupert Murdoch's rise to wealth and some say too much power. But watching his testimony yesterday before parliament, I was reminded such an extraordinary man either rose to power unethically or he had his head in the sand much of the time. I don't believe we want to focus on the ethical issues although with power comes an arrogance that leads to potential corruption. While his apologies were very contrite and sincere on face value, the damage done by weak, ineffective and/or arrogant management makes the apologies seem quite a little too late.
How many boards and managers have been caught unaware of a serious issue and believed passionately that they were the one to fix it. Maybe once but not twice. As Murdoch was asked why he was not resigning and he said that he was the best person to lead them out of this mess, I was assured that he believed it, but from my seat, I did not. How can you turn your back, ignore or just plain miss illegal processes going on under your nose, granted under several noses down the chain, and think that you will spot the next big thing.
Management is always about cleaning up messes and addressing problems but when management's approach allows those messes to happen, those processes to break over and over, why do we want those same people to fix them. And why do we want their fix anyway.
Unfortunately, in the healthcare world this is also the case. Well intended folks relying on people they "trust" to do the right thing. I sure would not want to get on a plan that was operated on trust. And frankly our communities and our patients don't want to get their healthcare in such places either.
I see this in not-for-profit organizations all the time where the effort to lead is rewarded as well as the actual successful act of leading. And too often others are hurt in the mess.
Good management, rests on more than those you trust. Of course, it is sure nice to have a few of them around but even they need to be held to a transparent standard of performance. If the performance looks too good to be true, it probably is. Instead of enjoying it, look into it next time.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Women leaders...what we know!
The takeaways from the Modern Healthcare's 1st Annual Conference celebrating the top 25 female healthcare leaders were numerous and summed up beautifully by the Chief Transformation Officer from Piedmont Health another sponsor. To name a few: culture as we all know is incredibly difficult to change and cultural language in describing women is one of the first areas that needs to change. Gail Evans, noted author among other amazing career heights, shared her research on how men are described in references and how women are described. She hilariously pointed out the "drudgery" descriptions of women - dedicated, loyal, hard working, smart.....all the characteristics that you want in your middle management ranks. But when it comes to men, they are described by both women and men as "having leadership potential, strategic and can close the deal". These are the guys that are going to get the job. So before you give another recommendation for your women colleagues and friends, think before your speak and make sure she "is a leader, drives results, is strategic".
And while we are on the subject, how many women are you recommending for boards, jobs and awards? It seems too few. According to Evans and others on the panel, you need 3 women on a board or in senior management to feel the impact. One is where we are now (and we all know how that feels), two makes it hard to disagree with each other, but three allows the individuals strengths and power to have their full impact.
There were several powerful exceptions to the woman leadership style that says that "I couldn't have done it without everyone else". These women clearly made the point that everyone else might not have gotten it done without them. We don't need ego but we do need to share the powerful message that each of these leaders is making a significant contribution. That's when we will feel the impact on the next generation of leaders of "Chicks in Charge"!
And while we are on the subject, how many women are you recommending for boards, jobs and awards? It seems too few. According to Evans and others on the panel, you need 3 women on a board or in senior management to feel the impact. One is where we are now (and we all know how that feels), two makes it hard to disagree with each other, but three allows the individuals strengths and power to have their full impact.
There were several powerful exceptions to the woman leadership style that says that "I couldn't have done it without everyone else". These women clearly made the point that everyone else might not have gotten it done without them. We don't need ego but we do need to share the powerful message that each of these leaders is making a significant contribution. That's when we will feel the impact on the next generation of leaders of "Chicks in Charge"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)