Work has been a little chaotic lately. Some really interesting projects and a few new clients leave me feeling mostly excited, useful and happy. But there are also things happening in client systems about which I am puzzled. I am spending extra time reflecting, trying to figure out the most effective approach and interventions. The familiarity of the work doesn’t make it any less daunting but having time to reflect, does. 
 
I am noticing that clients are almost all universally trying to do too much. They have too many priorities and seem hesitant to focus on the ones that matter most. This often leaves them feeling less satisfied with the outcomes even though they are working harder, when it might actually be better to stand back from their work. Standing back, or “on the balcony” as Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linksy describe in their book Leadership On The Line (still one of my favorites), is more necessary than ever and notably absent from most of our corporate systems. “I don’t have time to pull back. Where in an 80-hour work week would that fit?”, a client asked me recently. The truth is, I am not sure where it fits in an 80-hour week. But the 80-hour week is just one symptom of a bigger problem.
 
It’s true our species is built for action, struggle and hard work. We all know that work that involves physical labor requires we take breaks, eat and rest. Work rules on job sites structure this into the day to keep workers safe.  If they don’t, they can suffer dire consequences. For my clients, who are all knowledge workers, there are no compelling safety issues that demand breaks. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that doing demanding intellectual, collaborative or creative work requires built-in breaks or pauses to stop the action and reflect. It’s beyond the problem of making mistakes, though this is a part of it because it includes mistakes in relating, communicating and most importantly, judgement. Mistakes like these are actually way more time consuming to fix than prevent. It seems simple. It’s not. We still think that doing things faster and "powering through" is the best way to get things done. It’s not. In fact the busier you are, the more important it is to pause, reflect and integrate.
 

• Pause –Take a break from the action
• Reflect – Breath, look at what is happening around you. Observe, in real time, the consequences of the work you and your team are doing and the decisions you are making. Consider where the consequences or outcomes are meeting your intentions and where they are not.
• Integrate – Use what you have observed and learned to make a slight change, iterate, course correct, fix, re-direct or recognize, celebrate and move forward.  

 
Repeat. Build it into your processes. Agile and lean practitioners know this and wire it into their daily meetings. But all leaders and their teams would benefit from it. Like any practice, you have to be consistent about using it to make it a habit. Start. Now, let’s talk about your 80-hour work week. . .
 
Moira Clarke founded Leadership Consulting Partners 18 years ago to help companies advance their leadership and people systems. If you are reading this to the end, and you find value, please say so and share with others on LinkedIn and Twitter. Thank you! 
   

Talent assessment needs to evolve in big ways. Many clients know this and are making changes but I don't think they are substantive. As many large companies, Adobe, Accenture, GE and Microsoft to name a few, are changing their performance management system in substantial ways, we need to make the same big shifts in talent assessment and succession.  
 
Complex, adaptive issues, disruption, shortening business cycle times, and the need for greater collaboration among more diverse employees means that assessing talent has become more challenging. It is no longer enough for someone to play well with their manager and direct team, though both are still an important metrics. More and more we need to ensure people manage well across more complex, matrixed organizations and influence people who may not be in their immediate sphere of influence.
 
To ensure that leaders are effective, up, down and across organizational borders (and global boundaries) talent assessment must better leverage collective intelligence. The direct boss should still have a say in who gets promoted. But select peers and superiors across the organization should also be asked to provide feedback. Sometimes I feel that the boss should have the least input because they have formal authority. There is a strong incentive for their direct team to “manage up” well.  Delivering results for the organization and boss is an important ticket to entry, but it can no longer be the only metric for promotion. It is really how leaders act when they think no one is watching or evaluating that is much more informative. In talent reviews, leaders need to share and discuss a wider array of performance metrics, including:
 

• How effective is the leader with people who don’t report to them? Are they informal leaders of leaders? In other words, do their peers respect them and listen to them? (Peers are usually  the toughest audience)
• Does their brand of leadership and style attract and grow great talent? 
• Do they develop their own people? Do they mentor people outside of their function or organization?
• How effective is their team working with other teams? Does this leader collaborate well to bring about excellent results, even if not for their own operating unit? 
• Have they demonstrated effectiveness with diverse groups of employees? Do they have positive, effective relationships with all types of people in the organization or only people with whom they have more in common? 
• Do people inside and outside their organization respect and like them? 

 
Direct managers often don’t know all (or half) of this. But their colleagues across the organization do. This collective experience provides richer data and a more holistic view of a person’s real leadership impact. Organizations should set up talent management processes to capture and leverage it. There are lots of ways to gather collective intelligence in talent assessment but however you go about it, make it transparent and communicate it. In this way, you can create a level playing field and everyone knows what is expected. The way you assess and grow talent is culture creating – so it is worth the time to upgrade your system.
 
I am very aware that most leaders covet their ability to promote their best employees. When I discuss this more collaborative talent review process, clients most often tell me that they want to retain the decision on who to promote. I understand. And I know they may be short changing organizational performance by not considering a holistic approach. I also tell them not to try this more rigorous collaborative process unless they are willing to fully engage, listen and be open to changing their opinion.  
 
Moira Clarke founded Leadership Consulting Partners 18 years ago to help companies advance their leadership and people systems. If you are reading this to the end, and you find value, please say so and share with others on LinkedIn and Twitter. Thank you! 

This is the third and last post in a mini-series I am doing on performance management. I want to focus this post on the micro-moments throughout the year that allow you as a leader to practice developing others through recognition and positive feedback that are an integral part of creating a high performing culture. 
 
One of the personality assessments I use more often these days is the Hogan Assessment. The leadership report includes development scales and potential “derailers”. It also includes a Motives, Values and Preferences Inventory that provides clarity on values and drivers. One of the key drivers the Hogan measures is recognition. This is about recognition as in being “known, seen and visible” for work well done. This measure is not really about money – there is another scale called “commerce” for that. Some of us really love recognition, others don’t need it as much. Like all measures of healthy personality, we fall somewhere along a continuum or scale. 
 
I score slightly below the middle on recognition. It can be important to my feeling good about work but it has to be real and for significant contributions. I am not a person who needs it for doing small stuff. But when I do something really great, I love hearing about it.
 
Leaders should not underestimate the importance of knowing where they fall and where their team falls on this scale. It matters. If it is important to you, you should own it and let others in your circle know it.  Many of the executives that I have worked with have at least a middle to middle-high need for recognition. And when they don’t get it, it can zap their energy. Especially when they report to the CEO or board. There is often not a lot of recognition happening at that level. Perhaps folks at the top think that the large compensation package makes up for low/no recognition. In my experience, our humanness and the needs that come with it, are hard to shake regardless of our pay grade. 
 
Often when I ask a client if they have ever shared their need for positive recognition with their boss, they almost universally look at me like I am crazy. It’s a shame because if it is important to you, it should matter to your boss. It is also important to know your team member’s recognition needs. Simple questions at the start of working with them will allow you to customize the recognition you provide:

1. Tell me about two of your favorite experiences being recognized by a boss or colleague.
2. (If not obvious from the first question) When someone recognizes you, do you prefer it be shared in a team or in a 1:1 meeting? Do you have a preference?
3. Have you ever had an experience where you were recognized and due to the message or way it was done, it didn’t feel positive to you? What happened that made it that way for you?

If you are still reading, you may be shaking your head and saying, “heck, no one has ever asked me about this and I still keep bringing my best.” I understand. I used to feel the same way. But then I saw all the research on positive feedback and recognition and started using it in my work and seeing how motivating it can be when done well and I am reformed. It now falls into the “duh” bucket because it can have such a positive impact on someone who values it and it is pretty much free. 
 
It does take time to reflect, make it personal and meaningful. “Good job” does not cut it. Sharing specifically why something was good work, what it meant to you (the team, the enterprise) and why the contribution matters will make it powerful. Writing it down helps you fine tune it. The return on investment is worth it.   

Moira Clarke founded Leadership Consulting Partners 18 years ago to help companies advance their leadership and people systems. If you are reading this to the end, and you find value, please say so and share with others on LinkedIn and Twitter. 

The timing for this post is intentional. You are done or almost done with your performance reviews and your goals are set. We are still in Q1 and your team has three more quarters to knock performance out of the park.
 
No matter if you are the CEO or a team leader, how you manage your own performance casts a long shadow over your team. Though you are not the sole owner of creating a culture of feedback, or a vibrant learning culture, you are one of the most important.  Learning agility – how openly and quickly you learn from experience and apply it to your leadership and work, will impact the learning agility of your team.  For me it is usually ranked number one or two for important leadership competencies.  If you score high on learning agility (taken from the wonderful Center for Creative Leadership: https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/LearningAgility.pdf), you demonstrate the ability to:
 

• Innovate – you are not afraid to challenge the status quo
• Perform – Remain calm in the face of difficulty
• Reflect – Take time to reflect on your experience
• Risk – Purposefully put yourself in challenging situations
• Don’t Defend – Open to learning and resist the temptation to become defensive in the face of adversity

 
In my experience, very few leaders do all of these well. But if they do most, they have a better chance of modeling and achieving a more agile learning culture.  However, if you say you want feedback and ask for it but get defensive when a courageous colleague gives it to you, don’t be surprised if you struggle to create a learning culture. Nothing shuts down a feedback loop faster than getting defensive and sending the message that no matter what they say, they really don’t want feedback.
 
You can’t and shouldn’t be the only person who provides feedback to your team. In fact, I would make a case that peer feedback can be even more powerful because if someone is managing up well but not laterally, or down, peers know it.  But, at every level, the leader sets the stage for a more agile learning culture, or not.
 
So back to creating the culture. There are more pieces to this but if you model learning agility for your team and colleagues, then you can move to the next step which is to normalize feedback. For me this includes actions like:
 

• Having a standard item on your team agenda, “What did we learn from this project and what will we do differently?” Then make sure there is follow through to the next project.
• Adding a half-hour to each of your team meetings every other month or so to carve out time for peer feedback. Tell your team it is their job to appreciate one meaningful action a peer took and one request or change they would like them (or their team) to make. Then check in the next meeting and see if they are making the changes to which they agreed. And encourage them to not wait for meetings to do this.
• At least a couple times a year add an agenda item to your one-on-ones asking what each of your direct reports needs from you to be more successful. Set the expectation that they appreciate one thing you do and provide one thing you could do better or change to support them, their team or their work. Let them know you are open to this at any time (not just when you set it up).

 
Of course, there is more you can do. I mentioned the above short list because it is doable and will go a long way to creating a “norm” that you expect and welcome feedback and that you expect your team to do the same. The vision is for everyone to keep honing their edge, learn to be effective with a diverse set of colleagues (and bosses) and continue to get better collectively.  It’s pretty cool because there is absolutely no downside and much to be gained by creating a more agile learning culture.
 
Moira Clarke founded Leadership Consulting Partners 18 years ago to help companies advance their leadership and people systems. If you are reading this to the end, and you find value, please say so and share with others on LinkedIn and Twitter. Thank you!
 

In early March many clients are in the middle of their annual performance review process. Though much has been written about companies making dramatic changes to their performance reviews, the annual review is still a standard organizational practice for most organizations. Apropos, I am going to do a short series on performance management practices and for this post I will start with a few fundamental questions.
 
What and who are you really evaluating?
 
You are evaluating:

• The performance of an individual
• In a role
• In your organization

 
Before you say, “duh”, let me explain. Almost universally when clients discuss individual performance, they focus on the person’s strengths, weaknesses and goal achievement. They often fail to articulate the context. The context is the system (small and large) and business situation in which the role currently exists. It’s very important to understand that you are not reviewing a person’s worth as a human being but the contribution they make and value they bring to a specific role.  I want leaders to articulate this consistently in their performance conversations (preferably all year long) and to ensure that their team understands it. It matters because context, more than anything else, impacts performance. Strengths and weaknesses are almost always based upon the situation. In other words, the leader is saying, “given the business situation and the priorities, expectations and requirements for this specific role, here is how you are doing…”
 
This has become an even more important frame because as organizations change faster so do the knowledge, skill requirements and expectations of many of their positions. Leaders need to talk about this, and hopefully more often than the annual performance review.
 
When a client is describing a leader, who is underperforming and they are preparing to deliver the dreaded “below expectations” rating, I like them to frame the context first. If newer to the role did the individual demonstrate they had the right knowledge when they were hired? Did the position expectations change due to an important business change? If they have been with the organization for a while, what was their past performance? In which roles did they excel? What has changed in the role, the division or the organization that may have impacted the role?  You get the idea. 
 
Most importantly, when a manager is preparing for their performance conversations, I want them to consider each situation more holistically. This is just as important when the performance is excellent as when it is below expectations. But it is always more difficult when delivering a lower performance rating. My main point is to take the time to put the performance evaluation in the proper context and make sure you communicate that.  People are way bigger and more amazing than their deficits and   strengths. But you are evaluating their performance in a role they are being paid to accomplish. So it’s important to say, “here is where you need to learn and grow given your past experience, knowledge and where we need to take this role.” Then you can talk about what’s possible going forward given the role, the individual and the context.

Like most skills, even complex ones like strategic thinking, we now know that if you want to get better at it, you can.  It’s true that some personality variables make us more likely to naturally think more strategically, but everyone, even those not predisposed to, can get better.
 
In my experience, if clients want to learn to think more strategically they need to:
 

• Schedule time for reflection
• Get outside of their normal routine

 
Sounds very simple but both are difficult. Clients are inundated by massive amounts of communication. Their in-box and all of the internal communication applications and software (not to mention social media with which we all feel compelled to interact) demand more and more of their time. In the hyper collaborative environments that most work, their day is packed with meetings.  It’s no wonder that when I ask clients when they have time to reflect, they look at me like I have asked them to perform neurosurgery.
 
Getting a handle on your schedule is probably one of the most important aspects of preparing to be a more strategic thinker. If your day is spent blocking and tackling, and for most leaders it is, then you need to find a way to free up some space for “think time”. And once you do, you can’t use it to catch up on your e-mail. It’s not about action at this point, it’s about reflection.
 
Getting outside your normal routine requires you to spend time reading things you might not normally read, conversing with people inside and out of your organization who have different roles and accountability (and different backgrounds than you) and attending events that involve people outside your organization or even industry.  If you want to view the world more holistically, and to think strategically you do, you need to view the world beyond your own.
 
I love helping clients and their teams expand their ability to think strategically because I know it will improve their impact, planning, goal setting and performance. You have to be intentional and patient. It takes time. It’s worth it.  

​There is much written about the founder’s role after an external CEO is hired to lead the organization. As with everything I write, my perspective is from hands-on experience working with founders and the leaders to whom they will transition accountability for running their organization.
 
Here are the two things I know for sure:
 

1. When a founder remains in the business without a clearly defined new role, her or his impact will impede the effectiveness of the new leader.

 

1. Any new CEO coming in worth their salt will want to do their own assessment of their team and the business. At the interviewing stage, there should be conversations with the board and the founder to make sure that there is alignment on expectations and fit between what they envision for the business and the experience of the candidate. But once the board chooses, they need to let the new CEO do her or his job.

 
When founders stay more involved than they should, their team and others will have a hard time not deferring to them. This creates a lot of inefficiency. The team knows they have a new CEO, but with the founder still involved, they may not know who is in charge. They often feel like they have two bosses and don’t want to be disrespectful to either. Most founders don’t completely understand their impact. They are often so revered for what they have accomplished that it can be very hard for their employees to let them go, especially if they see them in the business.  Even when the executive team knows that the founder is no longer effective, if they are beloved, and they often are, the transition can be even more difficult.
 
The new CEO comes in ready to hit the ground running. They know they have 6-12 months to really set the course for the business. The first 100 days are particularly important. Unfortunately, this is usually the time that the founder is having trouble transitioning out of their role, even if they want to hand over the business.
 
Nobody, especially the founder, is trying to sabotage the business. But that is exactly what happens when the founder stays in the business trying to co-lead with the new CEO. It is a very emotional process to hand over an amazing business you created, nurtured and loved…willed into its very existence. It can be even more difficult to let go of some of the relationships with people who have been in the trenches with you from the start.
 
So, what to do?
 
I recommend that before the new CEO starts, the founder gets help in defining his or her new role.  Reflecting with them on how they can be of best and highest service and how they will be involved are important to explore before they have to hand over the business. Founders can introduce the new CEO to their most important clients and relationships. They can have great insights into the business development opportunities. If they are experts in their fields and they usually are, they can serve as influential advisors on proposals or design and approach. It will also be important for the new CEO and founder to communicate their new roles, the boundaries for each and cascade this to the whole organization (founders have connections at every level).
 
Sometimes founders should exit. The way most are wired, they love to create and start and that is where they will be most happy and effective. This decision should be based on what will be best for the business.
 
The founders I have worked with are passionate about the business they created, want it to succeed and care about the people. Giving up things we love is a courageous act. Knowing that it is the right thing to do doesn’t always make it easier. Underestimating the emotional aspects of this type of transfer of leadership will cause unnecessary confusion and angst. This process requires preparation, respect and care. Founders can often contribute. Defining how is extremely important. 

A client I highly regard and have known for many years recently decided to leave her executive role at her organization. I was surprised. She was very committed to her company and really loved her boss. But she assessed the situation and decided that what she wanted and needed was no longer aligned with her organization. She took a new role for a really cool company.  She will do well. Though this client’s situation is very different from mine, it brought back memories for me of when the CEO to whom I reported resigned. After meeting with the new CEO, I realized I had a difficult decision to make.  Soon after, I left my job. I received two job offers at the time, but after talking with my co-pilot (my supportive and wise husband), I realized it was time to start my own practice. To say I haven’t looked back would be inaccurate. I have, many times.  But overall it has been a great decision and a good fit for me. I always felt that everything was my responsibility, and with my small business, it truly is.
 
When we accept a role at a corporation, no matter who we are, we will need to adapt. The more aligned the organization’s mission, culture and values are with who we are and our way of working, the less adaptation that we will need to make. When we need to adapt in ways that are not aligned with how we want to lead or the values we hold, that requires a different level of adaptation. Both scenarios represent sacrifices because we are giving up something we at least like or hold dear in order to remain in our organization. When these sacrifices start to diminish our energy or the joy we feel when we head to work, it’s time to assess if the sacrifices are worth it.
 
Here are some examples of “sacrifices” that can be good for us:
 

• Working with a boss who has a very different personality or style. If you want to become more effective with people who are different from you – this is a golden opportunity. I am not talking about a mean or abusive boss. That is beyond a personality issue and if you have read my blog for a while you know how I feel about these bosses.
• Getting new team members who are competent but very different from you. Ditto to the above. Are you most effective managing people like you? If you want to get better, figure out what inspires and motivates direct reports and colleague who are different from you. If you learn to be an inspiring leader with a broader range of people, it will prepare you to take on expanded scope and responsibility.
• Changes in process or projects that are different than what you might recommend but that have a lot of support from other competent colleagues. This will help you learn to be more adaptive and probably add some new tools to your belt.

 
Here are examples of sacrifices about which you should be skeptical:
 

• A boss who expects you to work all the time. You would think this expectation is ancient history but it’s not. Some bosses work all the time but don’t expect you to – so check on this. But if they are upset when you don’t respond quickly on a weekend or expect you to work on a vacation – unless you LOVE that – then be wary.  There is way too much research about how time away from work nurtures our health, creativity and ability to innovate. So it’s not even a smart sacrifice to request or make.
• When your CEO or company starts to make strategic changes that are against your informed better judgement (based upon data and analytics), that you believe will negatively impact business, be careful.  This can not only be bad for the business long term, but your heart as well.
• When the culture your leadership espouses is vastly different from what your employee’s experience, and you raise this issue to no avail, stand back and assess. This can be soul crushing to your most committed people, and for you if you care about them. Consider this a sacrifice not worth making for very long.

 
Of course, there are many more examples I could give. When I am working with an executive who is unhappy in their role and I ask if the sacrifices are worth it, they often point to their very large compensation package, their kid’s tuition, etc., as if it's a prison sentence. But in reality, it is a choice. And if it goes on for too long, it can impact the things you hold most dear (and may take for granted): your family, your health and your happiness. Is a job really worth sacrificing any of those?

I admit up front that my argument in this post may seem somewhat circuitous. So if you don’t want to read on, here is my conclusion from articles I sight herein: the best companies attract the best (e.g., most skilled, highly educated, and nicest) workers. Civil, polite and nice people are more likely to make more effective leaders. If skilled people are such a business advantage (and the best companies know they are), and if you can’t immediately attract the best and the brightest leaders, invest in and develop the talent you have – help them get better.
___________________________
 
Recent research is uncovering that much of the income inequality that is happening in our current economy is due to “a gap in wages between companies, not within them.” And, “more productive, higher paying companies are hiring better workers.” (Corporate Inequality is the Defining Fact of Business Today, HBR, May 2015).
 
In the article Nicholas Bloom, a professor at Stanford’s business school, comments, “Back in the 1980s, college graduates and low-skilled people would be in every firm. Today, much like our neighborhoods, companies seem to be more segregated by education and skill.” Dr. Bloom goes on to say that this seems to be happening for soft skills as well, “Nice, fun, polite people are sorting into some firms,” and jerks (I can’t use the word he uses) are “sorting into others.”
 
From a macro-economic, and “health of our society” standpoint, this research is very worrisome. The data confirms yet another advantage of a more privileged background: better and higher paying jobs in the best companies. Thankfully, other research on the impact of what I consider to be “healthier”, more skillful leadership traits and the neuroplasticity of our brain confirms that we can change and learn new behaviors throughout our lives. Regardless of where we start, the family we come from, or where we went to school, we can get better. We can even learn to be nicer.
 
Studies by Christine Porath, Alexandra Gerbasi and Sebatian Schorch at the Grenoble École de Management, have shown that, “behavior involving politeness and regard for others in the workplace pays off.” At a biotechnology company, a study confirmed “those seen as civil were twice as likely to be viewed as leaders.” (“No Time to Be Nice at Work”, New York Times, June 19, 2015).
 
Morgan W. McCall Jr., and Michael Lombardo and others found from their research while at the Center for Creative Leadership, that the “no. 1 characteristic associated with an executive’s failure is an insensitive, abrasive or bullying style.” (“Is Your Boss Mean?” The New York Times, June 21, 2015)
 
So if successful companies hire more skillful and nicer employees, they must see a return on their investment. Higher skilled employees, and this includes healthier, more polite and caring leaders clearly have a big impact on the success of your enterprise. If you can’t immediately attract or afford to hire the “best” leaders and employees, develop the ones you have.  And this will most likely need to include teaching them some kind of mindfulness, “self-care practices” (mean people are often mean to themselves as well as others), empathy and kindness.
 
And if you are a leader who loses control, gets angry or mistreats others, and are not always driving your own emotional bus, get help. You will probably make more money.

​For over seven years I worked with some private equity (PE) owned organizations. To say it was an education is an understatement. Like most of the best learning-on-the-job, I made some mistakes, especially early on. However, I am grateful for the experience it gave me. In retrospect, it feels like I received another Master’s degree because the way they think and look at businesses was often different than my earlier learning.
 
Most people understand that PE invests in companies because they believe that they can create more value than the current operations and business structure are able to achieve.  The company I worked with didn’t buy distressed companies. For the most part, they bought good companies where they believed there was unrealized value to be found through some combination of growth, operational excellence initiatives and other efficiencies. They invested in companies and often in the leadership and people strategies and systems – which is how they found me.
 
Here is what they taught me:

• Whatever time frame you give to most projects, they can be shortened and made more efficient. Sometimes they would ask me to do something (e.g., implement a new management performance system) and I had a mental model of the time this would take for adoption. Well, they had a different mental model and if you are really clear about the expectations (it will not be perfect), you can get big projects implemented faster than you think. And they will be good. You can adjust them later and you will.
• The right leaders can change faster. They will surprise you. Even the most entrenched mindset can shift with the right combination of clarity of expectations, development coaching, training, incentives and high touch recognition and appreciation. Sometimes you meet these amazing leaders in small companies who would be stars wherever they go. They are sponges and soak in all the learning offered. If you think the best leaders are at Fortune 500 or big tech like Google and Apple, I would challenge you to think again. When you visit these successful, privately-owned businesses where people have been doing things with fewer resources and money forever, you see incredible innovation, entrepreneurship and creativity that will take your breath away.    
• Like organizations everywhere, some of the legacy managers will resist change and have trouble getting on the bus. But just as many others will act like learning sponges. And they will be appreciative of every opportunity offered. In general, I found folks in these companies to be less jaded and less entitled.

 
For the record I am aware that some people think of PE as unethical or evil. I knew that when I signed on. As I had no experience I wanted to make my own call. Did they do some things that I thought were short-sighted? Yes, I believe they did. But that is really wired into their goals. With a 3-5-year window for some kind of event (e.g., sale, spin, etc.), they aren’t in it for the long hall. Sometimes they chose people to lead their acquisitions that I think were better suited for other roles (and that is putting it very nicely). In the end, why I continued to do the work is that they did some things exceptionally well. Under their ownership, performance improved. Leaders and teams were challenged to learn new skills and grow (sometimes for the first time) and they sharpened their financial and operational chops. People got a chance to get better. I believe I helped with that and for everything I learned, I hope I was able to contribute something back.
 
The most important thing they taught me was that every business model and structure has strengths and weaknesses. I have come to think of businesses as “evil” when they allow an abusive or uncaring manager to stay in place, when they allow unethical behavior or mismanagement that has the potential to drive the business into the ground. Having worked in over 12 industries for the last 17 years, with both private and public companies, I can say with confidence that these types of leaders can be found in every type of business.  In the end, what separates most good businesses from bad is whether or not they are led by smart, ethical people who care about their employees and demonstrate that through their actions and words. Thankfully, I find these leaders everywhere.