The fallout of this past Tuesday's election is still impacting us. It was reported on this morning's news that Bush's approval rating is making a constant decline from 36% just six months ago to 33% last month to a dungeon low of 31% according to this week's Newsweek survey. He's only now becoming cognizant of how poorly his performance is considered. The blinders are off. He's listening. It's not quite too late. The door of opportunity isn't locked but the Republican party has a lot of damage control and clean-up it needs to do in order to pull itself into a strong standing. It, and Bush, must now make cooperation part of the daily practice. Listening is an integral part of the new order of business.
How many recall attempts were made on Bush's office? How many times did people speak of his impeachment in a not so casual way? How many times has he and his circle of workers been accused of election tampering? It is said all of our presidents read numerous newspapers everyday in order to stay aware of what's happening. Apparently Bush's aides have been cutting out certain sections of the news in order to protect George from reality.
These George revelations still make me think of our corporate ethics challenges of just two years ago. Skilling is still in denial. We no longer hear about Kozlowski. Lay died in order to preserve his estate for his family -- in denial about any wrongdoings for which he was responsible. These are more examples of leaders listening to their inner drives for power and money instead of paying attention to the voices of those who strive to support the infrastructure. The only time C-level executives are reviewed is when the Board gives a cursory consideration of performance. And usually that review is only on spot matters. Because the Board and the shareholders do not take into consideration the day-to-day workings of the corporation (which are actually the substance of retention issues), they do not realize some of the things that may be happening that are affecting a more critical balance sheet dynamic.
These situations make the thoughtful one stand in my shoes. They make me consider the plausibility of having a regular review for C-level people that is performed by their workers. At regular six- or 12-month intervals, the President, the Vice Presidents, the members of the Board, would be evaluated on their performance. The evaluation would be done by the people they lead. And there would be a performance improvement plan that the C-level workers would have to agree to in order for them to be allowed to continue. It would be very important to include in the survey a question as to whether the employee has opportunities to be aware of directives of executives and how their rules affect the employees being surveyed or how their rules affect business health. But the plan for improvement is the second most important aspect of this executive review. The most important aspect is creating awareness and accountability for acts compared with chastising or looking the other way.
These reviews should not be treated in some provisional fashion. They should bear consequences and be considered as seriously as reviews done for regular line and staff employees. By making these review dynamics transparent to the staff, there should be a corresponding increase in morale and keep retention high. It really does make a difference when people know they're being held accountable for their acts and for the acts of those who come within their purview. Having C-level executives coming under review by their subordinates takes the element of surprise out of the anwer to the question "How am I doing?"
