The departmental grievance man came into the office demanding pay for an employee who felt that he had been overlooked for an overtime shift.  After explaining the company’s stance, he was still in disagreement.  He asked to speak to Mr. Conley.  After a brief discussion with him, Mr. Conley asked me to come into his office so that we could talk.  He asked me that if this went to an official grievance complaint could we win.  I assured him that we would.

He, then, told me that I want you to go ahead and pay the complainant but tell the grievance man the following, “We are going to pay this even though we know that we are right.  This is not setting precedence, but we don’t have time to argue this in the main offices at this time.”  He could tell that I was a little puzzled by this action.  So, he said after he leaves come back and see me.  After passing this information to the grievance man, I went back into Mr. Conley’s office.  He said the reason I did this is because the election of the department grievance man is next week.  Even though, our present grievance man can be troublesome at times, he will cause us less problems than the man who is running against him.  So, I wanted him to win one close to the election. 

Chad-ley # 4 was created – It’s OK to lose when you end up winning.  Some may read this and say this was simply an act of manipulation.  But, I disagree as manipulation occurs when one acts for his/her own benefit.  This decision was based on someone who was dedicated toward providing the best working conditions for the department not for just one grievance man or a single complainant.  Others may say that this is the same as being careful to pick your own battles.  However, this action was not one of trying to prevent something negative from happening but proactively creating a workplace that is more beneficial for accomplishing the goals that has been established.  This act/lesson of visionary strategic dedication has followed me throughout my working career.  There have been many occasions when I was ready to make a decision on some issue that seemed minor in nature but would stop to think about the long-term effect it could have on the workplace and its goals.  I didn’t always change my solution but always viewed it with a long-term effect.

So far, we have discussed that as a leader one must be trustworthy, honest, fair and just.  Now, we add visionary dedication to the list of traits necessary to keep from losing your followers.  Next, we will talk about “Being a Know-It-All.”

While standing in the garage of the funeral home outside of the public’s eye, we were waiting to load the casket into the hearse and the flowers into the van.  The majority owner of the funeral home looked at this young 19-year-old college student and said in his normal gruff voice, “Get your g@* d@%* hands out of your pocket.  People will think you are playing with yourself.”  Embarrassed by this outburst, I removed my hands without saying a word, even though I would have liked to really unload on this ogre of a boss. 

However, as they say, what goes around comes around, I didn’t have to wait long for some atonement.  Within sixty seconds, I heard Mr. Chadwick utter the following, “Bob, get your g@* d@%* hands out of your pocket.  People will think you are playing with yourself.”  Wow, the minority owner was taking up for a bottom-rung employee to the majority owner.   Well, Bob got red in the face and stormed off.  Thus, the conception of leadership’s Chad-ley #3, “Get Your Hands Out of Your Pockets” – the principle of “justice” for all.

Many American workplaces suffer from the practice of inequitable administration of policies.  There are various causes of this destructive practice.  One, of course, was what we mentioned in an earlier article – placement due to politics and favors.  I was working with an owner of a small beauty salon who was struggling to keep the doors open during the down-turn of the economy.  One day while spending some time with her at her business, I could tell at the very beginning of our visit that she was really frustrated.  She opened up and told me that she just discovered that her most senior employee was making appointments after business hours so that she wouldn’t have to give the owner a cut of the charges.  This owner said, “Not only is she my most senior and best employee, but she was a real, good friend before I ever opened my business.  Now, I don’t know what to do.”  I asked her what would her other employees think if she didn’t hand out some kind of discipline and how would it affect morale in the salon.  We discussed it a little longer.  She decided to give her a 30-day suspension since she believed that she had done this violation approximately 15-20 times.  I agreed that this discipline was more than fair for all parties involved.  Needless to say, the stylist quit and morale remained high for the remaining employees.

Take the above example and compare it to the workplace where favoritism is given to certain employees.  As an employee many years ago of a workplace where this occurred, I could give you example after example of these ill-advised actions.  It resulted in division of departmental employees, low morale and lack of trust and respect for supervision.  No matter what supervision ever said or did, the majority of employees never believed them nor wanted to give more than their 100%. 

When those in leadership deal with others whether in handing out responsibilities, promotional opportunities, discipline, or whatever, fair and just considerations/actions must be in the forefront of all decisions.  If not, as previously mentioned, trust is violated and leadership is lost among the followers.  Remember, when you are ready to tell someone else to take his hands out of his pockets, check to see where your hands are.

“You have one month to increase production, or I am going to shut you down!”  After about a 15-20 minute discussion, the 20 Slitter Shear crew of four men received this bottom line statement from Mr. Conley.  How serious would these men take this warning?  Was this just another motivational tactic by supervision that they and other departmental employees had heard before?  Would he really shut the operation down when their production was good enough to receive bonus dollars each week on their paychecks?  Hadn’t 29 Slitter Shear crew called the company’s bluff under the previous superintendent?  Everyone would know the answer in just four weeks. 

One month later, the following week’s schedule was posted on the usual Thursday of the previous week. Would 20 Slitter Shear be scheduled their usual Monday – Friday day shift work week?  Every worker in this 135 employee department would look at the schedule not only for their schedule but to see if the company backed down from their threat.  It didn’t take long for the employees to understand that they were working for a superintendent who “didn’t speak unless he was ready to act.” 

The 20 Slitter Shear crew came in unity to the office to ask if there weren’t any orders for their operation.  Mr. Conley heard them and came out to address them.  He said that he had given them four weeks to increase production, but they did not do it.  Therefore, maintenance would begin dismantling their operation so that he could sell it off in pieces.  His last words to these startled men were, “Gentlemen, I don’t play games.  I gave you the opportunity to keep this operation, but you didn’t arise to the charge.  Your seniority will allow you to work other department jobs.”  The most senior employee chose to retire.  The three younger crew members who had to settle for other jobs in the department second guessed their decision to follow the Slitterman’s lead over and over again.

The first principle for retaining a leader’s role was to build trust.  This example teaches us the way you keep that trust.  It is simply, “Be open and  honest.”  Be honest regardless of whether it is popular or not.  Be honest when the organization is facing an uncertain future.  Be honest when no one else is.  Just, “Be honest.”

With this particular company, the union employees in their opinions had not experienced supervision that had been totally open and honest.  Too often, the company simply shut down operations without any warning.  Also, the union employees had received warning after warning but never any consequences for failing to heed to these caveats.  However, now this department’s employees knew they had someone who meant what he said, and someone who was going to be honest whether they liked his decisions or not.  They could trust him when he spoke. 

The Bible states that one can sin in word, deed or thought.  This is probably true in the workplace when it comes to dishonesty. Some acts of dishonesty occur because supervisors fear legal action if they were open and spoke on certain subjects. For example, someone calls to ask about a job opening.  Supervision gives all the details of the job but not the fact that they already know who they are going to hire. Three persons are interviewed, two not knowing they never had a chance.  Is it just OK to excuse this because one feels he/she is forced into this type of dishonesty due to the law? 

Dishonesty in deed occurs often in the workplace when a person is placed in a position as a favor or because the person performed miserably in another job within the company.  Do organizations really believe that the employees are so naïve to believe in these actions?  I know of a school district that would change job descriptions so that only a certain person could meet it.  When speaking with a new board member, I told this person that when Human Resources bring a job description change to the Board that some hard questions should be asked.  The reason for this was because most of the time they have been pressured to change it to meet the already “chosen one” for that position.  After about a year on the Board, a Senior Director who supervised 5 or 6 schools was going to retire.  This position paid over $100,000.  Sure enough, Human Resources brought a job description change to the Board concerning this position.  The Board member asked the hard questions and subsequently convinced the rest of the Board that there was no need for the changes in the job description.  The result – the position was merged with another position (rightfully so) and the taxpayers were rewarded by the elimination of a position that wasn’t necessary.

The first two traits that we have addressed for maintaining the leadership role are not optional.  If both do not exist, the rest of a leader’s words, actions and thoughts are useless.  Nothing else he or she does will cause others to follow his or her lead.

                This article and the next five are going to be some of my experiences that I have taken from two of the best supervisors anyone could ever hope to work for.  One was a very humble and kind gentleman who was a Funeral Director.  I worked my way through my first two years of college at the funeral home.  His last name was Chadwick.  I will share two principles of leadership that I learned from him.  The other supervisor was at a steel mill whose last name was Conley. He was a former football player at a mid-level Division I university.  I will share four leadership lessons in which I experienced under his supervision. 

                Why did I even mention these gentlemen’s last names?  Because, I call the lessons that I am going to share “My Six Chad-leys”.  I cannot begin to tell you how these experiences have helped me throughout my careers, especially in the area of leadership.  This is enough for an introduction.  Let’s get to the first “Chad-ley”.

CHAD-LEY #1 – Help Them Into The Bus, Not Under It

                The steel mill where I worked had some very stern rules.  Basically, this was due to safety reasons, but the experience I am about to share probably came about to a company and union agreement.  Since there were many continuous 24-hour operations, it was impossible to give the workers a lunch break of 30 minutes or longer.  So, the company and union agreed that for all employees would get a 20 minute paid lunch break.  In other words, for the maintenance departments and all other ones who could stop working for lunch, they would do so but would not take any longer than the allotted 20 minutes.  Thus, this meant that they were only working 7 hours and 40 minutes but receiving 8 hours of pay.  The workers on the continuous operations would eat at their stations.  With just 20 minutes for lunch, the worker had to basically bring a boxed lunch, or maybe he/she would have time to heat up some soup.  BUT, there was no time for cooking. 

                Plant Protection Department (the steel mill police) caught wind of the Steam Power Department cooking large meals.  They also heard that they had radios and televisions which were also forbidden.  So, they performed a surprise check of this department’s lockers.  It was said that it took a couple of vehicles to haul out all of the items not allowed at the workplace.  So, Plant Protection decided they were so successful with their surprise “raid” as it had been called by Steam Power that they would perform other departmental checks.  They would notify the department superintendents of when they would be performing these surprise checks or “raids”.  Needless to say, they continued to find forbidden items in worker’s lockers.

                They contacted Mr. Conley and let him know the date that they would conduct the check in our department.  He contacted the shift foreman about three nights before the check and told the foremen to let it slip that Plant Protection was going to perform a check sometime in the next couple of days or so.  And, they would also repeat the check within a couple of months or so without notifying the department superintendent (I am not sure if this subsequent search happened OR if it was ever going to happen). Of course, the workers either took their illegal goods home or hid them somewhere other than the lockers.  When Plant Protection performed the check, they were shocked that they did not find anything.  Our department got a great write-up and review by the “steel mill police.”

                Now, you know why I titled the first “Chad-ley” what I did.  While not throwing his employees under the bus, Mr. Conley also attained a glowing report of his department when it came to its’ employees going by the rule book.  You may ask, but didn’t he go against company rules by tipping the men off.  And, this is where the leadership question comes in – Was the company’s goal to catch workers doing something wrong or was it to have a cook-free environment?  While working as a Senior Coordinator for a school district, I had to visit struggling schools, sometimes with the state’s Department of Education field representatives.  When I would visit the schools, I always called first to let them know that I or the state representative and myself were coming for a visit.  Some in the district office would ask me why call them first if you want to really see if they are doing what they are suppose to be doing.  The previous experience taught me that I didn’t want to catch them doing something they weren’t supposed to, but it was to get them to do what they should be doing.  If these schools would do the right thing on these days, hopefully they would see the benefit and make it a part of their daily work.

                This first “Chad-ley” instills the foundation of all leadership principles.  It is T-R-U-S-T.  If trust doesn’t exist between supervision and employees, your organization is in deep trouble.  Trust in a working relationship is no different than those in any other relationship type.  Once it is broken, it is very difficult to get it back.  It, too, like any other mistrust experiences takes time and small steps to re-earn the trust.  And, as a supervisor or employee, the organization may not have the time for this to happen.   The one thing, the employees learned was that their department superintendent would take the initiative to build trust by helping them into the bus, not under it. 

                Now, this is not to say that Mr. Conley was a doormat for the workers to tread on.  The next “Chad-ley” will give a leadership example of where he took a strong stand against departmental employees.  Its principle will be discovered as the one principle that helps leaders keep the trust they have already earned.

1. The action did not align with the department’s core values.
2. The action may have been initiated by emotion.
3. The action will result in divisive factions regardless of who is selected for the position.
4. No matter the claim of the “open-door policy”, those who were afraid not to sign the petition will probably never enter that door.
5. The reasons given for the approval of the petition are weak at its best and pathetic for the most part.

What should be done?  Regardless of who is selected for the Chief’s postion, there must be an open and honest meeting with all staff members.  The actions of the new Chief must align completely with the mission and core value of the department.   There should be no place in the workplace for the “good ole boy/girl”  system.  Those who inititated the petition must be dealt with quickly and in a stern manner.   They have caused dissension needlessly.  The purpose of their existence is to serve others, not themselves.

The Loar Group, Inc.

WINTER HAVEN | A letter supporting Capt… as the next police chief has caused division among sworn officers and civilian employees at the Winter Haven Police Department.

A police department employee, who did not want to be identified, said the letter is being “passed around” and officers fear if they don’t sign it, there will be retribution – but that if they do sign it, it appears they support her when they don’t, the employee said.

“It’s putting a lot of employees in a very difficult situation,” the employee said.

The employee…has created an atmosphere of fear among employees by using ranking members of the Police Department to push the petition on them.

… are in charge of the letter. Both are in supervisory positions and …the highest-ranking civilian in the department.

“I’m honored that members of our Police Department came forward and wanted to show support for me,”…”If anyone has concerns, we have an open-door policy at the agency.”

The letter of support allows the agency’s employees the opportunity to show quick support for…instead of through independent letters, Waters said.

“In addition, I allow employees to sign birthday cards and condolence cards on duty in order to support their comrades as well,” he said.

…who has worked 24 years for the police department, was ranked fifth among five candidates by an advisory committee that reviewed applicants

By Merissa Green
The Ledger

As hurricane season approached, my wife suggested that we needed to get a couple of big oak trees trimmed in the back yard.  We called a tree trimming company, and the owners came out the next day.  After bickering with them for a few minutes, we agreed to the price, which we thought was a good deal for both parties.

They began work a couple of days later.  The owner of the tree-trimming company began to pressure us to let him trim the two big oak trees in the front yard.  He kept saying that the trees had character, and he could make them look beautiful.  Now, I am not sure that I had ever heard anyone speak so fondly of some old oak trees.  I always thought they were good for either providing shade or firewood for the chimney. 

The next thing I noticed he was going door-to-door in our neighborhood; one which has a “No Soliciting” sign at its entrance.  And, then, the nerve of this man – he was bringing different neighbors into our back yard to look at his work while we were relaxing in the swimming pool.  And, I heard him say over and over again, “I can make your tree look this good because your tree, also, has character.”  He ended up with work at four of our neighbor’s houses.  And, he still was pressuring us to let him do our front yard trees because he could make this neighborhood look great.  Now, I am thinking they are only trees.  So, to keep him from pressuring us, I began demanding  that he needed to trim these trees for  free because of all the work that he got from us contacting him.  Well, it worked – no, he didn’t trim them for free but he quit pressuring us.

Two weeks later in 100 degree heat, I decided to trim a few limbs from the trees in the front yard.  And, before you knew it, I was looking around at the neighbor’s trees, those he had trimmed to reveal their character.  I was beginning to see this character he spoke fondly of and his vision for our neighborhood.  I began to trim our trees in a manner that they would look like those he had trimmed.  By the time I was finished, I had a pile of limbs 3 feet wide, 4 feet high and 20 feet long.  I got carried away with his vision.  And, you know what – he was right – the neighborhood was looking different because of the trees that had character.

A leader’s vision is often not bought into by others immediately.  However, this failure of buy-in cannot stop the leader from remaining steadfast toward that vision.  He or she has to remain  excited about that vision becoming a reality regardless of the obstacles others create.  And, for the followers, regardless of total buy-in, the best way to test that vision is by performing tasks that will help the organization work toward the leader’s vision.  You don’t need to have immediate believability of the leader’s vision, but at least give it a try.  Trim the branches so that you can look upwards and see the sky and its limits.

As a guest presenter at an elementary school, which in the prior year made NCLB-AYP and received a Florida School Grade of an “A”, we were given the charge to bring a data-driven message in order to challenge the staff for the upcoming 2009-10 year.   The real mission we needed to get across to the staff was as you celebrate the accomplishments of the prior year you must continue to look at the same data to help drive your decisions for the new academic year.  Now, this isn’t any original, great idea or some type of rocket science!  Yet, we needed the staff to understand that data-driven decisions are more than just looking at a piece of paper detailing the percentages scored for NCLB-AYP and Florida School Grade.  So, we brought contrast between the above-mentioned student and one who was very, very successful.

In order for the repeating 3^rd Grade student to make a learning gain in Reading for School Grades, he would have to improve his development scale score (DSS) by a whopping 960 points.  He needed to increase his score by 512 DSS points to be counted as making growth in NCLB-AYP.  To be counted as proficient for NCLB-AYP and Florida School Grades, he would have to improve by 1026 DSS points.    As a comparison, we gave the staff another student who was in the 4^th grade and scored an achievement level 5 as a 3^rd grader.  This student could actually decrease 203 DSS points and still receive a leaning gain; decrease 700+ points and remain proficient; or,  slip backwards by 182 DSS points and still be counted as making growth for NCLB-AYP.  The contrast of the two students got their attention to say the least.

If you are a teacher sitting there, which one would you rather have in your class for the upcoming year?  I think if most were honest we already know the true answer.  But, fortunately for this repeating 3^rd grader, there was a teacher (Mrs. P.) who saw the potential and wanted the challenge.  Mrs. P knew that his success depended not only on great teaching, but also on showing care and concern for this student.  At a follow-up visit, she stopped me and even said that some other teachers were being cold towards her because of all the attention she was doting upon this one student.  “He is your favorite and you aren’t even trying to hide it,” they would add.  But, this criticism didn’t stop her.  And, when the scores became available, the student, administration, she, and even I could probably be heard in the next county 15 miles to the south of our location.  He did it!!!  He increased his prior year score by 1281 DSS points.

I followed up with Mrs. P through an email.  I congratulated her as a teacher and most importantly as a wonderful and caring person.  She replied, “Thanks, there is great power in building the right kind of relationships with a student!!!!! The killer thing is he also scored a 3 in Math.”

Many were English-language learners or young parents, or were being raised by single parents, and most were working full or part time to help make ends meet.

Jesse Register, the superintendent of the 76,000-student Metropolitan Nashville school district, says administrators realized they needed new and different systems in place to make sure more of those students graduated.

In 2008, Nashville’s graduation rate was 72.6 percent, and Register says that’s not high enough. (Graduation data from 2008 were the most recent available from the Tennessee Department of Education.)

One solution: nontraditional high schools.

The Academy at Old Cockrill and the Academy at Opry Mills are high schools that meet on modified schedules to help students who need more flexibility to complete their studies and earn their diplomas. The schools opened last fall and graduated their first group of students in December 2009. Another group graduated last month.

“What we’ve done is try to create flexible, alternative structures,” Register says. “They are very centered on those young people who have great family demands that prevent them from attending a regular school schedule.”

The principals actively recruit students for the schools; many of the students dropped out during senior year or the second semester of junior year and are between the ages of 17 and 21.

Classes are offered four hours a day, five days a week, and students can earn two academic credits every nine weeks if they attend morning and afternoon sessions at the schools.

“I have the best job in town,” says Elaine Fahrner, the principal of the Academy at Old Cockrill. “When you can create hopes and dreams for people, it doesn’t get any better than that.”

Fahrner says the school’s small size allows her to interact with students on an individual basis and help them work around job schedules and transportation issues, and use a combination of both classroom and Web-based coursework to graduate. She recruited many of the students herself, going to local high schools and spending time talking to newspapers and television stations about the new school.

“We add that personal touch. I know everybody’s name and their business,” Fahrner says.

Space for the Opry Mills location was donated by the Indianapolis-based Simon Youth Foundation, which has opened 25 such centers in 12 states in partnership with school districts.

The Simon Property Group Inc. owns the Opry Mills shopping mall, where the Opry Mills high school is located; having classes in the mall allows students to work and study in the same location.

“We need to really look at upper-elementary and middle schools and identify those characteristics that are very closely related to dropouts at the high school level,” Register says.

But, the superintendent adds, the difficult part is following through.

“Our weakness is in doing something about those issues—changing those problems so the indicators don’t become true,” he says. “How do we identify those younger students and flag them as high-risk, and then do something about it?”

By Dakarai I. Aarons

Source:  Education Week – Vol. 29, Issue 34, Pages 10-12

But when the results came back, some seemed too good to be true. Indeed, after an investigation by the Galena Park Independent School District, the principal, assistant principal and three teachers resigned May 24 in a scandal over test tampering.

The district said the educators had distributed a detailed study guide after stealing a look at the state science test by “…. The district invalidated students’ scores.

Of all the forms of academic cheating, none may be as startling as educators’ tampering with children’s standardized tests. But investigations in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, Virginia and elsewhere this year have pointed to cheating by educators. Experts say the phenomenon is increasing as the stakes over standardized testing ratchet higher.

Colorado passed a sweeping law last month making teachers’ tenure dependent on test results, and nearly a dozen other states have introduced plans to evaluate teachers partly on scores.

By TRIP GABRIEL
The New York Times

Published: Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 9:42 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 9:42 p.m.

This story appeared in print on page A3