Category: Business Roundtable

  • Inside the C-suite

    In this first in a series of conversations about leadership, Dean Jim Bradford chatted with Chad Holliday Jr., the newly appointed Chairman of  Bank of America and Executive in Residence at the Owen School. Holliday is the former Chair of the Board of DuPont, the Chairman of the U.S. Council on Competitiveness and a founding member of the International Business Council. He is also the co-author of Walking the Talk, a book that details the business case for sustainable development and corporate responsibility.

    Jim Bradford and Chad Holliday
    Jim Bradford and Chad Holliday

    JB: You have an engineering background and took an early job right out of school with DuPont.

    Talk about that job. What was it?

    CH: I started here in Nashville as an engineer in a plant. My job was to make that part of the plant more efficient and effective. We were making Dacron. I had no intent to stay with DuPont for a long time or any big company because I thought it would be constraining. My best friend and I had a deal. I was going to work for DuPont for five years, and he was going to work for GE for five years, and then we were going to come back and start this company that we had as a project. I failed on my end.

    JB: Did he stay with GE?

    CH: No, he started the company. It worked. He did really well.

    JB: Talk about your initial aspirations. Did you have some idea of what you wanted to do at DuPont? Was there a specific reason that you went there?

    CH: Not really. My aspirations were nothing close to what I was lucky enough to achieve. I saw the guy who was the head of my engineering group. He was this stately guy who had a nice office with a couch. I thought if I could get that before I retired, that would be great. I think it’s pretty hard to know what your aspirations are starting out. It’s just a matter of learning from every job.

    JB: Do you remember your first promotion at DuPont?

    CH: No, but I remember I’d been working there three months, and they brought us all into a conference room. There were probably 40 of us. They announced that they were going to shut down a big part of the plant and 100 exempt people were going to lose their jobs. I thought, “Hmm, I’m the shortest-service exempt person on this site, so this is probably not good news.” I remember I went to my supervisor and asked, “Does this mean I need to find a new job?” He said, “I don’t think so.” I said, “I can’t deal with ‘I don’t think so,’ ” but it all worked out.

    JB: What was your first job managing people?

    CH: After being an engineer for about two years, I became a front-line supervisor in a chemical plant running 24/7. I think that was probably the most valuable experience of my life. Even today I think back to the three years I was on shifts managing people and to the real-world experiences they were dealing with. I learned a lot from them.

    People can do so much more than they’re challenged to do by their job description.

    —Chad Holliday

    JB: What are some of the things you learned?

    CH: People can do so much more than they’re challenged to do by their job description. We often would promote from within, and as a front-line supervisor, I had three people who, I felt, were capable of being promoted. I actually assigned each one of them a book to read and let them report on it, which was a bit unusual. I also would give them different jobs. All three didn’t become supervisors, but they made major progressions. And I found it made a big difference using them to help me with the rest of the team. For example, we decided we would publish a newsletter every night for our employees. Our newsletters were pretty popular. All of those things were, I’m sure, nowhere in the DuPont playbook.

    JB: Was there a DuPont playbook? Was there something that told you how to perform this job or manage people?

    dupont-three

    CH: There was a two-week training course for front-line supervisors that told us all the basic stuff. I’ll never forget that I took the course when professional unions were becoming popular on the West Coast. Afterward we were asked, “What questions do you have?” And I said, “What are you doing to make sure we don’t have a professional union here at DuPont?” It was just an honest question. Well, that was not a good question to ask. Throughout the rest of the day, I was talking to higher and higher levels of management about why I wanted to start a union for engineers. I learned you have to pick your questions carefully.

    JB: What did you learn about your management style as you went through this early stage of your career?

    CH: I think it’s important to rely on others and reinforce them. There’s no limit to what you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit. It really is a team environment. And then there’s the very simple act of telling people you appreciate what they did. So many times we forget to say thank you. Those are very simple things, but we tend to focus on the money instead.

    JB: So how do you motivate people? If it’s not about the money, what are the carrots and sticks you use?

    CH: I think people stay with an organization because they’re getting development and they like the people they work with. When DuPont moved into Singapore, we found we could not differentiate any of our benefit plans. The government wouldn’t let us do it. At first we thought it was terrible. Then we looked at it more closely and realized it just meant we had to provide a great place to work: Our supervisors had to be very good, and we had to provide better development than the next company. It’s critical that employees grow and develop and that they be treated as a professional part of the organization no matter what their job is. Another good example is when I was at a plant in Charleston, S.C. It was the first big manufacturing role I had—maybe 1,000 people. The plant manager said, “I’ll come see you once a week. I only want to talk about the development of the front-line people. We’ll talk about that for an hour, and that’s the only time I want to see you.” I heard that and thought, “Yeah, that’s until the first thing goes wrong.” Well, I was there for three years, and those were the only times I ever saw him one-on-one. We would meet every week. We would sit there with the front-line supervisor talking about how we’re going to motivate Joe or Mary. We’d ask, “Are they a good team player? What do they need to be a success?” It’s amazing when you focus on those details. When measured against all these performance parameters, we beat our competition. I really think there’s something to it.

    JB: You mentioned Singapore. When did you first take an international assignment, and how did that come about?

    CH: It was in the mid-’80s.

    JB: You’d been with the company for how long?

    CH: I’d been there 15 years. They started talking about the need for an international assignment. I thought it was going to be Geneva, Switzerland. I told my oldest son, “You need to take French because we’re going to Geneva.” When I came home and said, “We’re going to Japan,” the first thing he said was, “Can I drop this French class?” Going to Asia was a big shock, but taking an international assignment was something that my wife and I wanted to do. I think it was really good for the family.

    leadershipcompassJB: Did you volunteer for that, or did somebody pick you? Did you let it be known that you would take that kind of assignment?

    CH: Yes, I let it be known, but I think people probably see those things as a lot more formal and organized than they really are. I was shocked at first when I learned it would be Japan, but I had this rationale as to why they picked me. I’d been to Japan several times, negotiated a couple of joint ventures and built a plant there. I thought, “Oh, that’s pretty logical now that I look at it.” But the people who interviewed me for the job didn’t even know that I’d done those things. It was not as organized as you might think. Sometimes you just have to take the opportunity that comes up.

    JB: What was your role in Japan?

    CH: I was President for DuPont Asia Pacific, so I was responsible for 14 countries.

    JB: Did doing business in a different locale change your perspective in any way?

    CH: I found out very quickly that people back at corporate headquarters couldn’t help very much because they really didn’t know the issues I was dealing with, and also they were 7,000 miles away in a different time zone. I had to make some tough decisions on my own, so I grew very fast. Also I found that when I couldn’t speak the language in any of the countries I was living in, including Australia—I couldn’t speak the language there either—I really had to rely on the people around me. The key to the whole thing is developing people and giving them confidence, as opposed to trying to make the call yourself.

    Audience: I used to work for a large company. When I interviewed for the job, they assessed me to determine how far I would go in the company. What do you think of assessing the potential of employees so early in the process?

    CH: I would never do something like that. I don’t see how you can make that assessment in the first meeting unless maybe by using stereotypes. We don’t do that at DuPont. As employees gain experience and their drive and desire starts to come out, we eventually offer them development and other programs that signal they can go higher if they keep working. I think labels, though, especially early on, can be detrimental. If you get a good label, you may think you can take it easy and get there, and you won’t. Or alternatively you may decide that you can’t reach that ambition.

    Audience: As you move into a new position as a leader, how do you go about either informally or formally assessing the team that you’re given? How do you decide who is a good fit?

    If you think that someone has a developmental need, sit down and tell that person—not in a formal way, but in an informal setting. You’re trying to help that person win.

    CH: Go talk to the people who do the real work in the organization, be it financial or whatever, and they’ll know. They’ll tell you pretty quickly. Just go out in a very informal way and listen to them, and that will give you a great assessment. You can do it in about three or four weeks. And then the biggest thing is, if you think that someone has a developmental need, sit down and tell that person—not in a formal way, but in an informal setting. You’re trying to help that person win. I generally start with the assumption that everybody on the team is going to be a winner.

    JB: You’ve talked about assessing others, but leaders have to make an assessment of themselves as well. What have you found that you’re good at and not so good at?

    CH: I think we all have certain biases. For example, I’m a natural planner. If a crisis were to come up right now, my mind would want to find a solution that would keep us from sinking. Once I find that solution, I constantly want to improve it. I have to know when to back off my desire to make something better. Another example is that, in making decisions, I really don’t care whether it’s, say, 29.2 or 29.4. Most decisions I make are “yes or no” ones: Are we going to do it, or not? At DuPont I hired a chief operating officer who cared a lot about 29.2 or 29.4, and he would force me back in that direction. You should surround yourself with people who understand your biases because in that two-tenths of a percent there might be something pretty important that you miss.

    In making decisions I don’t care whether it’s, say, 29.2 or 29.4. But I surround myself with people who understand my biases because in that two-tenths there might be something important that I miss.

    JB: Are there others in your life who’ve helped you understand your biases? Maybe your wife? Has she been a good confidante?

    CH: I think it’s important to keep your spouse or a close friend up to speed on what you’re doing. It’s also important to get feedback from them.

    JB: Some people don’t share that information with their spouses or anyone else. Do leaders need someone close to them who can say what they really think?

    CH: You don’t want to put too much of a load on your spouse because he or she might not have the tools to solve those problems. But I do think it’s important to have colleagues to turn to. I’ll often call colleagues at DuPont, who may or may not be direct reports, and say, “I’m dealing with this. What do you think?” I never make a critical decision without running it by people who know me well and who will tell me what they really think.

    JB: One problem that many CEOs have is getting their direct reports to talk frankly with them. How have you overcome this problem?

    CH: I think everybody has that problem. It has a lot to do with whether or not that person is bringing good news. When I was a plant manager in Delaware, I used to walk around the plant early in the morning. One time I came upon a machine that was on fire. It was blazing up about three feet. Fortunately it was handled safely, and the fire brigade put it out. Later at our morning meeting, the person responsible for that area said, “We had a puff of smoke last night.” I said, “In addition to the fire?” After that, word got around, and everybody told it straight. It turned out that the people reporting to him had not told him there was a blaze under that puff of smoke. In a situation like that you can’t tear somebody apart because they don’t know all the details. You have to allow the person enough time to solve the problem. You don’t want to jump in and take it away from them.

    Audience: You mentioned teams and developing people. Are there two or three key differentiators—whether it’s personal characteristics or ways in which you approach your work—that have made you as successful as you are?

    CH: One is don’t brag on yourself. You let other people do that if they want to. Also don’t care who gets the credit because, if you don’t care, you can get a lot of things done that way. And as I was saying earlier, you’ve got to say thank you for specific reasons: “This is exactly what you did that made a big difference.” I think public recognition is very important. It’s one thing to do it one-on-one, but if you do it in front of everybody else, that means that you’re going on the line and saying, “I really do think that’s good.” When I was in Japan, somebody came to me and said that the administrative assistant I’d been working with was really mad at me. I asked why, and he said that it was because she had a problem and was feeling bad and I hadn’t acknowledged it. I said that she hadn’t told me about the problem, but his response was that I should have been able to recognize it by her demeanor. It was a very serious point, and in retrospect, I should have seen it. She didn’t say a word, but I should have been able to see that change in behavior. I really learned from that. Every time I see a change of behavior in somebody, I always try to flag it to make sure that they’re OK, and people seem to appreciate that.

    The key to the whole thing is developing people and giving them confidence, as opposed to trying to make the call yourself.

    —Chad Holliday

    JB: How have you found a personal balance in your life?

    CH: Most jobs I’ve had are so demanding. You could work 18 hours a day, seven days a week. I think it’s important to have other things, be it family or other interests, to balance things out. The same goes for getting enough exercise and sleep. Those may sound silly, but I find that they’re critical.

    Audience: In my five years of working, I’ve always tried to identify role models and learn from their management skills. What are your views on mentoring?

    CH: Every time we’ve started a formal mentoring process at DuPont, it’s had minimal results. So it’s much better to create the environment where people are encouraged to seek out others and to help when sought out. In every role I’ve ever had I’ve always looked to people who were willing to help me. I think a lot is in your attitude. If you have the right attitude and it looks like you want help, people will give it to you. If you act like you’re smarter than the next guy, they may not be there for you. When I became CEO, I contacted three other CEOs from outside the company and asked for their advice. They all were happy to do it. I picked people who were very good but who had different styles from mine. I didn’t want to simply reinforce what I had, but to actually learn from them.

    To watch the interview with Chad Holliday in its entirety, please click here.

  • Lies of the Land

    Lies of the Land

    On January 23 the Vanderbilt Executive MBA program sponsored a staged reading from Tennessee Repertory Theatre’s production of Glengarry Glen Ross, the Pulitzer Prize-winning play by David Mamet. The play tells the story of four desperate Chicago real estate agents who are willing to engage in any number of unethical activities to sell undesirable real estate to unsuspecting buyers. The title of the play comes from the names of two of the real estate developments being sold by the agents: Glengarry Highlands and Glen Ross Farms.

    Following the reading there was a panel discussion on the topic of ethics in business. The panelists were Richard Courtney, Principal Broker for Fridrich & Clark Realty in Nashville and author of Buyers Are Liars & Sellers Are Too!; Bart Victor, Cal Turner Professor of Moral Leadership; and Bruce Barry, Brownlee O. Currey Jr. Professor of Management. The discussion was moderated by Megan Barry, MBA’93, Vice President of Ethics and Compliance at Premier, Inc. and Council Member At-Large, Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County.

    Owen’s Averbuch Auditorium
    The Friday night event drew a large crowd to Owen’s Averbuch Auditorium.

    The Reading

    In Act I, Scene 2, two of the real estate agents—Dave Moss and George Aaronow—are complaining about Mitch and Murray, the owners of the agency. Moss and Aaronow have just been informed that the top two sellers in the office will get to keep their jobs and the other two will not. Moss suggests that they get their revenge by stealing the Glengarry leads and then selling them to another real estate agency. His plan would require Aaronow to break into the office and stage a burglary. Aaronow wants no part of the plan, but Moss intimidates him, saying that Aaronow is already an accomplice simply because he listened to the idea.

    The Discussion

    MB: Well, Richard, let’s start with you since this is your business. What are your thoughts? Does this happen?

    RC: It happens sometimes, perhaps more on the Internet, but certainly never in an office like ours.

    MB: Bart, you talk about ethics, deception and lying with your students. What are those conversations like?

    BV: Some of our students are coming from experiences like this and trying to find a different way to live their lives as businesspeople. I think David Mamet does a wonderful job of helping us understand how a situation like this can happen. The scene shows how we all can find ourselves thinking abstractly about something we would never do in real life.

    Megan Barry
    Megan Barry, far right, offered some opening remarks before the actors took the stage.

    MB: Bruce, clearly this is a negotiation between two parties. Is this the kind of negotiation you teach?

    BB: One of the principles of my negotiation class is that virtually everything is negotiation. Negotiation is defined as joint decision making involving two people, or more than two people, when they have divergent risks and preferences and a matter of contention. So, yes, this is a negotiation. If I had shown this scene to my students and asked if something like it had ever happened to them, they would say, “No, I’ve never had someone try to persuade me to engage in robberies.” But there are cases and scenarios where the underlying dynamic is there. That is, one person persuading another, or an organizational culture indirectly and informally persuading an individual to engage in actions that may not pass ethical scrutiny if the right lens is applied. Ethical dilemmas sort of creep up on you, but Mamet’s put it right in our face. It stands in for a variety of situations, where a culture is persuading or enticing you to do things that seem okay step by step, but at some point you realize you’ve been asked to cross a line.

    RC: I think that’s part of the reason why we’re having the financial problem in real estate. Loan officers sit with a buyer and say, “You make $30,000 a year, right?” The buyer responds, “No, I make $20,000.” The loan officer then says, “Well, if you want this house, you make $30,000, and you don’t have any debt.”

    Corruption is fairly prevalent in the business community, but hopefully things are changing. There are more regulations now on the horizon. Of course that means there will be more rules to break.

    ~ Richard Courtney

    MB: Are there ethical consequences when you have deception? Richard, in your book you mention that everybody is a liar. Is deception just a component of how we do business?

    RC: There is a difference between a real estate agent and a realtor. The difference is ethics. Realtors are required to take ethics classes every year. There’s a perennial education requirement. At least we’re exposed to it and know the difference between responsible and irresponsible behavior.

    MB: Let’s say I’m selling my house. You walk inside and notice there are some flaws and obvious problems. Do we have to tell the buyer?

    RC: We do. In Tennessee we do.

    MB: So it’s all relative? It depends on where you are?

    RC: If you’re in Washington, D.C., for example, you never have to tell anyone.

    BV: In this scene we’re not talking about something that is in any way ethically ambiguous. They’re plotting a crime. So the question is: How did they get themselves into this situation? I think there’s a red herring that we rely on too easily. It’s the notion of greed. There are greedy people out there in the world, of course, and there are sociopaths like Bernie Madoff. But most crime, particularly in the context of the way we live our normal lives, is not motivated by greed but by exactly what these folks are struggling with—the sense that they are powerless. The crime is a way to regain their power and freedom. There’s a lot of talk about being free and seizing control back from the people who have taken it away. It becomes a crime motivated by freedom, and that’s far more powerful.

    Ethical dilemmas typically creep up on us. There are a variety of situations in which a culture persuades or entices us to do things that seem okay step by step, but at some point we realize we’ve been asked to cross a line.

    BB: I was teaching a class the other day in which we debated who was more at fault in this current housing crisis. Was it the borrowers or the lenders? The debate was an intellectual exercise because there weren’t really any great consequences to public policy, but it was interesting to have students argue both sides. In this case the debate would be similar. Who’s more at fault: the person doing the enticing or the person being enticed? In all kinds of transactions like this, it’s easy to say that they’re both at fault, but that’s not very satisfying. We want to know who really is responsible here and want to sort out that responsibility. That’s one of the things we try to do when we teach this subject. It’s hard because you talk about it for 80 or 90 minutes in class but don’t really resolve anything.

    Audience: There’s an interesting sequence of events going on here. We go from the hypothetical of the enticement to the actual enticement. Could you comment on the progression of this conversation? I think it’s illustrative of how people are enticed into perpetrating a crime.

    BB: In a class I teach, we talk about shades of gray and lying. There’s puffery versus deception versus sins of omission. You can put them on a continuum from mild to exaggerated, but I’m not sure I’ve ever had a class talk about the question this scene raised, which is this idea of enticement and how that varies from very mild to coercive.

    BV: A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to bring a mobster into the classroom. He had been to jail for various business-related crimes. He claimed that he was never the originator of these crimes. The crimes were always brought to him by businesspeople who felt they had been cheated. They weren’t seeking greed so much, but rather to right a wrong. It was in the righting of that wrong that they found justification for all sorts of things. The mobster said that the most powerful attraction to criminality was a sense of having been cheated or abused.

    RC: We see this sort of enticement in the homebuilding industry when a builder owns three lots and he borrows a certain amount of money to build a house on lot A. When that house has overruns, he borrows money from house B to finish house A. Then he can’t finish B until he goes to C. Finally when C is about halfway done, he still hasn’t paid for A or B. Meanwhile the lender decides he wants to play, too. So he keeps loaning the builder money.

     

    Panel Participants
    The panel participants included, from left, Megan Barry, Richard Courtney, Bart Victor and Bruce Barry.

    MB: It sounds like all of you are talking as if everyone is morally corruptible. How can people stay morally right if we’re inherently corruptible? How do you teach that at a workplace?

    RC: Corruption is fairly prevalent in the business community, but hopefully things are changing. There are more regulations now than there were two years ago, and there are more on the horizon. Of course that means there will be more rules to break, so we might have a new set of ethics problems to come.

    BV: When I teach ethics, I don’t ever go into the classroom expecting to tell them something that they don’t already know. It’s about providing the opportunity for them to strengthen their own resource, whatever that resource might be, so that they have it available when they find themselves pressed, confused or tempted. I think our approach in education is to give students tools and experience that will serve them in conversations like the one in this scene.

    BB: I don’t go in the first day saying that the purpose of the course is to give students a moral center that they don’t already have, but rather to help them understand the moral content of the circumstances they may find themselves in. It’s a hard thing to do. It’s done a lot by example, but I think that’s the modest, but realistic goal.

    Audience: How do the two of you with your students and you with your salespeople teach that the ends don’t justify the means?

    RC: It’s become a dilemma more so recently as times have gotten harder and people are trying to make the deal work. Each real estate transaction has gotten more difficult. There’s more emphasis on disclosure and defining, for example, what a leak in a basement is or what a leak in a roof is. The other side of it is that we may, for instance, get a structural report from one engineer who says everything is fine and another from one who says the house will fall down in two weeks. Which one do we use, and why is one better than the other? Should we necessarily disclose the bad one if we think the good one is better? So there are a number of issues that face realtors on a daily basis that make our jobs more complex than they’ve ever been.

    BB: Just a quick comment about that. I think the fact of the matter is that in reality it’s not that the ends don’t justify the means. It’s that the ends rarely do. It’s not that hard to conjure up situations where the ends do justify the means. What I try to get students to think about is the underlying principle driving their decisions. Is it a principle of fairness or harm or equity or justice? And is this the same principle that they always use? Or is this a principle they use only when it’s convenient because the principle produces the outcome they want in that particular situation?

    Audience: This play debuted in 1984, and here we are in 2009. What has changed in the last 25 years as far as ethics are concerned?

    RC: It could have been written 100 years earlier, and I think it would be just as timely. Overall, at least in the real estate industry, there is more and more training and there is more and more emphasis on ethics. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to be unethical with all of the scrutiny that every transaction has to undergo.

    BB: In business and industry, I’d suggest that there’s been over these 25 years a substantial increase in the codification of ethics. Megan here has a corporate job as an ethics compliance officer, and that position virtually didn’t exist 25 years ago.

    MB: It’s great work, and there’s a lot of job security.

    BB: The licensed and credentialed professions, like law and medicine, have long had components of ethics in their examinations and licensing. Business, aside from accounting and some financial occupations, doesn’t have licensing. There’s no bar exam for our graduates. There’s no course in professional responsibility at business schools the way there is at law schools. But what we’ve seen in these 25 years is a codification and institutionalization of an ethics function in organizations. Now the logical follow-up question would be: Has that changed anything in terms of the ethical behavior of humans? I just don’t know.