At one time or another most of us have experienced management craziness – either from the giving end, or more likely, from the receiving end. In fact, it seems that there is more management craziness around these days than ever (it maybe global warming or the economy – or maybe it’s just me!).

Anyway, in trying to explain this phenomenon I came across a book called “Why CEOs Fail” by David Dotlich and Peter Cairo. On the basis of this book (and a few others) I came up with a new management theory that I (rather grandly) call: “The Theory of Management Lunacy”. This theory states that: “All managers are crazy some of the time, and some managers are crazy all of the time” (pretty catchy eh?).

Of course, as with any good theory, you have to provide some supporting evidence. For this I asked six of my friends who have been in corporate life for a total of eighty seven years between them. They all agreed. So pretty much case closed in my view!

Well, maybe I should provide a little more evidence. In my experience the behaviors associated with the most common personality disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (the psychiatrist’s reference book for these things ) are fairly routinely seen in the corridors of corporate power (and the corridors of political power too!).

Robert Hogan in his book Personality and the Fate of Organizations took a look at these personality disorders and studied how they manifest themselves in organizations. Do you recognize any of the following rather crazy management behaviors? (After all, craziness is only normal behavior taken too far!)

Borderline Personality Disorder: Managers who may develop strong enthusiasms for people or projects but quickly become disappointed. They let little things bother them and become annoyed easily.

Paranoid Personality Disorder: Managers who may mistrust others’ motives and doubt their intentions. They are alert for signs that they are being deceived or mistreated.

Avoidant Personality Disorder: Managers who are reluctant to take initiative for fear of being criticized or embarrassed.

Schizoid Personality Disorder: Managers who dislike meeting new people, and are indifferent to the moods and feelings of others.

Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder: Managers who want to work according to their own timetable and standards of performance and resists being hurried or instructed by others.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Managers who overestimate their own talents and accomplishments, ignore his shortcomings, and blame his mistakes on others.

Antisocial Personality Disorder: Managers who may appear charming, friendly, fun loving, and insightful, but can also to be impulsive, excitement-seeking, and non-conforming.

Histrionic Personality Disorder: Managers that desire to be the center of attention and to be recognized and noticed by others.

Schizotypal Personality Disorder: Managers who think and act in ways that are unusual, different, striking, and perhaps at times odd.

Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder: Managers who are unusually conscientious, orderly, and attentive to detail. Can be picky, critical, and stubborn.

Dependent Personality Disorder: Managers who are too eager to please others to gain their approval. They are reluctant to make decisions on their own, and may be excessively careful to please their superiors.

My recommendation is that, if global warming and the economy continue on their current trends, straight jackets should become part of the standard emergency equipment in “C Suites”around the country.

The importance of understanding how the personal values of candidates for senior positions align with the organization’s culture was emphasized in an Australian study of 200 companies which found that up to 80% of poor recruitment decisions were attributed to poor culture fit with the candidate’s values. The Australian study also found that 90% of companies rated recruiting for cultural fit to be very important or essential; however 64% of them seldom if ever assessed candidates for cultural fit. When asked why not, some of the main excuses given were “we dont know how to” and “we are under pressure to fill the position and dont have time”.

Organizations typically make changes to their executive leadership when they go through periods of significant change such as mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations, or new strategic direction. During these times the organizational culture and leadership values, especially the behaviours associated with recently ousted leaders, typically get questioned. However, to make an effective selection decision it is essential to understand what the “new” team and leaders will really value (even though a unified culture is still forming) to determine if a new hire will fit the environment, stay, and add value.

Leaders have a significant impact on the organizational culture/values and it is critical for leaders to be aware of their own value systems before embarking on selection of potential candidates. The value systems of organizational leaders can be likened to complex belief systems about what is desirable and important, and what is not. Many leaders and mangers tend to live their values without necessarily examining them too carefully and therefore dont find it easy to articulate when asked what they value (outside some obvious terms e.g. having integrity). It is therefore useful to ask key stakeholders of the company including board members, the boss of the potential new hire and significant peers to complete a Values Orientations questionnaire.

Once the values systems profiles within the group are determined, it is essential to provide feedback and then determine the values to look for in potential candidates. This greater awareness of the targeted values systems of candidates can be helpful in making better informed hiring decisions while reducing the risks and costs associated with bad hires.

Money is obviously an important motivating factor when it comes to our careers and our professional lives; most Americans consistently strive for a bigger paycheck to purchase big ticket items or keep their families in a comfortable life style (some times it’s even to just put food on the table).

With this in mind it would seem that money would be the most important motivating factor in the work place? This however is a common misconception. According to a survey measuring employee loyalty and retention, conducted by Vantage Research, “‘open communication between management and employees’ was mentioned nearly twice as frequently as ‘receiving raises’…[and]…Clearly, a work environment where employees are recognized as part of the team is more valuable than simply receiving a paycheck.”

Though this may seem strange at first, the survey findings begin to make more sense when you think about your own situations at work where communication fell flat. Think back to a situation in which your voice was either lost in the crowd, completely ignored, or unceremoniously rejected as nonsense. I have witnessed several people simply walk off of a job simply because a manager was not willing or felt it was not necessary to listen what they had to say. Being ignored is a demoralizing feeling that can not only stifle creativity and motivation, but make one hesitant to put forth their ideas and push themselves to help the organization succeed.

It is important for managers and executives to understand that in order to help their employees succeed along with the organization they can not offer money or benefits as the sole motivator; people need to feel as if they have a stake in the company and can share in the overall success of the organization. By having a healthy communication rapport among managers and employees, organizations can ensure everyone is working toward a common goal and that the best ideas for success are flowing from multiple channels. So give the people what they need and what they want – before you break open the check book, grab a cup of coffee and have a discussion.

I have commented before on the growing legion of companies allowing their employees to work from home due to rising gas prices and the ease of communication; but now I am going to take a deeper look at whether or not this is actually something companies should be pursuing.

In a recent article in the Metro Newspaper, staff writer Amy Zimmer reported that many luxury high rise apartment buildings in New York City are beginning to take advantage of the recent telecommuting boom and are adding small work spaces or business centers to their buildings. Additionally, Zimmer notes, “Of Fortune magazine’s most recent 100 best companies to work for, 84 allowed employees to telecommute or work from home at least 20 percent of the time, including GoldmanSachs, which has 22 percent of its employees telecommuting and Cisco Systems, which has 70 percent [wow!] telecommuters.”

There is obviously something to be said for working from home, both from an employees standpoint and an employers standpoint. For many employees, working from home saves them money on the gas it would cost them to drive to work, reduces the potentially stressful morning and evening commutes, increases potential work time, and, if nothing else, allows them to work in their pajamas. For employers the value in having your employees work from home is obvious – reduced overhead. Why pay for expensive corporate headquarters during a recessed economy when you can have many “mini-corporate headquarters” in your employees’ homes?

Telecommuting sounds great, right? Well there is also a downside and it is important for organizations to weigh these negative attributes carefully before allowing their workforces to make conference calls from their beds.

The Downside to Telecommuting

1. Reduced oversight – Though this may not be a huge problem plaguing successful companies, the risk of having employees slack off due to the lack of oversight is increased by not having them come in to the office. The home can be a very distracting place, especially when you are working on a project that doesn’t truly excite you. The siren song of daytime soap operas or Judge Judy may be too strong when you have a boring spread sheet to fill out and, as a result, you may put it off until another time or rush through the project during the commericals. With the advent of the Internet and other time distractions at work, it comes as no surprise that employees are not always 100% focused on their actual job, but at least when they are in the office, managers can help them refocus and motivate them to achieve their goals; this is not the case when working at home.
2. The lack of human contact – Though many of our modern communication tools can keep us in touch with each other 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they have also, to a certain extent stifled many of our primal communication abilities. Too often I have heard people say, “oh I’ll just shoot him/her an email and wait for them to get back to me.” Instead of picking up a phone and verbally communicating with a colleague, email has arguably taken over as the number one form of business communication (I’m pretty sure people use their blackberry’s for email more than they do phone calls). When people are working from home, this can passive communication trap may get worse. Though communications today may be reduced to a few bullet points in an email, when people are working in an office they are forced to interact with other people, even if it is only a run-of-the-mill “good morning” to the security guard at the door. Communication is essential for successful business; reducing your employees opportunities for interaction may reduce organizational efficiency and cripple team work.
3. It stifles creativity - People are social animals and feed off of each others’ creative energies. It is hard to share ideas when you are sitting at home in front of your laptop. Even for those people who have a workhorse mentality and would rather focus on a single task at time and follow it through to completion, working in a team and surrounding yourself with others who are working toward the same goal can help stimulate your productivity and creativity. This leads to a more rewarding experience and a better overall outcome of the project.

My point in all this is not discourage people from working from home or to convince organizations that there is no value is allowing employees to work their pajamas. What I am saying is to weigh the costs and benefits carefully and perhaps create a compromise that attempts to harness the benefits and minimize the detriments to telecommuting.

So if you read our blog you will now see that we have some new banners on the top of the page and below our featured clients section. We have joined an affiliate network and will be promoting business related products on this site. We will only be affiliating with companies that sell products that we believe will be helpful for you! So to get things started you will see A Franklin-Covey add for an organizer/planner; what better way to get your organization development plans rolling than by writing them in a great new planner?!