stunted growth.

I once had a manager do a version of this same thing to me.  When I was 18, I worked for a popular retail company, Forever 21.  I had worked there for about eight months as a Sales Associate when a Head Cashier position became available.  I wanted this position so badly!  I approached Stephanie, my Store Manager, and told her that I felt qualified for the position because I had worked there a long time (turnover was pretty high there, so eight months was pretty good), I had two years of cashier experience (Forever 21 + my first job), I was reliable (I never missed one day of work) and my cash drawer had never been off a significant amount (over $1 was considered significant).  She agreed but wanted me to do a “trial run” where I would work in the capacity of Head Cashier for 30 days.  This is where I started to get excited because it sounded promising.  I knew I could really show her what I could do in those 30 days.  But Stephanie then went on to say that this would be in addition to my usual duties as a Sales Associate.  Talk about setting someone up for failure.  How was I supposed to perform two jobs at once?  How was she supposed to see how I would perform as a Head Cashier if I was also being seen as a Sales Associate?

Even though this proposal seemed a little unfair and not standard procedure, I still really wanted the position.  I accepted her offer and started my 30 day trial period.  And as anyone would expect, it was a little difficult managing two workloads.  All of my Sales Associate duties took precedence, because that’s what I was getting paid to do.  Also, with my store being very large and always busy, it was difficult for me to find time away from the registers and my growing pile of clothes that needed to be put back on the racks, and find time to impress Stephanie with my Head Cashier skills.  I would bust my butt to only scrounge up maybe two hours of time to work as Head Cashier.  I was not given any guidance other than Stephanie occasionally walking by and saying things like, “Rachel, why don’t you organize this jewelry display?  You have to really go above and beyond to show me you can do this position.”  All while I'm busily ringing customers up.  My coworkers were also never informed of my trial period.  No one ever acknowledged that I was supposed to be acting as Head Cashier.  At the end of my trial period I was told that I wasn’t a good fit, to try again next time and to be grateful for the experience.  (Two weeks later Stephanie hired one of her friends for the position).

 This is a good example of a leader who does not value the growth of their employees.  I confided in Stephanie and expressed an interest in progressing with the company.  What I was hoping for in return was her guidance in developing my skills.  But I learned that she had a different agenda, which was to use her Store Manager title to benefit herself.  Great leaders know that investing time, money and effort in the development of their employees is beneficial.  Leaders should help their employees achieve goals they have set for themselves (either personal or company related), because when they achieve these goals and grow, it creates a winning mindset.  And all companies want to have employees with winning mindsets.  My goal at that time in my life was to move to a position with more responsibility.  I had been working for two years and had graduated from high school, so I knew I was ready for the next step.  Soon after this incident I moved on to a job that was a better fit for me and I stayed there for 3 1/2 years.  If Stephanie would have invested time in her employees that could have been her 3 1/2 years.

where do your values go?

It's amazing to me how many leaders seem to have lost all their values during their journey to the top.  Or did these leaders ever have any values to begin with?  It seems to me that in more traditional, conservative organizations the leader with no values always makes it to the top more easily than others.  Other leaders feel drawn to these people because they "command respect" and "get things accomplished", even if they hurt others along the way.  Now I'm not talking about a company's values.  I'm talking about basic human values.  Values that every person should know and follow.  Like the ones that you learn in elementary school, such as the Golden Rule of treating others how you would like to be treated, or honesty is the best policy.

This past week I learned how badly senior management at the company I work for treats our hard working and dedicated mail manager.  I couldn't believe it when I heard that he was actually screamed at for delivering a wet Wall Street Journal.  Although, in their defense, Respect is not one of the company's cultural values.  After learning that this kind of stuff goes on at my company I began to wonder how these leaders became who they are today.  What events in their life shaped their values?  Are things like large salaries, giant offices, separate elevators and company cars tools to change a person over time?  Or do they just expose a person's true colors?  And more importantly, why do companies foster leaders with no values?

I do no have an answer for these questions (right now at least) but I do have one leadership lesson.  You do not have to change who you are to be a successful leader.  Someone who keeps their same values from entry-level all the way up to leadership will actually be more successful than someone who's values change.  Followers trust leaders when they know who the leader truly is and know that they will always be that person.  Followers no not necessarily like leadership surprises.  What if one day Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, decided he wanted a giant office on a separate floor from his employees?

you can't handle the truth.

I think a big flaw with a lot of HR practices is that they are performed too late.  For example, exit interviews. Employees are only asked for feedback after they have already decided to leave the company.  What good does that do the company?  Because they have already lost the good employee.  I worked somewhere for 3 1/2 years and was only asked for my opinion once at my exit interview.  And ironically, I was leaving because of bad management.  But of course I didn't note that in my exit interview.  It wouldn't have improved the time I spent there anyways.  It's just like instructor evaluations.  Why evaluate an instructor at the end of a course?  It doesn't improve my learning experience in any way because I'm already finished with the course.  I know that sounds selfish, but I give my most honest and thoughtful opinions when I have something to gain from it.  When I don't have anything to gain from it, I don't really put much thought into it.

I have learned that the best leaders are continuously seeking feedback from their followers and want to constantly improve their performance.  Leaders first have to want feedback.  They have to prepare to hear things that they might not want to hear.  But good leaders will look at it as a learning experience and as an opportunity to improve.  Leaders also have to create an environment where employees feel safe enough to give their honest feedback.  If employees do not feel safe, the only feedback given about a leader will be about how great of a job they are doing.  Which will just continue a cycle of bad leadership.  Lastly, leaders have to commit to making improvements after receiving feedback.  The worst feeling for an employee, student, etc. is when you put a lot of time and thought into your feedback, and nothing changes.  I can't tell you how many times I've had high hopes for professors to make improvements to their course, just to hear the next semester from a friend that it is the same.  Can they not handle the truth?  Or maybe I just give bad feedback.

one day former interns will lead the world...

It's funny how interns never have names.  It's always, "have the intern do it" or "I talked to the intern".  Or my favorite, "you're just an intern".  That's how it was when I was an intern.  A lot of the time I felt like I had INTERN written in permanent marker across my forehead and all I wanted to do was cover it up.  Once people learned that I was an intern everything I said became questionable.  But when I was actually able to cover my forehead, for example, when I was on the phone, was when I performed at my best.  Not having that label made me feel much more confident in my abilities than when I had the label.  People took me more seriously.  I was respected and people listened to what I had to say because I knew the answer, not because of my title.

I think working with interns is where a lot of managers could improve on their leadership skills.  There is a constant display of power by managers.  I think that's why most get a kick out of assigning crappy jobs to interns and leaving them nameless.  Leaders always want to prove how much more knowledgeable they are than their interns.  To be more effective leaders should listen more and be open to the fact that they might not know everything, and that they can actually learn from their interns, just as their interns are learning from them.  The best leaders are willing to listen and learn.  Leaders should also work to transform internships.  There seems to be this unwritten rule that nameless interns have to be initiated by endless amounts of filing, copying and coffee fetching.  And my impression is that a lot of managers enjoy this because it's just how they were initiated at some point in their lives.  But a good leader will look to transform an internship into something more than meaningless work.  Yes, those kinds of tasks will always be there for a business to complete, but leaders need to look beyond the restriction of that's all interns are here to do. 

Now of course my internship experience wasn't as bad as I made it sound.  I actually enjoyed the experience very much and am very appreciative of everything I learned there.  But there were plenty of times when I didn't have a name when I wished I did.  I do wonder though how long this intern cycle of abuse has been going on. Were there nameless interns in the 50's?  80's?