Colin Cowherd vs Freddie Coleman: Who Would You Rather Work For?

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately listening to the local ESPN Radio affiliate - which is odd because I’m not an avid sports fan. However, I do consider myself fairly well versed in talk radio. I spent ten years in radio and worked in a number of different formats, including news/talk. So, I find myself listening to talk radio through both my “radio filter” and “leadership filter”.

Two hosts in particular have jumped out at me for the examples they provide for both good and bad leadership behaviors. The hosts in question are Colin Cowherd and Freddie Coleman. My critiques of these guys have nothing to do with their sports knowledge - they are both super smart and have dazzling command of their subject matter. And, in their defense, I’m basing my critiques only on what I hear on the radio. In “real life” both of these gentlemen may be completely different than their on-air personas. But on the air one host models many classic “good boss” behaviors while the other models many “bad boss” behaviors. Now, Let’s go to the whiteboard to break it down….

Colin Cowherd: I am regularly amazed at how dismissive and derisive he is to his callers. Maybe that’s part of his schtick - but it doesn’t come across as “entertaining” as it does with other talk-show hosts - it just comes off as Cowherd being a jerk. He comes off as very arrogant and condescending. I had a boss like that once. This guy was very smart - probably a genuine genius - but was his own worst enemy. His direct reports found him so arrogant and abrasive that they avoided talking to him. He talked a good game about having an “open door policy”, “empowering his employees”, yada yada yada - but he was ultimately just unpleasant to work for. Because he was so dismissive and even demeaning at times his people were mostly focused on just keeping him off their backs not on moving the organization forward- which was a shame really, because this guy was very bright and talented. Again, he was his own worst enemy.

Freddie Coleman: Freddie is like the anti-Cowherd. He has a way of making even the “dumb callers” feel like they made a contribution. He is polite and expresses appreciation and I have never heard him insult a caller or tell him to “go back to flipping burgers”. His show in general seems geared toward actually seeking out his audience’s opinions rather than using them as a springboard to launch into a diatribe or put-down. Like Cowherd, Coleman has an encyclopedic knowledge about sports - but he never comes across as the arrogant “know-it-all” that Cowherd does. I’ve had bosses like Coleman too. They are the ones that encourage input and value an exchange of ideas - even those ideas that might contradict their own.

As I stated at the beginning, I’m basing these observations only on what I hear on a radio show. These guys may or may not be anything like the way they sound, but I try to find “learning moments” all around me - even on sports talk radio! These are two guys at the top of their game professionally, but in terms of leadership styles which one would you rather work for? Put me on team Freddie!

Effective Leadership: Maximize Employee Performance by Leveraging Discretionary Effort

Here's a few thoughts on discretionary effort:
Maximize Employee Performance by Leveraging Discretionary Effort

Effective Leadership: Dogs, elephants and snow banks

The area in which I live was pummelled with snow over the past few weeks. Since December 18th we've recieved over 60 inches of snow! Needless to say, that's alot of snow. Most of us lucky homeowners have spent much of the last few days shoveling off our roofs in the hopes of avoiding a collapse. Well all of this roof clearing means nearly all the homes in my neighborhood are encircled by five-foot berms that, after daily thawing and nightly freezing, are now impenetrable, rock-hard mini mountains.

My dog Brandy, a shepherd/husky mix, has discovered that the chank link fence in our back yard which is about 4 1/2 feet tall without snow is now effectively about a foot high. She just scampers up the snow mound and hops right over the fence to freedom. Here's the funny part. Brandy would have never thought of jumping over the fence if the snow mounds had not provided her the opportunity. I've removed all the snow from the part of the fence where she's been escaping but guess what? she can still jump over the 4 1/2 foot fence! She could have been jumping over the fence for the past two years that we've had her but the thought never occurred to her. She WAS conditioned to stay within the confines of the yard. But now she sees that that measley little 4 1/2 foot fence need not keep her from exploring the big wide world! All thanks to the lousy snow!

This reminds me of a little story I've heard about training elephants. (I'm not positive it's true but it's a great analogy so stick with me.) When training baby elephants the trainers will cuff a large chain to the elephant's ankle. The other end of the chain is fastened to a large stake which is pounded deep into the ground. The chain and the stake are so strong that there is no way the baby elephant can escape. The little elephant learns very quickly just how far he can walk until the chain stops him. As the elephant grows he is conditioned to being staked. By the time the elephant is fully grown the trainer no longer has to use a big chain and stake. In fact he can use a flimsy rope barely nailed into the ground - anything to just remind the elephant that they are restrained. That elephant's brain is conditioned to believe he can't "escape" because he's staked - even if that stake is so flimsy he could pull it out with little effort.

Do we as leaders ever negatively "condition" our employees? We probably wouldn't do it intentionally, but I think we probably do it more than we realize. How might we be conditioning our reps? It might sound like this: "Oh, nobody's ever been able to achieve that! Maybe you'd better rethink your goals." Or maybe there are operational or process issues that condition our employees. I remember a former employer of mine would always have a "fire sale" at the end of every quarter. They were always short of hitting their quarterly sales figures so they would offer deep discounts. Both the reps and the customers were conditioned to expect big promos and discounts at the end of each quarter. Why should an agent try to hold top margin when he or she knows the company is going to slash prices at the end of the quarter? Whey should a customer cut a purchase order now when they know they can get a much better price by merely waiting until the end of the quarter?

Think about ways in which your organization might be negatively conditioning its employees and what you can do to help change that trend. Me? I'm going to go find my dog who is roaming the neighborhood at this very moment...

Effective Leadership: 20-60-20 - a win-win-win scenario

In our Coach Me 2 class we spend a little time discussing the 20/60/20 rule. This rule says that on a given team roughly 20 percent of our agents will be superstars, 20 percent will be strugglers and 60 percent will be average performers. So, with which group should the manager spend the most time?

The manager should dedicate the most time to the middle 60 - because that's the majority of his team. Unfortunately, however, many of the managers I've talked with say most of their time (and energy) is spent managing the bottom 20. Wouldn't it be great if there were a way to ensure that our top 20 and middle 60 got the same level of attention as our bottom 20? "But there just isn't time" you might say. Well today is your lucky day!

This is one of the most effective things a leader can do: use your top 20 to help you develop your bottom 20. This is a win-win-win scenario. The first winner is the top 20 agent. He or she feels appreciated and recognized when you say to them "You do a really good job at X. I would like for you to spend some time with (insert bottom 20 agent's name here) and show them some of the things that work well for you. Then report back to me and let me know how it went." Interestingly, one of the key workplace motivators for an employee is being entrusted with additional responsibilities. This scenario fits that bill quite nicely.

The second winner is the bottom 20 agent. They will benefit from getting some one-on-one "coaching" from a successful practioner, and them getting it from another face can't hurt either. And, let's be honest, if we have been in a management role for awhile we may not be as good in the trenches as our top 20 agents are; so tips and tricks coming from these folks might hold a bit more weight than those coming from us.

The third winner is the manager. Obviously, by leveraging our top twenty to work with our bottom 20 we've created much more time for ourselves to work with our middle 20. We could spend alot more space talking about all the cool things that come about from using the 20/60/20 rule but all we really need to know is that it works. Give it a try and see what happens.

Employee Motivation: Maslow and Money...The path of least resistance

What's the most common thing companies use to motivate their employees? Money! Don't get me wrong. We all appreciate money and none of us would turn it down if it were offered to us, but is monetary reward really the best way to motivate people?

I mentioned in my previous post about Maslow's Hierarchy that leveraging higher level needs will yield better results than focusing on lower level needs. Yet money is usually the motivator of choice, particularly in a sales environment.

Remember the five levels in Maslow's Hierarchy? 1.) Physical, 2.) Safety-Security, 3.) Social-Belonging, 4.) Esteem, 5.) Self-Actualization. These build on one another. For example, I would not be highly motivated by social or esteem factors if I don't have enough to eat. The needs in the lower levels need to be met before the higher level motivators kick in. Money is actually a Safety-Security factor, that's only the second level of the hierarchy. "But money is the most important reason people work," you might say. Money is important, but actually it is not the main reason people stay with or decide to leave a job.

Research the Kelly Company conducted found that folks looking for a job cite organizational factors (money, benefits, company reputation) as the primary determinant in whether or not they'll join a company - followed by job factors (duties, schedule, training) and then by leader factors (trustworthiness, coaching, flexibility). However, something very interesting happens once an employee has joined an organization. The list flips. The leader factors become the most important thing to the employee. Would you believe that pay comes in at number five (behind things like coworkers, career opportunities, and schedule) for reasons people leave an organization? The number one reason people leave is their leader. Maybe you've heard this cliche: "People don't leave companies, they leave managers." According to this research, it's true.

So why do we so often default to money as the prime motivator? I think we do it because it's easy. It takes much less effort to throw some extra cash at folks than to actually make a person feel like they're part of a team or build their esteem. Perhaps giving cash away is the path of least resistance? It's true the top three levels of the hierarchy require "heavy lifting". It's hard work to motivate and build people up in the face of everyday job pressures but the payoff is worth it. And a funny thing about focusing on the higher levels - it doesn't really have to "cost" the company anything. I'm not saying we should all do away with money-based incentives. But if we think that's all we need to do to keep our employees motivated, we're missing out.

Employee Motivation: See you at the top....of Maslow's Hierarchy

Any of us who've sat through a psychology 101 class are at least aware of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In 1954 Abraham Maslow mapped out his theory on motivation and it has become one of the standards in explaining what makes us tick. Without dissecting his entire pyramid I want to jump straight to the top - the self actualization level of the hierarchy. What does self-actualization mean? In my view, when a person has reached true self-actualization they feel they are doing what they were put on this earth to do; They are living their potential; They have met the "measure of their creation". Now be honest: How many of us have met or will ever meet this level of satisfaction? If you could choose to do anything in the world you wanted to do would you choose your current job? It's ok if you said "no".

Think about what makes you...you: What are your key talents, interests, strengths, capabilities etc... If you are fortunate enough to have a "job" where you are able to leverage each of these, chances are you will be pretty doggone happy at work. In "First, Break all the Rules", Marcus Buckingham points out that the great managers are those that focus on their employees' strengths and "manage around" their weaknesses. He doesn't mention it by name but isn't he really talking about self actualization? Being able to do what we do best (or being able to use our key talents, interests, strengths and capabilities) on a daily basis is a huge motivator. This approaches that state of Self-Actualization.

There's alot about Maslow's that we could discuss - and we will in the future. But for now, think of opportunities to match projects or tasks that may come up with the individual strengths and interests of your team members. And here's another thought to leave you with in regards to Maslow's: The higher you move up the hierarchy, the more "bang for your buck" you'll get. Focusing on the higher level needs of an individual will yield bigger performance results than the lower level needs. Stay tuned....