Hash -- don't rehash

Note: This is a monthly letter originally distributed to clients and colleagues.

March 27, 2013

Dear Clients and Colleagues:

Now that a new Pope has been chosen, it's time to return to leadership life as we know it.

There's only one slight catch: Nothing is new or normal anymore. Except for stuff on-line, which seems to be where a lot of people are spending an inordinate amount of time. Many conversations now have "on-line and off line" components as if lines can be distinguished anymore. Most objective studies indicate business leaders remain skittish about using social media, while some have fully embraced outlets such as blogging, Twitter, Facebook (for execs. who need a date!) and for the adventurous set, YouTube. A client last year asked whether he should have a Wikipedia entry. Sigh.

Please consider these rules of order when attempting digital engagement:

1.) Hash -- don't rehash. Twitter's niftiest invention, hash tags, have taken off in popularity both among advertisers and consumers alike. It's a way to attach content to big breaking news stories, such as helpful content for storm relief to the other extreme: Contestants competing on reality shows such as "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars." Hash tags are cool, in other words, while rehashing old lengthy content already contained elsewhere is uncool.

The Garlington Report (TGR)

2.) Cut down on length. This letter is already too long for social media. Think quick snapshots, not lengthy dissertations. Note to self: Take own advice.

3.) Don't copy what someone else is doing unless of course it works then all bets are off. Examples: Samsung's Galaxy vs. the iPhone 5 is the biggest marketing example although that's not a true digital communications example. Think of your favorite on-line personality whose brand image has been invented in the ether. Matt Drudge pops to mind as does a new entry to the branding category, Dan Schawbel, whose story runs counter to a lot of the typical millennials: http://business.time.com/2011/06/15/how-i-did-it-dan-schawbel-on-becoming-a-personal-branding-expert/

4.) It's not all about you despite evidence to contrary. For those who think saying something stupid might spell an end to their careers, digital media probably isn't for you anyway. Give up the fantasy and focus on core competencies. The words, "I" and "me" should appear at a minimum in any written or spoken correspondence. Don't be Dell or else you'll become an even bigger target; see related post here: http://povblogger.blogspot.com/2013/02/dell-great-deal-horrible-grammar.html

5.) Pay an editor or writer if you can't meet desired standard. This is not intended as a self serving message but could be perceived that way. There are far too many daily examples of bad writing and communication not to list this rule. Just because it's on-line doesn't provide license to be non-literate. Review the daily installment. Hint: It's somewhere in your email right now.

6.) Know thy audience more than ever before. Quit obsessing over message. This is an age old rule that continues to be relevant with a small update. There are simply too many messages a day for Marshall McLuhan's rule, "the medium is the message" not to carry weight. The newest improvement focuses on being the message vs. carrying one. That's a tall order for most business leaders but not figures such as Howard Shultz, Jack Bogle, the Vanguard founder and Neville Isdell, the retired chairman of The Coca-Cola Company, which has been spelled out for the obsessed purists who yearn for the secret formula called Coke business. By the way, being the message requires a cogent POV but that's beside the point.

7.) Focus on the present and what it means looking to the future. Leave the past in the past. This may seem like traditional grieving advice, but it also applies in digital communication. No one, repeat no one, wants to revisit crappy economic twists and turns of the past five years. They want to hear about what it means today and what we can, dare say the word, hope for tomorrow.

Last but most importantly and deserving of an entirely separate instructional, the old adage "know yourself and your story" now requires reaching farther: Know how your story fits into a larger, more compelling narrative, or the larger story for true believers. If you don't know how to tell or construct a narrative then please do yourself a favor and re-read 5.)

 

Thanks for making it this far. Happy Holy Week,

JG

Jeremy C. Garlington
Point of View LLC
Five Concourse Pkwy./Suite 2850
Atlanta, GA, 30328
Phone: 404-606-0637
Email: jeremy.garlington@hotmail.com
Web log: "The Garlington Report (TGR)" www.povblogger.blogspot.com

Executive Search: The disrupted vs. the disrupters

Today's 4Q earnings/2012 report by Heidrick & Struggles reveals what's been known for quite some time: Executive search is on a downward path -- or spiral if you prefer dramatic effect. What remains to be seen is where this downward trajectory eventually lands.

The executive search industry now comprises two groups: The disrupted or large publicly held firms that are trying to change and the disrupters, or smaller and independent firms that love to tweak the big way of doing things. The large publicly held firms, Heidrick and Korn Ferry International, continue to show why being public makes little sense while the privately held firms, Spencer Stuart and Russell Reynolds, go about their business quietly under the radar. To those close to the wider picture, the disruption is masked by across the board growth in the number of executive searches such as what Peter Felix at the Association of Executive Search Consultants likes to cite in expensive reports.

The big firm way is no longer as big as it once was. Nor is the executive search function as standard as it once was. The pie has shrunk, and in the overall picture of recruiting, executive search is declining at a pretty rapid pace with the growth of LinkedIn and more corporations pulling searches -- and recruiters -- in house. Major business media have reported at length on this trend starting with the Wall Street Journal and then Bloomberg Business Week.

One side note: As a large firm recruiter puts it, the movement to in-house recruiting is nothing new. Corporation A, let's use the Coca-Cola Company as an example, loves to publicly boast about how they're bringing the function in-house to reduce expenses. Then whoever gets the big title/position turns around and runs the expenses right back up only to be questioned later with, "why are we getting such bad or mediocre candidates?" Attention then shifts back to outsourced service provider and the cycle lathers, rinses and repeats.

The lone exception to the shrinking pie continues to be where brand value resides at the Top or CEO and board-level. Every major Fortune 500 company facing scrutiny has used one of the Big Five firms, and until a major company board publicly states they're not going to use an executive search firm then it's business as usual. (Note: Boards don't generally issue those types of statements.)

Granted the actual work is different now. A few years, Spencer Stuart started re-framing CEO turnover as "internal and external transition." This simply reflects how Fortune 500 CEOs have remained largely intact reversing an earlier decade's fascination with churning and burning the position. Boards continue to perpetuate the status quo despite growing investor pressure. The old days when a major company conducted a major CEO search in the dark are now officially over and have been for some time. Throw in all the other services that are growing by leaps and bounds, coaching, on-line assessments, culture shaping, succession planning, etc. and the mix gets pretty, well, mixed up pretty fast.

A CEO of a firm asked last year, "where do you think this industry ends up?" Who knows, hard to tell. Here's the only certainty that you can take to the bank: The most valuable service performed at the top of the house -- assessing, vetting and informing -- selection of C- and board-level leadership, will not only survive but will prosper in a different form. There's simply too much at stake for these all important decisions not to be done fully and completely with the help of objective third-party advice. Especially now with risk aversion at an all-time high and boards scared to death they're going to make a big public mistake.

The problem is that the value of executive search was sold out long ago in the name of money and profits, which are now dwindling thanks to disruptive change that only comes around once in a generation. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your view, disruptive change is now the name of the game. The individuals and firms who adapt the best to this dynamic will lead the industry forward; the ones who don't will die or move on to other platforms. Everyone will ultimately get stronger, assuming you're a free market capitalist. If you're not, well, the executive leadership marketplace isn't for you.

Dell: Great deal, bad memo form

The Wall Street Journal served up a treat today by posting the Michael Dell deal announcement memo: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2013/02/05/michael-dell-to-staff-exciting-new-chapter/.

Read the first line..."this is a great deal for me and..." Aside from the obvious emphasis on self, more felicitous grammarians would instruct putting 'me' after the other party, which in this case was private equity firm, Silver Lake. But hey, when you're the founder, namesake and chief equity holder who just orchestrated a billion dollar deal that removes public scrutiny then you can say and do whatever you want.

Fortunately, or unfortunately based on your point of view, obsession with self dominates leadership ranks. Dell makes a good case for Me, maybe the best anyone could make in the same context. It's still bad form, however, not to recognize others first who helped make the deal possible. Funny how there was no mention of Microsoft, which kicked in a couple $$$billion. Should be interesting to see where this deal goes from here.

# # #

No risk, no reward beyond norm

Editor's Note: This is a client letter originally distributed earlier this month.

January 15, 2013


Dear Clients and Colleagues:

By now Christmas is a distant memory, resolutions are either taking hold or fading and the fiscal cliff has been averted. At least for the time being or until the country's so called leaders re-introduce the next crisis to leave unsolved. That's not political statement; it's fact.

Which brings us to another reality that has rendered big business' credibility emptier in the ongoing melodrama called the zero growth economy, or ZGE for acronym hounds. Companies and boards seem to have forgotten how to evaluate risk vs. reward. Note evaluate and consider, not manage with all due respect to mid-tier bank presidents. In news cycle after news cycle, we read about uncertainty, fear and the "tepid job recovery" as a four-column Wall Street Journal article recently led off a weekend edition. Big business blames government's inability to get things done that favor them; government blames each other while flying all around the world arguing via cable news feed. The result is nothing generally happens resembling productivity. The newest culprit is GM CEO Dan Akerson who recently said the company can't really look forward until the next 60-day deadline set to deal with the country's fiscal matters has been resolved. This from the top leader of a company that was rescued by the government back during the last crash. Akerson is not alone. Sequestered martinis, anyone?

Back in the real world, businesses and individuals try to adapt and grow. Large amounts of cash line balance sheets yet revenues as a percentage or GDP (pick whatever measure suits) remain relatively unchanged. There are obviously exceptions to this reality so please don't discount the general line for the sake of positive cited examples. Apple's recent introduction of the iPhone 5 and iPad mini, hardly innovations by the company's high standard, are welcomed exceptions from an entrepreneurial point of view. So are other companies who have defied the New Normal tendency to do nothing and evolve into something better. Insert your own favorite example.

Leadership comprises many things, but at the core in this context, it's about knowing when it's time to take risk and then making the decision to take risk. Or not take risk. Despite whatever personal political beliefs you may have, until more risk is taken, rewards will not increase beyond pre-existing self interest. Which means little will change and the status quo will continue. The litany of ongoing excuses for why risk can't be taken no longer hold much validity. The election has been decided, the payroll tax has been eliminated and big companies are paying more than ever for Super Bowl advertising. Surely a few of those same ad buyers could hire a few folks to generate some demand on the streets? Wake up, captains of industry. Step up and unlock the risk vs. reward ratio. That means you, you and you. The size of the risk doesn't have to be large. The marketplace will be a better place if you take the step. Plus you'll actually feel better about having done something vs. remaining on the sidelines, a place that far too many businesses and their leaders have been for the past five years.

To the doomsayers who say nothing will improve, go see the movie, "Lincoln" and adapt your position accordingly. Negativity may focus the mind and heart in the short run, but it can't be sustained in the long run. Or at least not with non-risk averse leadership present.

Thanks for your continuing support,

JG

Jeremy C. Garlington
Point of View, LLC
Five Concourse Pkwy/Suite 2850
Atlanta, GA, 30328
Phone: 404-606-0637
Web: www.pointofviewllc.com
Blog: www.povblogger.blogspot.com

Best news of the New Year

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/el-erian-normal-may-nearing-170758437.html

The coiner of the term, "New Normal", is officially on record that it may be nearing an end. What great news. Guess that means we're back to the Old or Current Normal, which is a welcome sight compared to anything as oxymoronic as putting the term 'new' in front of anything besides maybe life or car. New phone or house just doesn't seem to have the same ring anymore (pun intended.) That may be the New Normal's greatest legacy: Rendering previous joyous experiences empty. Back to normal seems to be everyone's desire these days. Onward and upward!

 

# # #

Dupont CEO: Quote of the year, 2013, comes early

It's not even 2013 yet, but here's the quote of the year -- before the year even technically begins. From today's Wall Street Journal story, "New Regulations for the New Year." (CFO Journal, B8 print edition, Dec. 11, 2012)

"We need to have certainty so that we can plan," said Ellen Kullman, CEO, Dupont Co. Kullman made these remarks at a recent meeting of the National Association of Corporate Directors whose members are responsible for helping lead and plan for their respective companies' futures.

Now if you read this quote and say, "spot on; she's absolutely correct" then you probably don't want to go further than this line for fear of your hair catching on fire.

When was there absolute certainty, or more specifically, when was the last time certainty existed in the markets, business, life, etc.? Was it when everything was going great gangbusters back in the go go days of the 1990s? Was it perhaps earlier than that -- back in the Roaring Twenties before World War II?

While it's obvious Kullman was referring to the pending fiscal cliff issue and all of its potential realities, what's less obvious, or more subtle, is how much fear and uncertainty now inform leadership decisions, many of which could benefit from more vision, confidence and contrarian wisdom to sail against the headwinds of conventional thought.

Message to CEOs or other wannabes: If you're still griping about being over-regulated, over-taxed and otherwise victimized by the government at this time next year, then it will have long been time to remove the word "leadership" from your vocabulary.

# # #

Chick-fil-A#: Challenged in the public square

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/259214/40/Chick-fil-A-president-We-support-Biblical-families

Two and a half months after the original firestorm, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy weighed back in on previous commentary during yet another unintended yet probably well meaning sitting. The scene is captured in the attached clip from Atlanta's NBC affiliate, WXIA-TV. Cathy seems to have been heavily coached since the last appearance, which is understandable considering how much controversy was created based on the "guilty as charged" commentary on the biblical definition of family. If there ever was a situation that begged for a fuller, more controlled format such as a speech or Q&A vs. sound bites, then this is the one. The only thing that happens when you repeat the same message about a negative event is the negative event gets reinforced in people's minds vs. forging new ground. The Obama campaign's forays with Big Bird this week fall in same category. That example reinforces a bad performance in the first presidential debate with challenger Mitt Romney. Interesting brand name times continue in the current season.

# # #

Novartis Chairman Vasella: 'You can teach concepts, but you can't teach experiences.'

This is a really good interview with the head of Novartis, Daniel Vasella. It's difficult to recall more truth on leadership in a single place than this feature from "The McKinsey Quarterly:" http://www.mckinsey.com/features/leading_in_the_21st_century/daniel_vasella.

For the TGR record, it's equally difficult to find effective CEOs who can teach, or more importantly, transfer concepts as well. Rare in today's fear-based environment.

 

# # #

Passion 2.0

Like so many job and career truths, the "work with passion" rule is being rewritten as we speak. No one captures the changing truths better than Cal Newport, a Georgetown University professor, published author and millennial expert if there ever was one.  Here's his latest piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/jobs/follow-a-career-passion-let-it-follow-you.html?src=me&ref=general

Conventional wisdom says follow your passion and everything, including your career and work dreams, will come true. Newport throws this point on its head. That's a good thing. While it's difficult to name someone who accomplished great things in the world's eyes without passion, there are plenty of worker bees who are quite good and well compensated for what they do who may not be filled with passion every day. They let their passion channel the more pertinent challenge: Identify where the greatest need lies matched up against gifts, talents and where the greatest energy can be derived. From there passion becomes a byproduct or ingredient in the larger goal vs. a means to an end or even the end itself. Newport puts it more succinctly when he says let your passion follow you as opposed to you following your passion. Great food for thought.

# # #

Yahoo#: "We need to see winning CEOs, not more failures"

Note: This post originally appeared in 2012 when Yahoo was in the hunt for a COO, or number two to then CEO, Marissa Mayer. Yahoo was sold to Verizon earlier this week.

Yahoo is searching far and wide for a new chief operating officer (COO), according to All Things Digital's Kara Swisher, http://allthingsd.com/20120816/exclusive-yahoo-conducting-a-search-for-a-coo-as-no-2-to-mayer/?mod=tweet.

Where they'll look, who they'll find and hire remain open questions. Where can't exclude Google, former takeover partner, Microsoft, or even Facebook at this point. The executive search firm, Spencer Stuart and Jim Citrin, are leading the effort, which means whoever emerges will likely be a known commodity doing the job close by.

Since Yahoo has been a poster child of CEO failure over the past five years, "The Garlington Report (TGR)" decided to ask a few additional questions along the lines of why does Yahoo need a COO and what can this person contribute that's not already in the mix.

Responses among executive recruiters yielded some strong views that seemed worth sharing. Passion is never fleeting among true king and queen maker wannabes. Here is a sampling of comments not for attribution (primarily so people can speak freely without fear of being misquoted, mischaracterized or, a personal favorite, misunderstood.)

"...Marissa needs all the firepower she can get to turn the ship around. If she needs to call him/her a COO, a president, a head of industrialization.Whatever she just needs really great leaders around the table. I don't care whether she has five COOs. I just care that she makes it...I'm also sick of everyone, including myself, who want to attack the brave vs. wanting them to succeed. We need to see winning CEOs, not more failures."

It's worth noting that in today's rapid fire environment the time to develop into a great CEO simply isn't provided anymore. Everyone wants results overnight; few are willing to be patient like they should. Meddling boards bowing to activist pressure usually are to blame for this dynamic.

Other industry players aren't sold on Mayer's chops as CEO and see the COO hire as a way to bring much needed competency that doesn't exist at the top. Here's a particularly strong indictment (which now brings things full circle.)

"They (Yahoo) need a COO because their CEO has no content to do the job. Never reported to a board, never reported to a CEO, never led anything (other than products), never done a turnaround, is not financially literate, never led large teams, never owned a P&L (profit and loss statement), only worked in a monopoly with the wind at her back, never dealt with an activist shareholder -- should I keep going?"

# # #

Best Buy#: CEO Joly branded before even beginning

A friend who consults with Best Buy passed along the following tidbit yesterday: "Everyone is jazzed up. New CEO (Hubert Joly) was at headquarters today (Minneapolis). Isn't high visibility what leadership is about during times of distress?"

My sarcastic "does he have his work visa yet?" reply aside, the obvious across the board response is, "Yes!" The Best Buy case, however, is puzzlingly perilous. The company is essentially their own takeover target with behind the scenes efforts being led by founder Richard Schultz and private equity players. Shares are plunging based on sentiment that unless something changes the electronics retailer's business model is done. Enter Joly, a the former head of Carlson Hospitality, the privately held travel and hospitality company that runs restaurants yet has nothing truly retail in the portfolio. Joly is immediately branded by media and analysts as a "surprise choice with no retail experience," even though he has a proven track record turning around companies and increasing revenues.

Then in today's news cycle we learn that Joly negotiated some handsome change in contract terms, which are standard at this level. So basically from a personal leadership and executive compensation point of view, heads Joly wins, tails he doesn't lose.

But here's the rub. Great managers and leaders at this level don't do things solely for money. They take on opportunities where they think they can work hard and succeed. The ones who don't have this motivation are usually the "chasing stars" flame-outs making headlines later.

Back to the company for a minute. There is so much in flux right now that the new CEO won't be afforded the time to do long-term planning and execution to impact change. That's an unfortunately reality that a lot of companies and firms face right now. Fear and uncertainty rule the day until something changes that can be believed in.

 

# # #

First, you have to be a guru

Ram Charan is largely viewed as one of the most influential advisors and prolific writers ever to consult for a living. His latest views withstanding, http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/08/why-boards-fail-to-choose-the-right-ceo/, Charan's cult status points to relatively new realities in senior-level leadership circles that seem worth pointing out:

1.) While it still counts for a great deal, advisors no longer have to be "in the room" to have influence. Charan, for example, was not present when IBM chose Louis Gerstner to be CEO. And to no one's direct knowledge, Charan failed to play a direct role in this groundbreaking selection, which led to one of the most notable corporate turnarounds ever. Yet he opines as if he were.

2.) Guru status means you're granted grand leeway with characterizing situations. In the Fortune piece, Charan says "no one at Citi is questioning Pandit now." That may be true from Charan's point of view, but it was just a few months ago when the board rejected a new executive compensation plan outright that would have raised Pandit's pay substantially. That type of move usually doesn't happen if everyone is in the same boat. Citi remains a reputational lightning rod, but their bigger brethren, JP Morgan and Barclays, continue to steal critical light. The missing fact here is boards question their CEOs daily, especially ones in big brand name companies where performance lags. The not so missing fact is they rarely do anything about the situation until the bottom falls out. To that end, both Citi and Barclays have new Chairmen, leaving Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan all alone at the top as both CEO and chairman. It would appear that in the big bank class yesterday's governance mandate, separating the two roles, continues to be left solely to those holding the power.

# # #

Chick-fil-A: Unintentional endorsement?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/opinion/let-chick-fil-a-fly-free.html

Attached is what looks to be an unintentional endorsement for free speech from a Georgia Tech dean who happens to be gay. This is the type of discourse that a company under attack welcomes freely. Not all the echo chamber appreciation and kiss in days that media salivate over.

A couple months ago, a disillusioned manager at Goldman Sachs named Greg Smith issued a similar op-ed complaining about the firm's culture. It was like a shot heard across the world. It should be interesting to see if the dean's comments about Chick-fil-A travel as far and wide.

# # #

Chick-fil-A: Stop the statements

So Chick-fil-A has issued yet another statement on their committment to biblical principles. Here's a link: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Pressroom/Press-Releases#?release=LGBT-statement in case you haven't already seen the statement. It essentially says nothing new other than re-affirming what's already been stated, which begs the question why make a statement? They've also re-inserted Truett Cathy, Sr., by name into the mix, which is not advisable. Here's what the statement could convey if the tactic was still worth something:

"The Chick-fil-A family is committed to serving customers of any gender, race or ethnicity who want to enjoy the great fast dining experience that's been the company's longstanding hallmark. The latest outcry has been heard from those who disagree with our beliefs on marriage. It's our sincere hope that our personal views will not be held in judgment as a reason for not visiting our restaurants nationwide. Thank you for your continuing patronage. As a sponsor of the London Olympics, we're pleased to support a global showcase of athleticism that has no peer."

Love thy neighbor, eat more chicken!

Coke: Corporate-speak

So the Coca-Cola Company announced some management changes today and the creation of two new super jobs, which essentially replicate old consolidated jobs into two new bottles. It's amazing sometimes to consider what the company known as Coke garners from an attention point of view. Here's an excerpt from the company's release that highlights what the current CEO thinks the moves signify:

"With a solid foundation and momentum in our business, now is the time to take the next step in our evolution," Kent said Monday in an email message to Coca-Cola employees. "By consolidating leadership of our global operations under two large, but similar sized geographic regions and BIG, we will streamline reporting lines, intensify our focus on key markets and create a structure that leverages synergies and gives us flexibility to strategically adjust our business within those geographies in the future."

Now I ask the rest of you mere mortals: Can you 'consolidate,' 'streamline,' 'focus,' 'create,' 'leverage' and 'provide flexibility to adjust' all in one fell swoop? Good on ya if you can. Time to get re-trained in corporate-speak if you can't.

# # #

Chick-fil-A: Love thy neighbor, eat more chicken

Have you ever stepped in doo-doo and wished you hadn't? That sentiment defines the public imbroglio over Chick-fil-A and President Dan Cathy's recent clarification of the company's views on marriage. The clarification, which was followed by a cold company statement that was basically perceived as "hey, wait a second, some of our best customers are gay," has created a firestorm during an otherwise quiet period preceding the Olympics.

At the core, Cathy's walk into quick sand was self inflected and has become a public issue that now threatens the beloved company's chicken sandwich. Some observers call it a gay rights, political or social issue while others believe it's an attack on traditional Christian values. That may all be true, but it misses the point that not even a politically motivated Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Aug. 1st can re-discover.

Publicly held corporations have an obligation to stakeholders to report on their business, which may or may not include social issues. A subset even feel compelled to comment on public policies impacting their business. Private companies, on the other hand, are generally closely held and only accountable to themselves. Chick-fil-A falls in the latter category.

Younger audiences who now control the on-line sphere, which by the way has been flaming this issue for months, do not tend to make public vs private distinctions. Mainly because few know what they mean. If you happen to be a known entity or brand name in Chick-fil-A's case, then what you say will be reviewed, scrutinized or flamed if something is perceived as "uncool." Throw in a potentially contentious social issue, such as gay marriage during an election year, and well you've now started a fire that not even the best fire starter knows how to put out. On Wednesday alone, 7,000 Facebook fans commented on the Chick-fil-A fan page following the news cycle featuring the Muppets dropping their affiliation. It's probably a good thing Facebook hasn't developed a dislike button yet. Here's a really shrill example that might produce a few squirms:

http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook

Couple this reality with the company's stodgy homespun culture based in the Southeast pitted against the highly vocal gay and lesbian community and you've got a culture war chasm, which is going to be filled like a vacuum. Notice how the Christian values factor has not been underlined even though it carries weight as the original spark. Taking that thought a step further from a true believer point of view...

What if the topic for discussion on the Baptist blog where Cathy made his comments had been different? What if, for example, Cathy was asked to share his views on Jesus Christ being the only direct way to God? Do you think that would have offended enough of a mass to warrant public outrage? It's always about context and how what you're saying fits into a larger story vs. how you view it yourself. We all hold beliefs, but when it comes to public disclosure, how those beliefs are framed nearly always depends on factors out of your control. The media love a conflict, too but that's beside the point.

Okay, not all media. A friend who also happens to be a published author and journalist framed the situation this way: "I like to think of Christianity as one of the world's most tolerant religions. I think executives who include tolerance as part of their values can bring at least a bit of personal religious faith into their approach to work with generally good results. That would be true, in fact, for any religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise. When intolerance is braided into the mix, that's a recipe for trouble."

A Christian business leader may have put it best: "It seems as though we have forgotten the Great Commandment to leap frog to the Great Commission." Well said and applicable to this latest outburst.

Finally, for the best encapsulation yet from a secular business leadership POV, go to http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-26/god-and-gay-marriage-what-chick-fil-a-could-learn-from-marriott

# # #

Must see and read new blogger

Preston William Huey, Jr., better known as Bill, has officially entered the blogosphere. Why is this significant you may ask? Well, for starters, he's a great friend and inspiring source of ideas and wisdom. His continuing presence both on-line and off-line has proven enriching to the TGR blog as well as supporting businesses. Bill is one of the sharpest minds you'll find on current events, issues and other important matters that impact business leaders' lives whether they want to accept it or not. He's also a widely published writer with comedic flair and is known in newsrooms everywhere as an informed source with a sharp point of view. Too sharp for both his audience and own good sometimes but that's beside the point. You can find the 'Hue's new place mark at wwww.inothernews4.blogspot.com. Welcome to the slog called blog, Bill. Great to see you have finally taken the plunge with a plunger that other discerning minds will now be able to appreciate.

Tuesday Twofer

So two executives at separate companies made the funny pages today -- both for unrelated reasons that led to their departures.

First on the chopping block is Michael Francis who joined J.C. Penney as president back in October. Holding a similar previous role at Target, Francis was responsible for trying to explain the dated department chain's pricing strategy. Penney's recently reported a larger than expected sales loss, forcing the current CEO who has been lauded for his previous retail work at Apple to take the reins back over on store merchandising. Any time an executive is forced out after less than a year the question begs: How could one person be held to a standard others are not? Clearly there had to be a fall guy so Francis is out. Safe to say he won't be turning up in any unemployment lines soon.

The second example is a senior executive, Keith Block, who headed sales for Oracle in North America. Block's fate was sealed when some instant messages were disclosed as part of a lawsuit filed by HP. According to filing excerpts published by the Wall Street Journal, Block said that Oracle had "bought a dog" when it purchased Sun Microsystems and that former HP CEO Mark Hurd who Oracle hired following his HP firing had "produced a lot of noise but not many results." Oracle had no official statement but released its earnings report three days early. Ironically enough profits increased 7.5 percent during the fourth quarter. Key takeaway from this hubris sample: You might want to temper language when on official company communication channels. Especially when you work for a king named Larry Ellison who can pull off public commentary that other mere mortals can't.

# # #

Executive Search: Land of the lost fight over shrinking pie

A recent spin through familiar territory has yielded enough material to warrant posting. Disclaimer: TGR once considered morphing into an executive search industry newsletter, but thanks to other intervening events, plans were shelved.

To understand both real and perceived value of executive search, you have to trace brand name CEO turnover situations, such as what recently took place at Yahoo. Their "search firm of record," if such a title still holds sway, was Heidrick & Struggles who assisted the board in the former selection of Carol Bartz who was fired and then replaced by Scott Thompson who also was recently fired (ok, officially resigned.) What role executive search played is left largely to perception, which tends to be shaped by media, such as the Wall Street Journal, and in the case of Yahoo, its digital cousin, All Things Digital. The perception game is where legends have historically been made. The makers comprise a short list: Tom Neff at Spencer Stuart and Gerry Roche at Heidrick & Struggles. There have been other big figures but these two tended to garner the most attention.

The game, however, has changed. Neff and Roche are now public vestiges to a bygone era. The challenge is how to re-define as these dynamics move away from old boy networks and smoke filled rooms on the Upper East Side to a more transparent, democratic approach that de-emphasizes going outside to find leaders. The exceptions tend to be the big companies who screw up governance or succession so badly that they have to use brand name firms to protect their own reputations. Insert Spencer Stuart, which was recently selected by Best Buy to right their sinking ship. The truth that no one at the "top" wants to acknowledge is that risk has been at all-time low during the most recent economic correction, and it remains a large obstacle to the change we can believe in.

Except for those who have already taken the risk and now thumb their noses at big search firms. Insert your own names here: Stephen Miles who used to be with Heidrick & Struggles in their leadership consulting business and now operates independently, Peter Crist who used to be with Korn Ferry prior to starting his own Chicago-based firm, Kelvin Thompson who now runs the global boutique Montarosa after a series of high-level roles with Boyden Search and Heidrick, respectively; and a personal favorite, Russell Reynolds, who still operates independently while his own namesake firm, Russell Reynolds & Associates, wagers on somehow someway. Matthew Wright, please phone home!

Where does all this lead? Who knows; fewer care. The new rules of the game are still sorting themselves out. One trend is clear. If you're an established entity who has to defend values at every turn, you're constantly under attack while being held to a standard that isn't shared by everyone else. Case in point: Recent public flapping by CT Partners, formerly Christian & Timbers, which has recently taken public shots at Heidrick & Struggles who used to employ CT Partners CEO, Brian Sullivan following the purchase of Sullivan's former financial services boutique.

If this summary is starting to sound like a bunch of cats fighting in a broken down barn, then you get the picture necessary to make your own conclusion. Due respect to the industry's only association, AESC, no metrics are required to evaluate this so called business, which has historically been plagued by bought out analysts and other charlatans with zero credibility. This lack of accountability may ultimately be the industry's undoing. In the meantime, anyone need a new CEO for the long awaited upturn?

# # #

Do you just want to be Facebook friends?

Note: Following is a monthly client letter distributed via email earlier today.

Dear Clients and Colleagues:
As the world now seems to revolve around the newly public enterprise called Facebook instead of the sun, it's virtually impossible not to pose a question that deserves a better answer (see subject line.) First some trademark perspective.

The social media universe has now come full circle. Whether it be Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr or LinkedIn, everyone is on their chosen channel(s,) but few if anyone married over the age of the 30 can encapsulate its value. The attitude has generally been since everyone else is doing it so there must be something worth exploring. Short of a few uprisings in the Middle East and other breaking news moments such as the recent same day retirement of Chicago Cubs pitcher Kerry Wood, the channels' ability to make a difference remains open to wide interpretation.

Take this down to a sliver called the executive marketplace and the playing field gets pretty clear pretty fast. High ranking executives have lost their jobs as a result of bad Twitter feeds (see http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/cfo-fired-for-boring-twitter-blog-and-facebook.html) while others such as Whole Foods CEO John Mackey Foods have gotten into trouble making inappropriate comments when weighed against their special interests. Couple that with major advertisers such as General Motors pulling Facebook ad dollars, and there's a "show me the value" mentality now emerging among decision-makers despite what personal usage metrics may indicate.

The real point here, however, lies in the cracks. Call it the bad social irony of social media. While the tools can obviously broaden networks and enrich thought horizons, the spread also has had the opposite effect. It's now quite acceptable to ignore people who actually call you, or worse yet, ignore the call while vice versa turning to a kinder, more passive LinkedIn profile for caller background. And I'm not talking about strangers -- quite to the contrary, people who actually know each other or have expressed a desire to help, do business with and/or be in real relationship as opposed to on-line pen pals.

Here's the requested call to action: If you want to simply be Facebook friends then state your case. There's nothing wrong with that intention; in fact, in most cases, it may be the right path. However, if you're a leader and you really want to build, develop and maintain relationships because that's one of your primary responsibilities, then don't fall into this trap. It's a dead zone of artificiality, avarice and laziness that quite frankly is no longer acceptable. Socially, business or otherwise. Last time anyone checked, clicks weren't the same as calls. Or at least not yet.

Happy social media-ing,

JG

Jeremy Garlington
Point of View, LLC
Five Concourse Pkwy./Suite 2850
Atlanta, GA 30328
Web log: "The Garlington Report (TGR)": www.povblogger.blogspot.com -- "Why do CEOs lie on resumes? Hint: Because they can."
Phone: 404-606-0637
Email: garlingtons@msn (primary); jgarlington@pointofviewllc.com (consultancy)