Central Michigan University

Leadership Standards Initiative:

From Concept to Implementation

Michigan CUPA-HR

October 26, 2017

Harley Blake, Manager/Professional Development Programs

Lori Hella, Associate Vice President/Human Resources

Kevin Smart, Director/Employee Relations

The CMU Leadership Standards Initiative

Why?

◦ The background – how it all began

How?

◦ Timeline and major steps

Present

◦ Where we are now

Insights

◦ 4 keys for successful implementation

Q&A

The “Why” One … Plus One … Plus 40…

Eureka! Moment ◦ No common model

◦ Prior experience doesn’t always fit

◦ Ineffective, counterproductive, stress-inducing leadership behaviors….

◦ Micromanaging

◦ Bullying

◦ Disparagement

◦ Mixed messages

◦ Belittlement, sarcasm

◦ Arrogance

◦ Condescension

◦ Poor listening skills

“…and so it begins”: The Early Phase

“Patience, Grasshopper”

Guerilla Tactics

Incident #1

12/2007

Incident #2

5/2012

White Paper

4-6/2013

AVP/HR Sponsorship

• Unofficial “GO”

• 10/2014

“Tiger Team”

• 1st Meeting

• 11/2014

Cabinet Presentation

• 1st Pitch

• 8/2015

LSI “Tiger Team”

Highly Respected Organizational Leaders

◦ Various levels (Supervisors, Managers,

Directors)

◦ All five divisions

◦ Over 350 years’ combined service

◦ Executive Assistant to the President

Facilitators: Harley Blake & Kevin Smart

Guiding Principles

ADHRTIGD

Guiding Principles

ADHRTIGD

Organic

Embedded

Initial Tiger Team Focus:

Gain Top Level Buy-In

“Shark Tank Minute”

◦ 15 minutes to capture Cabinet attention

◦ Informal Advance Communication to VP’s

◦ “No surprises” philosophy

Value Proposition

◦ Changing Leadership Demographics

◦ Declining Survey Indicators

Employee Satisfaction Survey

Performance Review Survey

◦ Sustain Organizational Culture Alignment

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Service

Age

CMU Staff with

Supervisory Responsibility,

by Age and Service, as of 5/16/15

ST

SO

PA5/6

PA4

PA3

Social Security

Retirement Eligible

(25 years, Any Age)

Retirement Eligible (10 years, Age >=55)

Changing Leadership Demographics

Age distribution Service Distribution

up

to… n %

n %

25 1 0.3% 5 110 30.6%

30 11 3.1% 10 65 18.1% 48.7%

35 41 11.4% 15 63 17.5%

40 36 10.0% 20 47 13.1%

45 59 16.4% 25 20 5.6%

50 42 11.7% 30 28 7.8%

55 53 14.8% 35 10 2.8%

60 64 17.8% 40 15 4.2%

65 38 10.6% 32.3% 45 1 0.3%

70 10 2.8% 50

75 4 1.1%

359 359

Changing Leadership Demographics:

CMU Supervisors and Managers by Age and Service (5/16/15)

Declining Survey Indicators:

Employee Satisfaction Survey

Taken in 2013 and 2015 – 7 Point Scale

Included 15 Leadership Expectation Items

2015 compared to 2013:

◦ All 15 Leadership items scored lower

◦ 31.5% of Leadership items scored 4 or less

Trend going in negative direction

Declining Survey Indicators:

Performance Management Survey 74%

18%

8%

66%

19% 15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2010

2015

Quality of Feedback Received from your Supervisor

• 34% rate the quality of the feedback as “less than good”

• Trend going in negative direction

Very Good/Good “Okay” Poor/Very Poor

Maintaining Organization

Culture Alignment

Expectations Inform

Leadership behavior impacts

Staff engagement impacts

Service delivery impacts

Student experience impacts

Student success impacts

CMU’s reputation impacts

Central Michigan University

Leadership Standards

Team Builders

Thoughtful, Open Communicators

Service-Oriented

Proactive, Responsible and

Accountable

Courageous and Effective

Focused on Students and Passionate

about CMU

Built on a Solid Foundation

CMU Institutional Values

CMU Service Values

Senior Leadership Expectations

CMU

Leadership

Standards

Student

Success

Customer

Service

Staff

Recruiting

Succession

Preparation

Performance

Reviews

Student

Retention

Staff

Training

Staff

Retention

Hiring

Process

On-Boarding

Process

Student

Recruitment

Leadership

Development

LSI Process

Impact

Development and

Communication Phase

Cabinet Presentation

• Implementation Plan Approval 8/2016

Senior Leadership Updates

• 11/2016

Communication Plan

• 12/2016

Cabinet Presentation

• Approval – Proceed w/development

8/2015

Cabinet Presentation

• Approval to implement

2/2016

Senior Leadership Updates

• 2-5/2016

University Wide Initiative

President’s Support

◦ Accepted role as “Champion”

◦ LSI was not optional

Division Vice Presidents

◦ Reinforced message with direct reports

◦ Followed up in detail

Standards developed by TIGER Team –

not HR.

PIN Tool

Project Management

Techniques

Purpose Statement

Roles and Stakeholders

Work Breakdown Structure

Network Diagrams

Project Plan

◦ GANTT Chart

Task Date 15-Sep 30-Sep 15-Oct 20 -Oct. Oct. 26 30-Oct 14-Nov 29-Nov 14-Dec 29-Dec January February March April May June July August September Responsible

LSI Committee formed - LSI standards developed

Standards presented to cabinet and approved

Standards presented to Senior Leadership Team

Cabinet Meeting - Update on status and show website

Official Team formation: Dr. Ross - Champion Lori Hella - Sponsor Kevin Smart and Harley Blake - Project Leads Team Members - LSI Committee

Purpose and background statements written and approved by LSI committee

Letter for Senior Leadership written and approved by LSI committee, not approved by President

LSI website live from cmich.edu - https://www.cmich.edu/office_president/Pages/leadership-standards-initiative.aspx UCOMM

Rewrite Sr. Ldrshp. Letter and gain approval by by President and send to Sr. Ldrshp. Team Document Task Force

Meeting with Sr. Leadership - share rough project plan and answer initial questions Kevin and Harley

CMU Supervisors and Supervisors of Supervisors Notice - Email Document Task Force

CMU Community Notice - OUR CMU / CMU Today UCOMM

Clearly written definitions of the 6 Leadership Traits - What specific behaviors demonstrate them? What behaviors show that they aren't in line with them? Document Task Force

Complete LSI metrics - what will we measure to determine if it is making an impact/successful? Metrics Task Force

Individual Supervisor Accountability - how will we know if a supervisor is behaving according to these standards? How will they be held accountable if they are not? Accountability Task Force

Recruiting and hiring tools developed and completed Recruitment and Hiring Task Force

Onboarding Process for new hires developed, particularly supervisors

Recruitment and Hiring Task Force

Big Kickoff Event development and communication plan Training Task Force

PMT Revision #1 to incorporate Leadership Standards (wording for supervisors to be able to have conversations) Harley and Kevin

Develop Training for Supervisors of Supervisors SOS) Training Task Force

Develop Training for Supervisors Training Task Force

Big Kick Off Event - starts training (bring in speaker?) Training Task Force

Run Pilot of Trainings with Charter and others Training Task Force

Training of Supervisors of Supervisors Training Task Force

Training of Supervisors Training Task Force

Recruitment Tools implemented Recruitment and Hiring Task Force

PMT Revision #2 to incorporate Leadership Standards (fully revised system for supervisors) Harley and Kevin

LSI Systems fully up and running and being using in process throughout campus LSI Committee

Implementation Phase

Supervisor Trainings

• 3-5/2017

Leadership Updates

• 6-7/2017

Systems Live and Operational

• 7/2017

Communication Plan

• 12/2016

LSI Pilot

• 1/2017

S.O.S Trainings

• 2-3/2017

Half-Day Training Outline I. Review Purpose and Intent

II. “Clarifying the Standards” Exercise

III. Recruiting, Screening and Hiring Process

IV. Alignment with Lencioni’s “Ideal Team Player Model”

V. Kim Scott’s “Radical Candor” Model

VI. The Two Sides of Feedback: Giving and Receiving (Jack Welch and Patrick Lencioni Videos)

VII. Tools for Soliciting Feedback and Having Discussions with Others

VIII. Growth and Development (STAR Program)

IX. The Accountability Question

Ruinous

Empathy

Manipulative

Insincerity

Radical

Candor

Obnoxious

Aggression

Care Personally

Challenge

Directly

In general, taken as a whole, in which

quadrant does CMU tend to operate?

Kim Scott’s Radical Candor Model

Supervisor Self-rating LSI Standards Strongly Disagree (1) - Strongly Agree (5)

3.7

Supervisor Self-rating LSI Standards Strongly Disagree (1) - Strongly Agree (5)

Ruinous

Empathy

Manipulative

Insincerity

Radical

Candor

Obnoxious

Aggression

Care Personally

Challenge

Directly

Tips for Shifting Toward Radical Candor

Radical Candor ≠ Negative Candor

◦ Don’t lose balance!

◦ 5:1 Ratio

Quantity and quality of conversations

Soliciting Feedback: Patrick Lencioni

Vulnerability Trust

◦ Must be able to admit mistakes and

acknowledge weaknesses

◦ Must be able to ask for help

If one person can’t do it (particularly the

leader) the whole team suffers

In review

Early Phase

◦ White Paper to Initial Cabinet Proposal

◦ April 2013 – August 2015

Development and Communication Phase

◦ August 2015 – December 2016

Implementation Phase

◦ Initial Training Roll-out and Systems Made

Operational

◦ December 2016 – July 2017

Present: Where We Are Now

Training for All Staff: October 2017- ??

Ongoing monthly updates: STAR program

and LSI “Fire Up Tips!”

What People are Saying:

“The LSI is a good program that formally puts these good leadership traits and practices into a workable, understandable policy and procedures manual. As a leader, I want to employ these traits into our culture within my team.”

“The structure of the Leadership Standards is uncomplicated, and the definitions are helpful. I believe this will help me personally to be a better leader, as the clear standards are simple compass points to guide daily interactions with others.”

“Promoting a universal set of standards will help the University to be more consistent, as we can inspire others as we spread greater awareness and demonstrate these leadership qualities regularly and consistently.”

Insights from the Journey:

4 Keys to Successful Implementation

1. Top Level Buy-In

2. University-wide initiative vs. ADHRTIGD

3. Project Management techniques

4. Identify Key Stakeholders and Roles Early

Questions?