Tenet of Leadership #1: Respect people. Trust them.

Larry...
The management question always is..."How long can you trust and respect them?" All companies suffer from entropy ...they degrade and get less efficient over time, mostly because CEOs and managers think it's a natural consequence of time and size. Look at IBM before Gerstner and Chrysler before Iococca. Entropy is only natural if management BELIEVES it's natural. One way to avoid falling into the acceptance of entropy...is to dump the lowest 10% of performers every year and get new talent (especially as you move from phase to phase in the company's development and size). And that includes the top managers, starting with the CEO. Theory-Y, taken as gospel, inspires entropy and mediocrity. You need a mixture of Theory-X and Theory-Y to make a company run. Once employees feel comfortable in their positions, entropy sets in, and so does mediocrity. I have always "pressurized" the environment of the companies I have run. I give people authority and responsibility, and I set high expectations of performance, and I leave them alone...and let them perform. If they perform well, I move them somewhere else in the company, a new set of problems and challenges. The only people comfortable around me are the ones who know if they do well in their present position, they will get a new more challenging position. Those who feel very comfortable in their position are of little value to me, even if they are competent in that position. Now, I have to manage the company's path AROUND those people, not with them. That is management mediocrity at its highest level...

In response to “desert rat”: I agree completely with your second post: “…RIGHT people first, and then you put them in the right seats…”. This is the first critical task. We are in complete alignment about this. As you have said, if you can do this, half the battle is won.
However, this is not the primary focus of this tenet in my original post. Once you have the right people in the right seats, I am suggesting that you will be better served, as will those in your employ, if you start with respecting and trusting them, start with the assumption that they want to do a good job, and then take upon yourself the task to create the environment for them to succeed. I agree with you completely that getting the right people on the bus is critical, and continuous review of their performance is important. But after you have done your best in this area, I propose that you respect them, and trust that they, like you, want to feel a sense of strong self-esteem through their work.
I am sure we are not in complete agreement yet, “desert rat”. But that’s what makes this study of the “soft science” of management interesting! I look forward to more of your comments.
Thank you for your post.
Larry Pendergrass

Larry...
If you get the RIGHT people first, and then you put them in the right seats, half the battle is won. What you do next, from my mgt experience, is to now find the people you thought were right (and aren't) and get them off the bus. Replace them with new "right"people....as you progress toward the company's goals. What happens is that there are "right people" and at certain points on the company's path. As the company goes to the next level, some of those older "right" people can't make the turn, so they have to fall off the bus...and be replaced with people who are "right" for the next phase. A company has phases, just like human development. It takes a different set of people to get a start-up to break-even and another set of people to take it to $5 Mil, $10 Mil, $20 Mil, $100 Mil. It also takes different CEOs at different phases, so the BOD needs to dump CEOs who are not the "right people" for the next phase. All company people must grow and develop new skills at each phase, or they have to get off the bus...

In response to “how how”: Perhaps I could offer the following… If you are in an organization that does not practice this principle and you are hoping to make a change, I would think you have a pretty big task in front of you. More often than not, the general principles in an organization are established and reinforced by the behaviors of the leaders at the top. Your leaders will have to see a reason to change before they are likely to do more than passively allow variation in leadership style. But that may be enough. Because sometimes making changes locally in the areas over which you have control, will be enough to show the value, potentially invite wider change and at the least, give you a sense of personal satisfaction for the good you are doing. My suggestion would be to focus on what you can control, and demonstrate the impact that can be derived from believing in your people and their drive to excel.
Thanks for your post.
Larry Pendergrass

In response to “chennad”: You are right that there are some people that are “along for the ride” and you will not change them. This tenet is not meant to be a Pollyanna view of the world, but perhaps I can suggest it for your consideration as a starting position. Yes, good performance management practices need to be layered onto this philosophy, identifying clearly what is working and what is not, deciding whether you have an “ability issue” or a “motivational issue” with a given performance problem, and working to correct it. And yes, some people will have to be moved out of the organization. But by starting with an assumption that your people are looking for personal value from their work will invite their greater participation from them. You will find them working at a higher level. You will find them rising to the occasion.
“chennad”, it seems from your comments that you already practice this principle to a large degree. I certainly agree with you that most of your people will identify what needs to be done, given the right environment, and not wait to be told. And yes, it’s a leader’s job to validate their direction, encourage them, show faith, and as necessary provide correction.
One last thought… I have always felt that the amount of time a leader has to devote to an individual takes on a “bathtub-shaped” curve with the performance of the individual. In other words, low performers take more of our time due to corrective actions. High performers take more of our time because they are generating ideas that need a response, or stretching the boundaries with may require validation. The middle performers are our workhorses… quietly finding what needs to be done and doing a great job and accomplishing the task. They require little management oversight. Now the work we put into our high performers is “high value-added”. The work we put into our lower performers… well we hope this will result in them moving into becoming one of our workhorses or beyond. But it is true. There are some “bad apples” as you have said. And it may require us to make the other hard decisions we as managers are paid to make. But I would claim that if you first start with the assumption that people want to do a good job, you will have most people perform at a higher level and you can still identify those “bad apples”.
Thanks for your post.
Larry Pendergrass

In response to “desert rat”: Yes, it’s true that this first tenet is an element of Theory Y (coined in the 1960s). However it’s much older than that. (Others reading this comment might take a look at a short write-up on Theory X and Theory Y on Wikipedia. I can't put the link here, but search on Theory Y.) For instance, “Respect people. Trust them.” is a fundamental tenet used at Keithley Instruments where I work, and has been since the company was founded in 1946. And we are not alone. It still is described as a critical principle in many companies today.
“desert rat”, you have some great points in your post (like “getting the right people on the bus”… a principle well espoused by Jim Collins in “Good to Great”… great book… and avoiding micromanagement). But you and I part company at the thought that what I have described is outmoded thinking. I have seen it work, and I have seen first hand the negative impact of alternate practices. (Some theories like Theory X have certainly been shown to generate poor results… not that you have suggested that this is the next best alternative.) Many managers have sworn by this first tenet, and generated excellent results as an outcome.
So in short “desert rat”, thank you for your comments. It’s clear that you have had a great deal of management experience. And I would love to learn more about the insights they have generated. But clearly we have had a different experience in what works and what doesn’t. I will stick with my tenet. If you give people the right environment, they will surprise you in their willingness and desire to excel in the work place.
By the way, you have given me a great idea for an upcoming poll in one of my management consortia… to use your words: “How many people practice Theory X vs. Theory Y today?” It will be interesting to put your challenge to the test.
Thanks for your post.
Larry Pendergrass

Agree 100%, but........... there are bad apple's out there. The world is not made up up of perfect people that want to a good job. Some folks are out there just for the ride - just to do as little as possible for as much compensation as possible and they still complain. You cannot change these folks by believing in them. I agree with desert rat in that your comments are valid when you have first do his steps 1 -4. Get the right people in the right places with support and clear direction and autonomy to do their job. The trick then is making course corrections while allowing people to maintain that sense of ownership and responsibility that keeps them fruitfully engaged. Another observation: 85% of the time, people that want to do the right thing, already know what to do. But .... They need to hear from the leader that what they are doing is valid and will yield success ... That management beleives in them... They need reinforcement of their ideas and trust that they are supported for their efforts regardless of short or long term outcome.

This is the old "theory-Y" concept taught in 1970's industrial psychology classes. Most management adopt "theory-X" from being burned so many times. And you have not factored-in the Unions here in this mgt philosophy. The trick to mgt is to (1) get the right people on the bus first, (2) get those people in the right seats on the bus, (3) tell them what you want and when you want it, and (4) leave them alone (ie, no micro-management).
In addition, I would add an additional mgt philosophy that has severed me well for 40 years..
1. Tell your people you expect mistakes. A mistake is a sign that someone is learning. Learn from all mistakes through a postmortem with the team
2. If I see the same or similar mistake made twice, someone is not paying attention. They will get chewed-out and get some remedial training.
3. If I see the same or similar mistake the third time, someone is doing it on purpose, and I will find them and kill them.

I completely agree with you, trouble is, how do I forward this article to our management without getting slapped.