What’s UP (Weekly, Hot, Applicable Topic Summary - Unbiased Perspective) June 28, 2009

The Changing of the Guard – Part I



An “interesting” dynamic is taking place across the corporate landscape that is worth monitoring by existing and aspiring organization leaders. The primary goal of every business is to generate revenue and make a profit. The role of management within the organization is to get work done through others who have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be successful. Yet, the behaviors, attitudes, and practices in Corporate America around talent management (employee selection, development, promotion, and termination/downsizing) defy logic in meeting and exceeding the corporate mission.

This week’s blog is Part I of a three-part series on workplace diversity, aging, and the corporate workforce. Recent reports by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and studies by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) have pointed to a significant increase in age discrimination. Elimination of “older” employees (and programs) in the workplace, regardless of their level of competence and knowledge have become commonplace. The current techniques towards workplace age diversity appear to be a “zero sum”, “no middle ground” approach. The following examples come from experiences witnessed, observed, or conducted by leaders at different organization levels in the public radio industry. These examples can readily be seen in other industries, and will be addressed in parts two and three of this series.

Attempts of Catering to Age Demographics

During the 1st quarter of 2009, three highly recognized radio stations in the Chicago, IL area (1 AM station, 2 FM stations) discontinued popular radio programs. In all three cases, the organization’s leadership contended the objective of eliminating these “older” programs was to cater to a changing, demographical listener audience. While the reasoning for re-programming is somewhat viable, the method used leaves room for concern. The three radio programs were totally eliminated. There was no attempt to find an alternative time slot in order to maintain the existing customer base while catering to a new customer base.

At the AM radio station, there was a long-standing, mid-morning talk show. I do not have access to any organizational or marketing strategy for this discussion, however, the 18-35 year olds that I have discussed this with (I am a college professor, and I talk with hundreds of 18-35 year olds on a regular basis) first, do not listen to AM, and second, have no inclination to start listening to mid-morning AM radio, whatever the programming is. It would be interesting to see what the radio station leadership has projected for financial success based on this re-programming decision.

In the case of one FM radio station morning show, the objective was also to gear the programming to a younger listening audience. This audience is part of what we call the “hip hop” culture. However, given the technological advancements in our society, the “hip hop” generation typically invests its time, effort, and money in downloading music, MP3’s, IPOD’s, etc. instead of listening to radio stations. There is potential for music radio to take the slow road to obsolescence like the newspaper industry is experiencing. With so many means of access to information and entertainment through technology, it is the “older” generation which will continue to utilize the traditional media. An opportunity to retain the older listening audience may be missed.

In the case of the other FM station, a totally jazz format was replaced by an all-Hispanic format – the whole station was replaced. I applaud this station for embracing cultural diversity and catering to a rapidly growing Hispanic audience. However, it is difficult to understand why there was no means for catering to both listening audiences. Could there be favorable time slots to realize opportunities in both markets? Has this leadership decision opened the door for other radio stations to move into a niche and thereby reduce the profit-making objectives of the station that switched formats?


The Call for Change

The elimination of these radio programs is only one side of the issue. From the organization’s viewpoint, there are probable, possible financial implications which lead to the decisions. Increased employee salaries, decreased advertising and sponsorship dollars influences decisions in the radio industry. The leaderships’ analysis in each case identified the need for a change in direction.

The verdict is still out on how the leadership decisions by these radio stations will result in increased profitability. It has only been 90 days. However, it would be interesting to know the age range of the leaders who made these decisions. It would also be interesting to know if these leaders are truly part of the listening audience of their new radio programming. Finally, it would be interesting to know what feedback the radio stations have received from their listening audience and other stakeholders since the changes have been made.

“To Be Continued”

There is a significant impact on corporate stakeholders and society based on how corporations manage workplace diversity. The leadership approach taken by the radio industry can also be observed in other highly profitable industries. The next bi-monthly entry (Part II – Changing of the Guard) will address the effect of age diversity in the workplace on issues such as: team productivity; team effectiveness; employee morale; and the critical knowledge management/knowledge transfer process.
More information on corporate leadership can be found in Corporate Leadership Selection: Impact on American Business, Employees, and Society (Authorhouse Publishing). Feedback to the bi-monthly blog entry is always welcome.

What’s UP (Weekly, Hot, Applicable Topic Summary - Unbiased Perspective)

Corporate CEO Selection and the U.S. Government Impact


During the past year, there has been significant focus on CEO selection and replacement, particularly in flailing companies who have asked for financial “stimulus” from the federal government. While public sentiment for replacing the leadership in an underperforming company is viable, additional thought must be given about who is chosen to lead the company. The criteria for CEO leadership of today’s corporation are pervasive.

Prior leadership experience, business savvy and financial knowledge are solid requirements for corporate leaders to have. However, integrity, sound corporate citizenship, and leadership development are traits that have forged to the forefront in today’s business environment. There is a shortage of leaders who fulfill all of the basic expectations that employees, vendors, shareholders, and customers look for in corporate leadership.

The CEO and Corporate Board Member Roles

The CEO role in U.S. corporations is unique. The CEO does not report to one individual – but to a group of individuals – the corporate board of directors. CEO dismissal and selection goes beyond impacting the company’s internal stakeholders. The CEO sphere of influence affects a firm’s shareholders, suppliers, and customers as well. Research has shown that behaviors and attitudes at the top levels of our corporations also impact our society. For example, a merger or acquisition may result in a positive outcome on the profitability, size, and growth potential of a company. However, that same merger/acquisition may also result in a negative outcome on job employment statistics (you don’t need two employees to do the same job in a merged company). Another example is unethical or illegal activity that results in devaluation of the corporate stock price. In some of these cases, honest hard-working citizens lose their life savings. As a result, a lot of thought, research, and analysis should be done in identifying and selecting a CEO.

The corporate board of directors is accountable for selecting the CEO, and monitoring corporate operations to protect shareholder investment. Government assistance (or intervention depending on your personal viewpoint) into the corporate CEO selection process introduces a new paradigm in corporate operations. Who develops the corporate strategy? What if the corporate board and federal government leadership disagree on how the company is being run? Is there now a federal government official placed on the corporate board of directors? Does the corporate board still have the responsibility and discretion to release the CEO when the company underperforms? Are the existing C-level executives also replaced, or are they retained? How is the CEO salary determined? Will consumers purchase products and services from a company that is perceived to be run by the federal government? Conversely, will consumers purposely purchase products and services from a competing company that is not run by the federal government? Finally, if any of these acts pose a threat to shareholders’ investments, is it still in the purview of the corporate board to act, or is it the federal government?

The Impact of Corporate Leadership Selection

There is a shortage of sound, experienced corporate leadership. Corporate boards make leadership development a CEO requirement. Along with guiding a company under the “normal” scrutiny of corporate stakeholders, the CEO must now also consider the ramifications of changing the course of an underperforming company under the watchful eye of government officials (considering they received “stimulus” funding). Hopefully, the development of C-level executives and potential future CEOs will continue as a critical function. Development and training for CEO candidates cannot successfully be conducted by someone who has not been in the position of CEO. Real-life application of theory and processes for leading a company must come from those who have lived the experience. Without a comprehensive leadership development initiative; the corporation will find itself with the same operational issues for the foreseeable future.

The consequences of selecting the wrong leader(s) are expensive. It will cost the company in terms of employee productivity, effectiveness, consumer confidence, perhaps even corporate survival. Measuring the success or failure of a new leader may take time. Installing a federal government-appointed leader will be closely watched considering recent events in the relationship between Corporate America and U.S. Government federal agencies. On the one hand, this action may result in public corporations operating in the same manner as some of our government agencies. On the other hand, this action may result in publicly communicating and addressing corporate practices/behaviors that are considered harmful.

Every major U.S. Corporation has in place an Office of Ethics or a Compliance Office. These departments do not manufacture products; they do not generate revenue; they are cost centers. They communicate corporate values and desired ethical behavior. But they also address corporate wrongdoing and mitigate the damage from lawsuits against the corporation as a result of corporate wrongdoing. The statistics on corporate wrongdoing are obviously not made public by the corporation. Maybe having a federal government-appointed leader will shed light on corporate practices and behaviors that were not meant to be publicized.


More information on corporate leadership can be found in Corporate Leadership Selection: Impact on American Business, Employees, and Society (Authorhouse Publishing). Feedback to the weekly blog entry is always welcome.