Men’s Wearhouse: Surrendering the Captain to Save the Crew or Corporate Mutiny

Men’s Wearhouse: Surrendering the Captain to Save the Crew -or- Corporate Mutiny

By: Jody R. South

The Men’s Wearhouse was founded in 1973 by George Zimmer in Houston, Texas (Smith, 2013).  Since then, the company has amassed over 1,100 stores in the United States and Canada.  Presently, Men’s Wearhouse is undergoing talks with its competitor, Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., who offered to buy the company for an unsolicited $2.3 billion; a decision that will likely be made prior to the completion of this paper (De La Merced, 2013). 

In June of 2013, Zimmer was dismissed from his role as Executive Chairman for reasons undisclosed (Smith, 2013).  Five days later, he quit the Board.  This paper uses a metaphor of captain, ship, and crew to communicate the controversy of Zimmer’s dismissal.  The first section of this paper, “Surrendering the Captain to Save the Crew”, metaphorically outlines the position of the Men’s Wearhouse Board of Directors.  The report shall than summarize the position of George Zimmer in the section entitled, “Corporate Mutiny…Marooned”.  This paper shall attempt to remain unbiased.  Therefore, it shall not endeavor to make any conclusions or speculation; nor shall it characterize the author’s opinions in the matter.     

Surrendering the Captain to Save the Crew

In the days following Zimmer’s dismissal, a Men’s Wearhouse press-release noted that Zimmer was removed from his office due to his refusal to support management unless they “acquiesced to his demands" (Kaplan, 2013).  According to the company, "Mr. Zimmer expected veto power over significant corporate decisions" (2013).  The company attested that ultimately, he was fired due to his inability to come to terms with Men's Wearhouse’s status as a publicly traded company with “an independent Board of Directors and that he has not been the chief executive officer for two years” (2013).  They further noted that Zimmer “advocated for significant changes that would enable him to regain control" (2013). 

The Men’s Wearhouse Board of Directors noted in a press release that “Mr. Zimmer reversed his long-standing position against taking the company private by arguing for a sale of the Men's Wearhouse” (Dennard, 2013).  The release went on to state that, "The Board believes such a transaction would not be in the best interests of our shareholders, and it would be a very risky path on many levels.  It would require the company to take on a huge amount of debt to pay for such a transaction.  The Board strongly believes that such a transaction would be highly risky for our employees and would threaten our company culture that is so important to all of us (2013).  At the time of this press release, the Board unanimously believed that selling the company was not in the best interest of its shareholders.  However, contradictory to this belief, just five months later, the Board is presently contemplating an offer from Jos. A. Banks" (De La Merced, 2013).        

Here, we find that the crew, the management team and Board of Directors of the company, has decided that their former captain, George Zimmer, was no longer fit to command his ship, the Men’s Wearhouse.  If the accusations of the Board were indeed infallible, it is possible that they removed their captain to prevent the demise of the ship and crew.  In the Herman Melville novel, Moby-Dick; or, The Whale, had the crew of the Pequod foreseen the devastation that transpired attributable to Captain Ahab’s pursuit of the White Whale, it is likely that they too would have surrendered the captain to save the crew (1851).

Corporate Mutiny…Marooned

George Zimmer, owner of 3.5 percent of the Men’s Wearhouse shares, is the company’s largest single shareholder (Strauss, 2013).  Zimmer issued a written statement on June 26^th, 2013 following his dismissal from the company addressing the conditions surrounding the issue.

Zimmer noted that he unswervingly “encouraged the company to take a longer term approach of investing most of our profits back in the company” (Lutz, 2013).  He stated that in previous years, the company did so “rather than pursuing shorter term strategies based on financial engineering” (2013).  Zimmer indicated that Men’s Wearhouse had recently begun to stray for his envisioned path and that, in order to defend their actions, the Board of Directors are presently depicting him as inflexible and “determined to regain absolute control by pushing a going private transaction for [his] own personal benefit and ego” (2013).  Which, according to Zimmer, is incorrect (2013). 

In the spring of 2013, apprehensive of recent decisions to focus on short term capital gains, Zimmer noted that he asked the Board to conduct a strategic analysis of alternatives to include the prospects of going private (Lutz, 2013). "Rather than thoughtfully evaluating the idea or even checking the market to see short term what value might be created through such strategic alternatives, the Board quickly and without the assistance of financial advisors simply rejected the idea, refused to even discuss the topic or permit me to collect and present to the Board any information about its possibilities and feasibility, and instead took steps to marginalize and then silence me" (2013).

Here, we find that the captain, George Zimmer, has been marooned, fired by the crew, the Board of Directors.  In the eyes of Zimmer, a mutiny has occurred aboard his ship, the Men’s Wearhouse.  It is his belief that the Board has become focused on defending their positions rather than “considering the full range of possibilities that might benefit our shareholders and indeed all our stakeholders” (Lutz, 2013).  Zimmer believes that the Board is sacrificing long term success for short term gains and his concern for the company he built resulted in his dismissal.

References

De La Merced, M.J. (2013). Investor says Men’s Wearhouse will review merger with Jos. A. Bank. The New York Times DealBook. Retrieved November 12, 2013 from: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/investor-says-mens-wearhouse-will-review-merger-with-jos-a-bank/?ref=menswearhouseinc

Dennard, K. (2013). Men's Wearhouse Board of Directors Provides Further Comments on Termination of George Zimmer. PR Newswire. Retrieved November 10, 2013 from: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mens-wearhouse-Board-of-Directors-provides-further-comments-on-termination-of-george-zimmer-212894951.html

Kaplan, D. (2013). Men's Wearhouse explains why it canned Zimmer. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved November 10, 2013 from: http://www.chron.com/business/article/Men-s-Wearhouse-explains-why-it-canned-Zimmer-4620732.php

Lutz, A. (2013). Fired Men's Wearhouse founder George Zimmer rips on Board in open letter. Business Insider. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from http://www.businessinsider.com/mens-wearhouse-letter-from-zimmer-2013-6

Melville, H. (1851). Moby-Dick; or, The whale. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Smith, A. (2013). Men's Wearhouse founder: I'm not an egomaniac. CNN Money. Retrieved November 10, 2013 from: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/27/news/companies/zimmer-mens-wearhouse/

Smith, A. (2013). Men's Wearhouse fires the 'I guarantee it' guy. CNN Money. Retrieved November 10, 2013 from: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/19/news/companies/mens-wearhouse-zimmer/

Strauss, G. (2013). Company abruptly fires its founder on the day it was scheduled to hold its annual shareholder's meeting. USA Today. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/19/mens-wearhouse-founder-chairman-george-zimmer/2437493/

Toxic: A Review of Literature

Toxic: A Review of Literature

By: Jody R. South

One does not have to look far to find specimens of dysfunctional leadership in the contemporary business domain.  Televised news broadcasts, newspaper articles, blogs and social media are inundated with examples of ineffective and oppressive political, military and business leadership.  This paper will discuss noteworthy thoughts from some of today’s leading experts on toxic leadership in modern corporations. 

The expression, “Toxic leader”, was originally devised in the mid-1990s by Whicker (1996) as a means of describing managers, supervisors, and other individuals in leadership roles that exploit their relationship with subordinates for personal gain.  Whicker places leaders into three categories: Trustworthy, Transitional, and Toxic (p.9).  Of these classifications, this paper will concentrate on identifying the latter.  Whicker describes toxic leaders as:  Maladjusted, malcontent, and often malevolent, even malicious.  They succeed by tearing others down. They glory in turf protection, fighting and controlling rather than uplifting followers.  They are "red light" leaders who destroy productivity and apply brakes to organizational progress.  They have a deep-seated but well-disguised sense of personal inadequacy, selfish values, and cleverness at concealing deceit (Whicker, 1996, p.11). From this definition, one can infer that the traits of a toxic leader include narcissism, a lack of empathy, and charismatically insincere in manner.  Toxic leaders may hold discriminatory views of age, sex, religion, and the like.  They are known for power plays and psychological abuse of employees as well as inflexibility and an inability to claim responsibility for his or her actions (Whicker, 1996).   

In the years following Whicker’s studies, another scholarly author similarly placed leaders into three patterns of leadership behavior that include an array of management traits in which she categorized leaders as remarkable, perilous, and toxic (Wasylyshyn 2011).  Once again, this paper shall encompass the latter.

Wasylyshyn noted that, “Further, recognizing these behavioral shifts and helping leaders deal with them effectively has implications for maintaining traction in coaching and for achieving positive outcomes” (Wasylyshyn, 2011).  She believed that, depending on internal and external variables, business leaders traverse the spectrum from remarkable to toxic and do not necessarily remain static in their practices.    

Most notable among the traits of a toxic leader, is a genuine indifference in their professional and personal improvement (Shorey, Wasylyshyn, & Chaffin, 2012).  According to Wasylyshyn (2008), these leaders were often conceited, contemptuous, and distrustful.  Toxic leaders are likely to have trouble with dyadic relationships.  They are incapable of coping with employee frustration and frequently show signs of egotism.  “Further, the combination of hostile competitiveness and defensiveness contribute[s] to a strong fear dynamic in their teams” (Shorey, Wasylyshyn, & Chaffin, 2012, p.76).  

Toxic leaders, identified by the aforementioned traits, are often difficult to rehabilitate as they are seldom concerned with personal growth or any form of coaching.  As opposed to retraining these leaders, Shorey, Wasylyshyn, & Chaffin (2012, p.77) suggest that their bosses attempt to relocate them in other roles.  As previously mentioned, not all leaders are static in their current locus on the remarkable to toxic scale.  External factors such as domestic issues and health related events can transport a leader from remarkable to perilous, or worse, from perilous to toxic (Wasylyshyn, 2011). 

How then, does one recognize toxic behavior before it is entrenched in a leader?  Developmental psychologist, Erik Erikson (1950), developed a model which associates eight phases of human development to particular psychosocial occurrences (Table 1).  According to Shorey, Wasylyshyn, & Chaffin (2012, p.77), Erikson’s eight stages for human development directly correlate to the development of a toxic leader[1].  Leaders that demonstrate toxic attributes often have problems in accomplishing tasks that relate to processes or factors that are both social and psychological in nature.  These leaders are generally, “not encouraged to explore or discover their areas of competence and their early school and social lives were more troubled than rewarding” (p.77).  This factor, when combined with growing up in an unfeeling family often inhibits their aptitude for trusting others; thereby affecting relationships both in the workplace and personally (p.78).       

    

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to highlight the traits and resemblances of toxic leaders and their negative impacts on the workplace.  Toxic leadership appears to develop over time as factor of social and psychological environment and is difficult to change.  Early recognition of toxic behaviors may be the business world’s best aid in the rehabilitation of toxic leaders

References

Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Shorey, H. S., Wasylyshyn, K.M., & Chaffin, J. S. (2012). Patterns of leadership behaviour: Implications for successful executive coaching outcomes. The Coaching Psychologist, 8(2), 74-85.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2008). Behind the door: Keeping business leaders focused on how they lead.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 314–330.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2011). Behind the executive door: Unexpected lessons for managing your boss and career. New York: Springer.

Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic leaders: When organizations go bad. (p. 11-28). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Table 1

Erikson’s Stages of Psychological Development[i]

Stage	Ages	Basic Conflict	Development	Toxic Leader
1. Establishing trust	Birth to 1	Trust vs. Mistrust	The infant must form a first loving, trusting relationship (bond) with the caregiver, or develop a sense of mistrust.	Significant trust issues
2. Individualization	1 to 3	Autonomy vs. Shame/Doubt	The child's energies are directed toward the development of physical skills, including walking, grasping, and rectal sphincter control. The child learns control but may develop shame and doubt if not handled well.	Can flounder aimlessly
3.Taking Initiative	3 to 5	Initiative vs. Guilt	The child continues to become more assertive and to take more initiative, but may be too forceful, leading to guilt feelings.	Lacks sufficient drive to achieve and/or chaotic pursuit of objectives
4. Cognitive competence	5 to 11	Industry vs. Inferiority	The child must deal with demands to learn new skills or risk a sense of inferiority, failure, and incompetence.	Strong feelings of inadequacy that can be masked by hyperaggression
5. Sense of identity	11 to 18	Identity vs. Role confusion	The teenager must achieve a sense of identity in occupation, sex roles, politics, and religion.	Can experience significant identity crisis
6. Capacity for intimacy	18 to 35	Intimacy vs. Isolation	The young adult must develop intimate relationships or suffer feelings of isolation.	Serious work and personal relationship issues
7. Guiding the next generation	35 to 55	Generativity vs. Stagnation	Each adult must find some way to satisfy and support the next generation.	Narcissistic preoccupations – getting own needs met trumps mentoring of others
8. Integrated sense of self	55 to death	Ego Integrity vs. Despair	The culmination is a sense of oneself as one is, and of feeling fulfilled.	Lacks life integration -- serious existential depression may occur

[1] Erikson did not use the term, “Toxic Leader”, this term was developed by Dr. Whicker (1996)

---

[i] This table (Toxic column) has been modified by the author to include the work of Shorey, Wasylyshyn, and Chaffin (2012) in reference to toxic leaders.  Extraneous data that does not apply to the subject of this paper has likewise been removed.

C3 Servant-Leadership Philosophy

C3 Servant-Leadership Philosophy

 By:  Jody R. South

Servant-Leader in Training

The term “servant-leader” does not denote leaders that are submissive in nature or those that prescribe to a manner of self-servitude.  A speaker for the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, once stated “Servant-hood, humility…those aren’t things where you think less of yourself.  They are things that you think of yourself less.  You don’t always have yourself on your mind; you have others on your mind.  It’s not that you think that you are terrible or you have low self-esteem.  Servant-leadership means [that] you just think of other people a whole lot more” (Bechler, 2014).

This essay is intended to briefly convey the leadership ideology of the author as a servant-leader in training and does not explore several major leadership functions as they would be beyond both scope and intent.  Further, the essay to follow shall endeavor to delineate a synopsis of the author’s C³ (Catalytic, Courageous, and Contagious) leadership philosophy.

The first section describes what it is to be a catalyst as a leader and how these leaders drive change in organizations.  The next section outlines courageous leadership as it pertains to ethics.  Lastly, this paper describes the author’s viewpoint of what it takes to be a contagious leader.           

Be a Catalyst

            Servant-leaders in training should strive to be catalysts.  Catalytic leaders are capable of precipitating meaningful change in an organization.  Organizations unwilling to adapt to internal and external forces risk underachieving stakeholder expectations and possible collapse.  However, change for the sake of change should be avoided at all costs.  Meaningful change is a cultivated transformation that materializes as a result of internal modifications (e.g. a new procedure put in place to achieve better employee performance) or external forces such as government legislation that directly affects an organization. 

            Catalytic leaders are champions of positive, meaningful change.  They expedite change by mitigating risk, limiting distractions, and endeavoring to eliminate bureaucratic processes whenever ethically possible.  Yukl (2001) defined several behaviors that elucidate the methodology of influencing the conduct of followers (p.312).  These behaviors include:

·         Articulating an appealing vision

·         Using strong, expressive forms of communication when articulating the vision

·         Taking personal risks and self-sacrifices to attain the vision

·         Communicating high expectations

·         Expressing optimism and confidence in followers

·         Modeling behaviors consistent with the vision

·         Managing follower impressions of the leader

·         Building identification with the group or organization

·         Empowering followers (p.312) 

Becoming a catalytic leader requires charisma and the ability to unite both followers and senior leadership alike to support his or her cause. 

            However, positive organizational change does not necessitate a position of executive leadership.  There are several methods of enacting positive change from even the lowest echelons of an organization.

            One such method involves forming a coalition of like-minded individuals within an organization.  This should not be confused with unionizing.  There is power in numbers.  Senior leadership may value such a council as they often have a better view of the front-line.  The other side of this equation is the benefit to fellow employees.  The coalition would be valuable to them as a direct conduit from senior leadership that serves as both a point of dissemination of change initiatives at the top and as mitigation for the apprehension and fear of the unknown that often accompanies change in an organization.

           Be Courageous

            Servant-leaders in training should have the courage and the redoubtable moral strength to “own up” to their mistakes and should encourage subordinates to do the same.  Courageous leaders follow an ethical compass that is aligned with their own personal morality.  Bill George noted that:

True North is the internal compass that guides you successfully through life. It represents who you are as a human being at your deepest level. It is your orienting point—your fixed point in a spinning world—that helps you stay on track as a leader. Your True North is based on what is most important to you, your most cherished values, your passions and motivations, the sources of satisfaction in your life (George, Geren, & Sims, 2007).

These leaders find the courage to speak up and to speak out when others insist on maintaining the status quo and not “rocking the boat”. 

            Courageous leaders are able to accept constructive criticism about their performance in order to improve in their role.  These leaders seek out the opinions of their followers to better serve them.  They are communicators; they do not have an “open-door policy”.  An open door does not in and of itself mean that an employee will use it.  Rather, these leaders prefer to actively engage with followers by visiting with them where the employees feel most comfortable: in their own work spaces.  Visiting an employee’s cubicle or engaging in a dyadic conversation in the break room will go much further in winning hearts and minds.

Be Contagious

            Finally, servant-leaders in training should be contagious.  Leaders should model the way in which they would like to see their subordinates conduct themselves.  “Such leaders earn the respect and trust of others; as a result, people are motivated and committed to following them” (Kouzes & Posner, 1987, p.68). 

A Marine Colonel once noted to his subordinates in the defense contracting industry,

We work for the young trigger puller in the fighting hole…for that 18 year old in the trench that is scared to death that he might not make it home.  They are why we do what we do…for men and women such as this – they deserve the best we have to offer (Col. Peter James, United States Marine Corps Forces, Pacific Experimentation Center, personal communication, August 21, 2013).

Leaders should inspire employees and promote a clear sense of how their work affects corporate image and financials as well as customer satisfaction.  Depending on one’s industry, this can have a great effect on employee and product output effectiveness.

            In order to be contagious, servant-leaders in training should also distinguish the methodology in which they project their power.  Power, as a derivative of influence and persuasion, can be interpreted as either persuasive or coercive. 

Persuasive power creates opportunities and alternatives so individuals can choose and build autonomy.  Coercive Power is used to get people to travel a predetermined path.  The servant-leader practices persuasive power and walks a fine line in most people’s minds.  This is a wise and useful insight, but in practice it is, for many, a bit like trying to grab a handful of smoke (Spears, Lawrence, & Showkeir, 2002, p.153).

Disseminating an idea, message, or plan must be done tactfully.  The employment of persuasive power allows followers and fellow servant-leaders to follow their own path while maintaining a common direction.

Conclusion

“A Servant-Leaders lives, loves, and leads by conscience—the inward moral sense of what is right and what is wrong” (Sipe & Frick, 2009, p.17).  Servant-leaders in training should maintain a reputation for probity in their profession. 

Leaders that follow the C³ philosophy of leadership are catalytic.  They fan the flames of change in an organization by garnering follower and senior management support and by cutting through red tape.  They are also courageous.  Courageous leaders have a strong sense of what is right and have the valor to excel in the face of complacency.  Finally, C³ leaders are contagious.  These leaders are viral.  They are capable of motivating followers to share their values and ignite a passion that drives their corporate culture. 

References

George, B., Geren, D, and Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge. 3rd ed. California: Jossey Bass Inc. 

Sipe, J. W., and Frick, D. M. (2009). Seven pillars of servant leadership: practicing the wisdom of leading by serving. New York: Paulist Press. 

Spears, L. C., Lawrence, M., & Showkeir, J. D. (2002). Focus on leadership: servant-leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: J. Wiley & Sons. 

Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Bechler, J. (2014). National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Champions of Character: Servant Leadership. YouTube. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MSG22HzXfQ