Acknowledgment: AEP is a large company. This is based on my experience within a single business unit.
- Leadership is almost entirely based on networking and relationships; there are no established standards for any level of management, so promotions normally fall to those who are well connected. A quick glance at the prominent 'leader development' programs shows an overwhelming - almost exclusive - emphasis on networking and relationship building. I acknowledge that networking is an important tool, but it is the most essential skill for a member of management at AEP (instead of true leadership skills like generating trust, setting direction and goals, developing subordinates, etc.). Networking with leaders 3, 4, 5+ levels up is common and often encouraged. Networking at the local level with the intent of enhancing one's team is a good thing; networking 3, 4, 5+ levels up does little for one's team but helps with self advancement - which is toxic. This culture also prevents many people from speaking up or even reporting significant issues (i.e., discrimination) because it only takes one 'political' mistake to end your career aspirations.
- Effective leadership training is largely non-existent. Leaders simply do not know how to lead, only manage (if that). For example, despite being here almost a decade, I have never received an articulated set of individual goals/expectations, nor have I received a professional development plan that would advise me on how to progress to the next level. The modus operandi is more 'management' than 'leadership' (i.e. the focus is primarily on just 'getting the job done'). I received leadership training from another organization and it was a night & day difference. We were taught things like subordinate development, setting direction, building plans, providing constructive feedback, accountability, recognition, motivating team members, engaging the workforce, training, etc. In addition, the leadership training I received previously was tiered, meaning the things I was taught as a manager were slightly different than what I was taught as a director (more emphasis was placed on strategy development, operations, and leading teams vs individuals); nothing significant like this tiered approach exists at AEP.
- The lack of articulated individual goals/expectations means that evaluations are extremely biased and heavily influenced by relationships. In my 2022 evaluation, my boss gave me 14 areas in which I excelled and 0 areas for improvement - then rated my performance as "Standard". When pressed for an area of improvement, she responded that she could not come up with a single item. In addition, leaders are only required to perform one mid-year review, which in and of itself is inadequate (we performed monthly sessions at my previous employer). Despite only being required once per year, leaders generally treat it as a 'check the box' exercise that offers no real benefit to the subordinate (my last two mid-year reviews lasted less than 7 minutes combined). I compare this to how I do the reviews and there is a stark difference. I do them bi-monthly, am always well prepared, I provide constructive feedback on how to get the subordinate to the next level, and we review progress on their professional development plans. As a result, there are no surprises regarding their evaluations, they know their progress throughout the year, and evaluations are predicated entirely on established goals and expectations (that I set on my own initiative). My last mid-year review was not atypical by lasting just 3 minutes and simply being told to "keep up the great work you and your team are doing".
- Planning is deplorable and amateurish. Even more problematic is that many leaders are convinced that they plan effectively, which strongly suggests that they have never experienced an effective planning process. Their plans usually consist of a spreadsheet of team or business unit goals. Also, it has become standard practice that no senior leader in our business unit thinks about annual goals and plans until Q2 of the year for which the plan/goals would be set (far too late). There is no established planning cycle or planning standards/requirements (even at the corporate level). Recent efforts have been made to generate something at the corporate level, but those are still nebulous.
- Leaders use grass roots approaches frequently as a way to distance themselves from responsibility (i.e., 'well that is what the group recommended we do'). It is easy for leaders to find a viable scapegoat when they let others do all the work. When someone realizes in Q2 that annual goals haven't been set, an email is hastily sent to all managers requiring them to submit their team goals by a certain deadline. So, the entire set of business unit goals is created from the bottom up (i.e., backwards). This means corporate goals and priorities do not drive operations, and any link between corporate and small team goals is usually coincidental and/or made after the fact.
- DEI is taken to extremes by some members of management. Our VP once said in a staff meeting that he would be fine with 50% or more diversity in the leadership team because executives put a premium on that metric (the unofficial, unwritten goal was 20%). When I asked my previous director about a particular job posting, he told me directly that despite being well qualified, I was "the wrong color and gender" for that job (actual quote because I wrote it down at the time). This is an indictment of the culture and not of him (my former boss).
- In summary, leadership in general is primarily focused on their own preservation and advancement, and have not been trained to be effective leaders. Placing a premium on networking generates toxicity, suppresses the aspirations of people with true leadership abilities/potential, and ultimately limits team and group performance due to ineffective leadership. The company is generally stable, but this leadership framework and culture create substantial internal turbulence that can adversely impact jobs. The lack of a leader-driven vision, direction and goals facilitates autonomy amongst various groups (i.e. silos), making them highly resistant to any significant effort to centralize authority and/or unify efforts in the name of organizational alignment (such as a cohesive corporate strategy/plan). This autonomy also creates small fiefdoms within the company where the local senior leader, usually a VP, often grows their empire in whatever direction they desire, which almost always benefits their own aspirations instead of being focused on optimizing the company's effectiveness. The leadership culture can be very unprofessional, curt and even vindictive, which was recently displayed during the abrupt, unceremonious dismissal of the COO; despite several years of committed service, the COO was barely mentioned in the corporate article announcing the new CEO, and her dismissal had profound organizational, operational and cultural impacts across the company.