Founders Day 2009~ What is the Status of the Management "Partnership"

[Just Numbers]

First, I absolutely believe they could. There is no question that a center manager's job is hard, just like a driver's job is hard.

However, this challenge is silly.

- Steve Ballmer from Microsoft can't code.
- The CEO of Boeing (James McNerney) does not have a background in Aeronautics. I doubt he could assemble an airplane.
- Sam Palmisano of IBM is not a technologist. He can't run a technology division.

That's not why they are there.

The same is true for UPS senior leaders.

P-Man

P-man,
No disrespect intended but, how about William R. Johnson....need any pickles delivered to you or, how about a nice relish!

 

[Black_6_Leader]

However, this challenge is silly.

- Steve Ballmer from Microsoft can't code.
- The CEO of Boeing (James McNerney) does not have a background in Aeronautics. I doubt he could assemble an airplane.
- Sam Palmisano of IBM is not a technologist. He can't run a technology division.

That's not why they are there.

The same is true for UPS senior leaders.

P-Man

P-Man I find it interesting that you twice choose to mention past IBM CEO's in your posts. And I will agree with you that Lou Gerstner was an outsider (He came from RJR Nabisco) when he assumed control of and rescued IBM . . .

Let me bring to the discussion a rather relevant quote from Lou Gerstner that was published in today's Wall Street Journal : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385523214893070.html

From Louis V. Gerstner's IBM memoir, "Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?" (2004): Soon after I'd joined the company, I asked one of my most senior executives to provide me with a detailed analysis of a major money-losing business at IBM. I did this not only because I wanted the insight from the analysis but also to test this highly rated executive. Three days later I asked him how the work was ­progressing. He said, "I'll check with the team and get back to you." At the end of the week, I got the same ­response: "I'll check with the team leader and let you know" (later he did). When this little scene played out a third time, I finally said, "Why don't you just give me the name of the person doing the work, and from now on I'll speak directly to him or her." What I discovered was that senior executives often presided. They ­organized work, then waited to review it when it was done. You were a worker early in your career, but once you climbed to the top, your role was to preside over a process. Well, my kind of executives dig into the ­details, work the problems day to day, and lead by ­example, not title.
​

Is that true of UPS's Senior executives?

 

[pretzel_man]

What I think is so ironic, is that I've been in many depts over the years and many of them in IE. Now though I'm involved more with the customers and IE folks first comments when we are working on winning a 1000/day customer is well that's going to cost us a driver or the facility can't handle the extra volume. I find it absolutely amazing hearing that when we also hear we need more volume. I've stated on previous posts, I'd like to see the dividend go down (1/2) or more and take that money and put it towards more reinvestment in the company. Expand the capacity of our most help needed facilities. Replace some buildings that are 50+ years old that are designed for nothing more then 50 lb OS1 boxes. This will help growth in the long run. Also, I totally 100% believe that the decision is to not to touch the dividend since it will affect the higher ups the most. Most of those folks have a ton of money in UPS, also many of them Hypo'ed and still hypo. If the dividend were cut they'd be hurt seriously. Wall Street isn't excited about the dividend. If they did, then our stock should be much better then FDX, since our dividend is so much better. But that's not the case. Also, if upper mgmt wanted to reduce the MIP level (which they did) to mgmt. Fine, tell us up front that 15% of pretax profits is too high, from now on it's 12% or 10% or whatever. Don't lie to us and make up numbers.

Here are two things that I heard fron Kurt Kuehn directy....

If a company reduces its dividend the marketplace sees this as a very bad sign. UPS is careful when increasing dividend because its basically a decision to keep it that high in the future.

Here is a quote on that matter from Entrepreneur Magazine:
"Cuts in the dividend also should be avoided. Dividend increases should signal confidence in the future; this is especially important in times of earnings weakness, and less important during periods of strong earningsCuts in the dividend also should be avoided. Dividend increases should signal confidence in the future; this is especially important in times of earnings weakness, and less important during periods of strong earnings"

This matches what Kurt said and expresses to me that the dividend decision is not to please senior managers.

The second thought is what he said about IE and customers. He basically said that he is ashamed of his personal stance when he was in I.E. about not being flexible when it comes to customer demands. I agree (and I think he would too) that denying request that would allow for new revenue because a driver would be needed is wrong.

P-Man

 

[pretzel_man]

P-Man I find it interesting that you twice choose to mention past IBM CEO's in your posts. And I will agree with you that Lou Gerstner was an outsider (He came from RJR Nabisco) when he assumed control of and rescued IBM . . .

Let me bring to the discussion a rather relevant quote from Lou Gerstner that was published in today's Wall Street Journal : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385523214893070.html

From Louis V. Gerstner's IBM memoir, "Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?" (2004): Soon after I'd joined the company, I asked one of my most senior executives to provide me with a detailed analysis of a major money-losing business at IBM. I did this not only because I wanted the insight from the analysis but also to test this highly rated executive. Three days later I asked him how the work was ­progressing. He said, "I'll check with the team and get back to you." At the end of the week, I got the same ­response: "I'll check with the team leader and let you know" (later he did). When this little scene played out a third time, I finally said, "Why don't you just give me the name of the person doing the work, and from now on I'll speak directly to him or her." What I discovered was that senior executives often presided. They ­organized work, then waited to review it when it was done. You were a worker early in your career, but once you climbed to the top, your role was to preside over a process. Well, my kind of executives dig into the ­details, work the problems day to day, and lead by ­example, not title.
​

Is that true of UPS's Senior executives?

First, I mention IBM because I have many friends there. Not too long ago, it looked like they were going to be down for the count. Microsoft had eaten their lunch and hardware was no longer the cash cow.

They are a much different company today. Still huge, but much more entrepreneurial. Look at much of what they are doing now. I think they are leading again.

I was only pointing out that "maybe" Davis will be good for us too. So far, I like him (I met him many times, so that colors my opinion).

To your question. Yes.... I think UPS became a corporation and not in a good way. I am disappointed that we often cannot make a decision and seize an opportunity. We need to move faster. We need to be leaner. We need to be bolder. Management will need to adapt.

I heard a quote from a CEO of a dynamic company last year. He said that he has a 2 pizza rule. No meeting can take place where you cannot feed everyone with 2 pizzas. Keeps teams small and lean.

P-Man

 

[pretzel_man]

P-man,
No disrespect intended but, how about William R. Johnson....need any pickles delivered to you or, how about a nice relish!

Not sure why I should feel disrespected... I think I'm missing something.

 

[JustTired]

..... I mention IBM because...... They are a much different company today. Still huge, but much more entrepreneurial. Look at much of what they are doing now. I think they are leading again.

Is that because their IE dept. tightened the standards? Are the programmers forced to write more lines of code per hour? Has their personal restroom time been limited? Is every move in their cubicle being monitored (for safety reasons, of course)?
I doubt it. I'm guessing that there is a trust factor involved. One where you trust that your employee will do his/her best to give you an honest days work for their pay. Of course, there are exceptions. But when every employee is treated like an exception, they'll start acting like one.

To your question. Yes.... I think UPS became a corporation and not in a good way. I am disappointed that we often cannot make a decision and seize an opportunity. We need to move faster. We need to be leaner. We need to be bolder. Management will need to adapt.

P-Man

I agree. Taking the day to day operation of a center out of the hands of those hired to manage it is not a good thing. It comes down to trust and faith and that seems to be in short supply these days.

 

[Black_6_Leader]

First, I mention IBM because I have many friends there. Not too long ago, it looked like they were going to be down for the count. Microsoft had eaten their lunch and hardware was no longer the cash cow. . . .They are a much different company today. Still huge, but much more entrepreneurial.

I was only pointing out that "maybe" Davis will be good for us too. So far, I like him (I met him many times, so that colors my opinion).
P-Man

P-Man, I am very fortunate in that I do know Lou Gerstner, and have met with Scott (and both his predecessors) many times over the years. There is a wide gulf between between the behaviors of Lou and the UPS leadership.


Lou clearly understands the use of the "symbols" of leadership ~ something that in spite of the rich culture of UPS, I don't think Scott, Mike or Jim could quite grasp. In fact, I would say that their collective styles were conservator-ship rather then leadership.


Just today, an e-mail from the McKinsey & Company floated into my in-box entitled "Leaders in the crisis: McKinsey Global Survey Results"

"Even executives who are taking more time to motivate their people aren’t always taking the steps that, in our experience, are most effective. They most often motivate by talking about their companies’ values or direction and their financial performance; far fewer express interest in their employees’ lives outside of work or otherwise try to make individual connections with employees. A focus on the big picture, we have seen, can be insufficient for motivating middle managers and others when they are grappling with new responsibilities and downsizing programs in an atmosphere of great uncertainty."​

​

This sounds like it is right from the text book for "Industrial Psychology 101". And all the while, the UPS communications process drones on about being "stop proof". They just don't get it.

What existed of the report back in 2009 did nothing but instill fear ("Everything is on the table" was the quote that sticks in my mind). When you demonstrate that you are looking out for your people's best interests; when you as a leader demonstrate a genuine interest in your people's wellbeing; when you demonstrate the concept of "shared sacrifice" then and only then, will your people explicitly trust you, and give their all for you. ​

Go back 12 years to the August of 1997 . . .Do you think the front line managers and supervisors would "go the the mat" for the senior management the way the did, if the conditions then were as they are today?? I have asked myself that question many times; and I tremble in fear at the answer. ​

UPS's most senior corporate managers just don't quite grasp the concept that people are led (best by example), things and processes are managed.​

 

[pretzel_man]

I'm not sure how to respond.....

I also met Gerstner. Just once, and a while ago. I met Davis and most of the management committee also.

This started because of the belief that since Davis wasn't a driver, he couldn't be a good CEO. I used Gerstner as an example that one doesn't need to grow up in a company to positively influence it.

Is Davis as good as Gerstner? I doubt it. On the other hand, he is a fine man and from my perspective a good leader.

You mention the report back. I heard that line. It was Alan Hill I believe. As I recall, before saying "everything is on the table", he also said he doesn't expect layoffs in management or pension changes. I heard it as "if things don't go as planned, then everything is on the table."

To your 12 year question... I do NOT believe management would be as gung ho today as then. However, its for a different reason than you have.

Management today have not seen the growth in the company in the last 12 years. No growth in opportunity. No growth in stock. 12 years ago, we felt ownership in this organization and what hurt the organization hurt us personally.

The lack of growth is what is missing. That is the cause of lack of ownership and allegiance to the organization, not the current leaders. Oz Nelson was not the strongest leader in the world, and he was there leading up to 1997.

The management committe is doing what they think is needed to help the stock grow. This is exactly what I believe is the cause of our dilemma.

We need our volume back. We need to grow. This will make the hard work worthwhile. This is how we felt before.

P-Man

P-Man, I am very fortunate in that I do know Lou Gerstner, and have met with Scott (and both his predecessors) many times over the years. There is a wide gulf between between the behaviors of Lou and the UPS leadership.


Lou clearly understands the use of the "symbols" of leadership ~ something that in spite of the rich culture of UPS, I don't think Scott, Mike or Jim could quite grasp. In fact, I would say that their collective styles were conservator-ship rather then leadership.


Just today, an e-mail from the McKinsey & Company floated into my in-box entitled "Leaders in the crisis: McKinsey Global Survey Results"

"Even executives who are taking more time to motivate their people aren’t always taking the steps that, in our experience, are most effective. They most often motivate by talking about their companies’ values or direction and their financial performance; far fewer express interest in their employees’ lives outside of work or otherwise try to make individual connections with employees. A focus on the big picture, we have seen, can be insufficient for motivating middle managers and others when they are grappling with new responsibilities and downsizing programs in an atmosphere of great uncertainty."​

​

This sounds like it is right from the text book for "Industrial Psychology 101". And all the while, the UPS communications process drones on about being "stop proof". They just don't get it.

What existed of the report back in 2009 did nothing but instill fear ("Everything is on the table" was the quote that sticks in my mind). When you demonstrate that you are looking out for your people's best interests; when you as a leader demonstrate a genuine interest in your people's wellbeing; when you demonstrate the concept of "shared sacrifice" then and only then, will your people explicitly trust you, and give their all for you. ​

Go back 12 years to the August of 1997 . . .Do you think the front line managers and supervisors would "go the the mat" for the senior management the way the did, if the conditions then were as they are today?? I have asked myself that question many times; and I tremble in fear at the answer. ​

UPS's most senior corporate managers just don't quite grasp the concept that people are led (best by example), things and processes are managed.​

 

[Steinman868]

For those that have ever been recipients of the MIP (Management Incentive Plan), on the day you received your first award, you were handed a certificate of some type with the following stetement on it:

To correctly describe a United Parcel Service Partner, the calendar of time would have to be reversed to completely capture what was in the hearts and minds of our Company's founder and early pioneers.

A UPS partner feels this spirit, yet finds difficulty to fit the words to properly convey and perpetuate the dreams and ideals of "Men of High Motives and Honest Hearts.

This, therefor is a modest attempt to remind our Partners of some of those qualities that must be acquired, maintained and preserved by each and every Partner.

I do not work for anyone in our Company. I work with my Partners and with everyone else in United Parcel Service. We are not merely co-workers in our Company, but we are friends working toward a common goal.

I work for the success of the entire Company rather than for my own personal gain or advantage. I give the benefit of my knowledge and experience to each of my Partners. I want to help them as I know they will help me.

To me, "Service Comes First" I am dedicated to serving others, -- All of our People--All of our Customers --All of our Business Contacts --and All of the People in the Community. I perform this act of Service with sincerity and honest purpose.

The financial stability and the future profitable success of our Company are assured when my dedication to Service is performed with the thought of "giving" rather then "receiving.

I believe in the policies of United Parcel Service. I know what they are; I know what they mean; I adhere to them and administer them to the best of my ability.

Being a partner means "Sharing in All Things". I share in the elation of our successes and I share grave concern when we fail.

Being a Partner is a way of life. When I was chosen to become a Partner, I know my future was ordained. There is no other path for me.

I must continually earn my right to this Partnership. My continuance as a Partner is annually re-affirmed after my efforts and my contribution as a Partner have been evaluated. If my Partnership status status is renewed, I know this has happened through the effort and results obtained in the performance of my specific responsibilities and in my overall performance as a Partner.

I must continually strive for better personal performance. As I grow in my job I know that the opportunities for new partners are occurring. Just as I was at one time a perspective Partner, I must go forward and lead and assist our newer Partners in assuming their role of a true Partner.

I have a voice in determining the future course of our Company. The management climate in our company is such that I can and should speak out on matters that pertain to our common welfare. I know that I will be heard; I know that my comments will be heard with respect.

Throughout the years of this partnership I look with confidence toward my own personal well-being. I know that as the Company grows and prospers the financial future of my family and my loved ones is assured.

I pledge, now and for the future, to always be worthy of the trust and confidence of my fellow Partners.

These and other qualities of a Partner are my guide for now and for the future. My adherence to these guide lines can well be my legacy for the newer Partners to come.

So here we are on theis founders day, 102 years after Jim Casey and "a few messenger boys" began the business known as UPS today. Anyone wish to assess the status of that "partnership" today??