Posts tagged employees

a company of adventurers

Oct 10th

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments

Leadership is a tricky thing.

It is walking a fine line of truth (grounded in what is real as well as ‘not lying’) and aspirational (giving people a glimpse of what they can be).

And, as with anything, this is about some functional practical things and emotional soul searching things.

Oh.  And connecting them.  It is the connection aspect that great leaders do well.

But, ultimately, those leaders who figure it out end up leading high energy, high performance organizations.

And I tend to believe when you see an organization that ‘thinks small’ (or acts small) it is because their leaders do.

Regardless.

Just as I wrote recently about the fact we are in the ‘selling hope’ business I tend to believe great organizational cultures are also grounded on hope. Hope for being better.  Being a better person.  Being better at what you may do daily (even the smallest task). Being part of something that betters the world.

Great organizations, at their core, feed their people’s hope.

And great leaders figure out a way of showing them that hope.

In practical terms and aspirational terms.

All that said that leads to me to some words that made me think about this.

Sam Meek. Sam was the CEO of of the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson in the 50’s/60’s. And the words below were delivered in a 1965 speech.

Within the following words there are little scraps of hope littered throughout for people to pick and choose from. Scraps of the practical. Scraps of aspirational. Scraps of lessons that can be implemented daily in actions. All littered on a ground of a solid attitude focused on the horizon.

These are words that make you feel good about being part of the organization and yet words to challenge every one to be better and work harder (“we are a permanently dissatisfied company”).

I am not above stealing great words and reapplying them.  I use these words all the time and, frankly, I seek to work within organizations that like these words:

When I talk of this company, I am not thinking just of a legal or business entity. I am using the word in the older sense, as in a company of scholars, as a company of adventurers, or a company of voyagers. I think our companionship partakes of all these things.

There had to be something special about this enterprise to attract the talented and venturesome people who have come together to exercise their considerable talents and to derive from it the things that make for full and satisfying life.

Our relationships are subtle and highly sensitive relationships ….

Our job must be to share authority without losing it …

The whole staff must have a proprietary feeling about the company’s work.

We are a permanently dissatisfied company and so far as I can see, we shall not run out of things to be dissatisfied about. I think our work, in most instances, is the best of its kind in the world – and yet not good enough. Not as good as it is going to be. There has not been and there should never be a year when it is not better than the year before.

Our audience is getting more demanding all the time – it is not a question of talking down to them. The problem, the opportunity, is to talk far enough up to them.

Lastly.

I use the quote below all the time.

I am not sure I have ever seen nor heard words from a leader that captured the essence of both functional practical and aspirational better than these.

“We must be dynamic for purposes bigger than ourselves.“

I admit.

I do hate when an organization “thinks small.” That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t think practical but they should think about impact.  What kind of impact, or imprint, do they truly want to make.  And I don’t necessarily mean making people’s lives better.  I mean ‘doing good or great shit.’ Making an impact through what they do and who they are as an organization.  Impacting whatever world they affect. It doesn’t have to be global (like a JWT) but it can be local or even within their own circle of friends & business relationships.

Creating a great organization, a company of adventures, needs leaders who say, who mean, who live, these types of words.

And all words that are said within a truth that it isn’t rhetoric but rather it is the soul of the organization.

Be dynamic.

Whew.

That alone is a great thought.

So go be.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

expectations as an economy

May 17th

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments

This one is about those pesky demanding consumers. And their pesky attitudes & expectations.

Oh. Expectations. Expectations are truly tricky things. They elevate quickly (even moreso in the web-based transparency driven world) and they decrease grudgingly. Once a consumer has experienced a truly 100% perfect experience the bar has been set. And in today’s world? You (a consumer) doesn’t even have to personally experience it … you can simply virtually experience it … and your expectations have been reset.

Let’s face it.

In the past a company (or a brand) could get away with not performing at its peak.   Or maybe taking a day off performance wise.  All because consumers didn’t experience full transparency of the best, the cheapest, the first, the most original or the most relevant.

Well.

That’s all over.

And things are bound to get even more radical.

trendwatching calls this phenomena The Expectation Economy. And it is not just a generational thing.  While it is a given for the younger generations who are unburdened by an era of mass production, mass advertising and above all mass ignorance … older generations are quickly stepping into this world wondering what the hell all these youngsters know that they don’t.

Oh.  And every day the older generations are getting more online savvy (even if it is simply to make sure they aren’t getting screwed) and are creating the same expectations as the younger generations.

The Expectation Economy is a consumer trend chock full of experienced well informed consumers from the US to China who has a high list of expectations that they apply to each and every product or service or experience on offer.   Their expectations are based on years of self training in hyperconsumption and the flood of online information readily available.  All of which helps them track down and expect not just basics even for the basics (in other words … there is no such ting as “basic” any more).  Not just the lower level standard of quality but the “best of the best” for what they are willing to pay.

They have redefined quality.

Quality is now based on what they are willing to pay.

“Yes.  I have one dollar.   But now I know what to expect for one dollar.  Oh.  And it ain’t just one dollar worth of value.   Its something more because I know, even though it’s just one dollar, someone out there is willing to give me more than one dollar of value because they want my one dollar.”

So.

What this really means is that in this expectation economy your product or service is no longer just judged against other products and services in your category but by experiences created by other products and services in other categories you cannot even imagine are your competition.  Ok. They aren’t your competition in a true definition of the word (it is not like they are stealing sales) . But.  They are stealing expectations. They are resetting the expectations in your category.

Geez.  How fair is that? You aren’t even competing against them.

Well.  In the new Expectation Economy face it.  You aren’t just competing against those you think you are competing against but also competing against expectations being set by other companies in other categories.

The biggest difference from five to ten years ago? Word of mouth now travels the world in a flash, making product launches instantly global, turning every new brand, big or small, into a potential ‘player’ in the marketplace. Small businesses and brands can become big businesses and big brand overnight.

Basically, this is the Creative Destruction theory (Schumpeter) gone ballistic. Remember. Creative Destruction is all about how the small constantly overwhelm the big to improve the overall marketplace.

And it is happening because never before has intelligence on the best, the cheapest, the first, the most original and the most relevant been so openly available to consumers. And never before have consumers enjoyed doing research and comparisons (lets call it ‘personal competitive analysis’) as much as they do now. In fact consumers are conducting the competitive analysis more diligently than most corporations do (including possibly the most anal comparative corporation of all time P&G).

Blame (or thank) sites, blogs and magazines such as:

This avalanche of consumer competitive intelligence has even spawned consumer information as a job – where consumers inform each other on the best of the best without feeling the need to actually purchase anything or even get paid for what they are doing.

What started with amateur “cottage industry” travel, chef & shopping experts is now applied to virtually every industry or any object that consumers’ desire. In fact consumers can now vicariously consume everything and anything through the eyes of curators/experts and other consumers, and the written/spoken/taped reports they freely share (note again … without getting paid to do any of this).

And all this sharing of knowledge leads to creating expectations.  Expectations with regard to everything. And that leads to …

Irritation and Indifference

Think about the consumer as someone with ongoing annoyance interspersed with occasional boredom and indifference.

Whew. Now that sounds tough for any marketer out there.

Why will consumers’ moods be like this?

Once high(er) expectations have been set, they are bound to go largely unmet, since the majority of brands still choose not to keep up with the best of the best (because that “isn’t our positioning or what we are about” or they simply just cannot match the best of the best).

Well informed consumers will thus find themselves in a perpetual state of indifference and/or irritation.

Indifference will hit those brands that consumers know are underperforming, and that they can avoid due to sufficient availability of the best of the best. If you’re working for one of those underperforming brands, the scary thing is not just selling less (or nothing). It’s that indifferent consumers will stop being forgiving, they will stop being cooperative and giving you feedback on how to be more like other, better performing competitors. They’ll just leave and never return, without telling you why.

Perpetual irritation is just as bad: this will occur when consumers are forced to buy from an underperforming brand, due to limited or no availability of what they already know is the best of the best.
In this light, pay special attention to fake loyalty and postponed purchases:

-          Fake loyalty: consumers will continue to purchase from underperforming brands if the ‘real thing’ isn’t available. To the underperforming brand, all may seem quiet on the western front, until the best of the best suddenly does become available. Good examples of fake loyalty can be found in the airline industry: millions of frequent flyers around the world know that Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines and Emirates offer a superior experience, but since these airlines don’t fly on all routes, consumers have no choice but to fly with subpar airlines now or then, or all of the time. Count on them to vote with their wallets every time new routes are added by these ‘best of the best’ carriers, even if they’ve never flown with them before.

-          Postponing purchases: some ‘best of the best’ brands like Apple actually manage to indirectly convince consumers to postpone certain purchases. Many consumers would rather wait for the iPhone or MacBook Air to become available, than to buy a new phone or laptop. Again, due to the dissemination of information, even local product launches are instantly global. Digital services have already succumbed to phased distribution; the physical world is next.

The Next Generation

Let’s face it: in the past a brand could get away with not performing at its peak, since consumers didn’t enjoy full transparency of the best, the cheapest, the first, the most original, the most relevant. That’s really over. And things are bound to get even more radical: the EXPECTATION ECONOMY is a given for younger generations, who are unburdened by an era of mass production, mass advertising and above all, mass ignorance.

So: not knowing who’s doing exceptional things and setting your customers’ expectations is not an option. Which brings us to the following:

Looking cross-industry is Imperative

Sure, we know that what you really, really want is to look at which trends will dictate your industry. If you’re in automotive, you want to know about the future of transport; if you’re in food and beverage, you’re no doubt interested in everything healthy and green and organic. And of course you have a near-obsession with what your main competitors are up to. But in an EXPECTATION ECONOMY, business professionals should obsessively think and look cross-industry, as opposed to suffering from industry tunnel vision.

Here are three reasons why looking cross-industry isn’t just great for inspiration, but a prerequisite for understanding how to succeed in an EXPECTATION ECONOMY:

1. Your Competition could be Anyone

First of all, focusing solely on your own industry will obscure the fact that in economies of abundance, consumers are increasingly spending their ‘play money’ on goods and services that net them the experience, the indulgence, the excitement, the satisfaction they’re looking for at a specific moment. Which could be new sneakers (even though they already own five pairs), or a new cell phone (even though their current one is perfectly fine) or a long weekend away (even though, if they’re European, it’s probably their fourth getaway this year). So if you’re, let’s say, Nike, you’re definitely competing with Reebok and Adidas and Onitsuka Tiger once a consumer has made up his or her mind that it’s sneakers he or she desperately wants. But before minds are made up, when shopping for a certain kind of excitement, it may as well be Nokia or Starwood Hotels. Or Zara. Increasingly, you’ll be competing with anyone and everyone, which means you need to keep an eye on anyone and everyone.

2. Expectations are Often set Outside your Industry

Secondly, limiting yourself to your own industry will make you miss important changes in consumer expectations, and will thus put you at risk of disappointing or even annoying consumers. Every industry has its own ‘innovation competence’, and the innovations they’re bringing to market not only excite their own customers, they also shape their expectations for other industries. Whether it’s Singapore Airlines’ sense of status, Starbucks’ understanding of indulgence and rituals, H&M’s obsession with making up-to-the-minute fashion affordable, or Apple’s prowess in design and usability. And while flawless execution is never easy, the thinking and attitude behind it isn’t impossible to mirror. Consumers know this, too. Hence their aforementioned indifference and irritation when it comes to the non-H&Ms, the non-Singapore Airlines, the non-Apples.

3. Just copying Competitors is a Race to the Bottom

Last but not least, if you’re obsessed with what your direct competition is doing, you will always end up copying new concepts in your industry. Which means that, unless you’re comfortable with being a ‘smart follower’ and being really really good at it you won’t be successful.

Now, all of this is of course not to say that you shouldn’t actively track what’s happening in your own industry. But also constantly ask yourself: who are our other competitors? What experiences could our product or service be traded in for? And what can we learn from other industries setting consumer expectations across the board?

Oh.

Smart follower.

That’s management speak for waiting to see whether innovative initiatives by more creative and daring competitors are worth copying: if they are, you’re too late, and if they’re not, well, by then they’re probably working on something newer that does work.

Being a smart follower is not a science.  In reality it is all about mixing experience, intuition, and knowing your sources.

In my world i grab a notebook and camera and start taking notes and pictures roaming the streets.  And secondarily scanning the list of best of the best sites/publications. Note that I prioritize “the streets” first.

Always remember. “The streets howl with the truth.”

Find competitors and non-competitors, big and small, who are setting consumer expectations much higher than you’ve ever been able to (because whether you like it or not you are being compared to them).

Maybe they’re more fun.

They have better design. Their stuff tastes, looks, feels better. Their customer service actually responds to emails. They’re cheaper.

Then build what you think are the standards for which you will be measured against. Those are the expectations you need to manage whatever it is you do against. That is where you need to start thinking.  Maybe in developing new products or services or just experiences.

But in this new Expectation Economy you have to at minimum incorporate people’s expectations into what you are doing. And, of course, seek to outdo them somewhere.

Ah.  The Expectation Economy. It certainly isn’t dull.

source: thanks to trendwatching for contributing to this post.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

distinctive creative innovation messaging

Oct 8th

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments

Well.

Intel continues to be the prime poster child for how to market and position a product that …. well … is dependent on another product to even have an existence.

Some people would call it branding.

Let’s just call it creating a positive meaningful imprint in people’s minds enough that people care whether they have it or not (despite the fact 99% of the non-nerd population has no clue what it actually does .. but has to have it).

The television stuff they have been doing lately is awesome.

All of it.

Let me begin with the one they call “generations.”  Two guys over decades of time growing up together discussing technology innovations in a way only geeks could (but we get it). c’mon. Whoever wrote “they call it ‘E’ … lectronic mail” isn’t getting paid enough.  It’s awesome. Here is the TV commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqMTWrlF-8

What makes this brilliant is that they want to tell you how Intel has been at the forefront of technology innovations over time … and the reality is most of us could give a rat’s ass about what you have done in the past only what you do in the future for us (but marketers get sucked into “we need to become more credible in people’ minds so let’s tell them all the good shit we have done in the past” … whatever …).

But you know what?

I cared after this commercial.

Because I laughed.

Because I stepped back a little in time through the eyes of Intel and I appreciated it.

Ok.

And then.

At the exact same time they are running a commercial that has nothing to do with the past but it’s all about young nerds working in the lab and the future.

And it is brilliant also.

Innovations are so inbred into culture they don’t even notice them (so the implication is that they just aren’t that big a deal to Intel …. They just happen because they are supposed to).

This is what they call “Intel media lab” or “hey Walter”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30dnLv5VclI&feature=channel

Awesome.

They just told us they were innovators unimpressed by their own innovations.

Good stuff.

Finally.

An ability to laugh at themselves (but people benefit from the joke).

The challenge (I am guessing simply because I know how business owners think and the crap they make agencies figure out how to solve):

“How do I tell everyone I am smarter than they are and have an incredible attention to detail and am different in a way that makes me think I won’t get screwed buying their product and they aren’t just pounding their chests on how brilliant they are?”

Well. Let’s maybe share a laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FULHGwPkw&feature=channel

Awesome stuff again.

Even us non-geeks shake our heads and laugh and yet have a twinge of respect.

Ok.

About the only thing I dislike (and this is kind of nitpicky) is how they end all their ads with the infamous Intel sound mnemonic but instead they have people (I assume their employees) singing the little note signoff.

Yeah yeah yeah.

I get that they want everyone to know that Intel isn’t just a ‘chip’ but people.

Let’s call this the infamous “humanizing a technological innovation.”

Well. It’s kind of silly and unnecessary. The chip is king. I know. Its nitpicky. But it seems like one of those things that some client said and thought about and put their foot down and said “show people! … we aren’t just a bunch of robots making stuff up but we are a likeable group of people (albeit nerds).”

Sure.

So end the commercials with people making noises. That will do it.

Regardless.

A lot of business people and advertising people and marketers who take themselves too seriously oughta be checking out Intel. They get it.

And they are doing a whizbang job in my book.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

character and leadership

Sep 21st

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments

“Leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them.” Robert Jarvik

“A well adjusted person is one who makes the same mistake twice without getting nervous.” – Jane Heard

Let’s talk about leaders and leadership and character.

Great leadership is inspired by great ideas and great beliefs and a great vision and the ability to make mistakes with nerves of steel.

Bottom line? Strength of character.

They may not be the smartest.

They may have charisma and they may not.

They may not be the best at any responsibility they have had up until that point (functionally).

But they know how to lead.

And people follow.

Yeah.

A leader needs a sense of a leadership philosophy with certain beliefs to clearly guide action and behavior.

So. I read this following logic flow awhile back about leadership.

Trust is the foundation of leadership. Character creates trust and trust makes leadership possible.

It’s hard to argue with that logic.

I personally believe it is through their character they involve a balanced combination of work, pride (or spirit), soul and home life all of which enables this ‘trust’ in the leader.

Trust that the leader will do right for the organization (business) and the people (personally).

It’s a tricky balance.
I do believe leaders with character make empowerment an internal attitude and mindset cultivating that attitude and lead while still empowering.
They also have an ability to tap into the soul of the organization (and a significant number of employees) as they engage the minds.
Both of those last to things seem to create a connection with the organization without losing status as a leader.
In the end they lead people and manage things (not manage people and lead tactics/actions).
Oh.

And they get the hell out of the way of their people and let good shit get done.

“The best leader is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.” Theodore Roosevelt

At its extreme?

I love this following quote:

“There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.” Alexandre Ledru-Rollin

Imagine the type of fortitude and character necessary to have an organization be dynamic and actually follow. Whew.

Ok.

Let’s think about who can be a leader.

Well.

I guess anyone can be a leader.

And, in fact, in a broad sense everyone is a leader.

If you have influence you have leadership responsibilities.

Yeah. Whether you like it or not if you influence the way people think or work then you have a level of leadership (sorry about that).

And it is because of this influence factor I kinda think everyone should be concerned (or at least pay attention to) about what kind of influence you have on others.

But.

Let me stick with business leaders here (although some of what I am going to say is extremely relevant to all of us in our everyday lives).

Character Leaders typically seek to have a positive influence on the people around them. Influence through trust, honesty and respect.

I found this image which describes the ‘sphere of influence’ a character driven leader impacts (or influences).

It is interesting but even with leadership with trust an honest a character driven leader may not always be always popular (or well liked) mainly because they don’t fear telling people that they are wrong (because they are influencing the organization through a set belief/attitude structure).

This type of leader pushes out into this sphere of influence their philosophy and beliefs as guidance for ideas.

A character driven leader tends to be respected (but not always liked).

A character driven leader works towards what is “right” (not what will make people happy) and the benefit of the organization & people rather than acting in order to be recognized.

A character driven leader empowers responsibilities that enhance the people and the organization (and often will be almost invisible in the success … unless they also combine charisma with character).

Bottom line.

The best leaders don’t just lead.

They have character.

That may sound obvious but you can be a great leader and not have a strong character.

Or maybe better said you have another characteristic that is more important to the situation at hand. And that is okay.

Organizations typically need different types of leadership at different times (so it would be silly to suggest there is only one type of “great” leader).

But, if you have an opportunity to work with a character driven leader, jump at the chance.

Chances like that don’t come often. And it is worth every minute to be part of that type of an organization.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

respect the burden

Sep 2nd

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments

“respect the burden” – Napoleon Bonaparte

Ah.

So, yes, I wrote this in combination with Nelson’s ‘don’t fear the event.’

Two charismatic leaders who didn’t fear the event and respected the burden that came along with being a leader (and managing the event to the extent they could).

Before I get to the ‘burden’ it is interesting to note both of these excellent leaders of men were excellent delegaters. Excellent delegaters.

Nelson? Huge advocate of independent command. He was always clear on his expectations (‘when in doubt put yourself as close to the enemy as possible’) but delegated responsibility to individual commanders on how to do so.

Napoleon? Huge advocate of independent command. He was a ‘reactor’ to the situation. Gave his general’s direction and independence to act depending on the situation (he just chose excellent commanders).

Regardless.

They respected the burden.

They understand the burden. And they understood the aspects of the burden.

Being a leader carries with it huge responsibility. Not only are you constantly under a microscope but while under the microscope you are carrying the burdens of leadership.

But I find it interesting that the great leaders rarely invest a lot of energy discussing ‘burden’ but rather responsibility to others.

“A leader is a dealer in hope.” Napoleon

Part of the burden is giving hope in the face of fear.

Encouraging action when there is a temptation to freeze.

Part of it is ‘showing the way’ or at least showing ‘what could be.’

And be believable.

And.

Part of the burden is decisions. Or ‘guiding independent actions.’

“Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”- Napoleon

There is a burden to make decisions … and to permit others to make decisions.

Part of the burden is understanding the importance of communication in leadership.

Included in that is the understanding of a responsibility for peoples actions even though you have delegated the actions.

“An order that can be misunderstood will be understood.” Napoleon.

Part of the burden is understanding the depth and breadth of the leadership responsibility. Understanding it does not rest solely in one decision or a great decision but rather the great and the many and the ongoing. It is a burden to be a leader because the weight remains regardless. Maybe the best example I have seen of this was on West Wing where the president character’s most common phrase spoken was “what’s next.”

Part of the burden is always knowing that what’s next is just as important as what just was.

Resting is rarely an option for leaders.

“Greatness be nothing unless it be lasting.” Napoleon

And lastly.

Part of the burden is understanding the role they play with some humility.

“A throne is only a bench covered with velvet.” – Napoleon

The heights of leadership is rare air coupled with a burden of many aspects.

The greatest accept the burden.

And even better?
They not only understand all aspects of the burden but accept the burdens with grace and character and intelligence and some characteristic of charisma.

So.

Don’t fear the event.

Respect the burden.

Great management lessons.

For life and business.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

elephants and leaders

Aug 31st

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments


“All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.” – John Kenneth Galbraith, U.S. economist, “The Age of Uncertainty”

So.

I am not sure if this is becoming a characteristic of this generation of business leaders or I never noticed it in the last generation of business leaders. “This” is the inability to deal with the elephant in the room. Or even worse is the ignoring of the “herd of elephants” stalking through the organization.

Yes.

Being a leader of an organization (and size almost becomes irrelevant) is difficult and comes with challenges.

No.

Leaders shouldn’t ignore the elephant in the room or the herds of elephants wandering the hallways.

Elephants?

There are so many to choose from I couldn’t list them all. And no leader in their right mind will do an “employee survey” and expect to uncover the elephants that are seemingly walking invisibly through the hallways and offices of their company. No one trusts internal surveys any more.

Anyway.

Here are the ‘big 3’ elephants I see leaders kind of having their head up there ass on:

-          Senior manager flaws.

For some reason leaders are becoming blind to their semi-peer flaws. I don’t know if it’s the “kinder gentler” management of this generation or if they are just focused on what is being done well because it is one less thing to worry about. I don’t care what it is but it is elephant numero uno.

Here’s the deal. People have higher expectations the bigger the title. And they should. A bigger title means a higher standard to live/work by. A leader HAS to set his management team to a higher standard. They cannot be expected to play by the same rules as the rest of the organization. Oddly (having been in so many executive meetings I am surprised I haven’t had a natural lobotomy) leaders want to set up a standard of stricter rules for junior people and more flexible standards for senior.

It’s wacky. Senior people are supposed to be role models. The trickledown effect if you permit senior people with obvious ‘flaws’ is lack of respect, a belief that management is flawed, and a belief that anyone can be a senior manager (which isn’t true) and, well, confusion on how “they” (employees) can see something that should be obvious to a leader.

-          Making specialists generalists.

The way today’s business seems to work is no matter what your responsibility is in your ‘growth’ stages you get promoted (assuming you do well) and get rewarded with a generalist management role.

Look. I am not suggesting specialist cannot become generalist nor am I suggesting that a specialist cannot assume some responsibilities as executive leaders, but I do see organization leaders permitting the title/responsibility role reward based on merit not on ability to do the reward.

And the trickle down to those decisions (beyond the obvious that many just don’t deserve that role and mismanage) is that the organization staff see it and get confused (and join the herd of elephants wandering the hallways)

-          Inability to deal with younger employee dissatisfaction.

Whew. This one is a humdinger these days. This elephant isn’t even invisible and it gets ignored. In fact, many leaders just stare at the elephant and shake their head and go “oh well, there’s that damn elephant but there’s nothing I can do about it.”

It’s crazy. I have written about this before and, yes, I am going to generalize … but … this doesn’t have anything to do with “this generation’s work ethic” or “young kids just don’t have the same attitude as we did” (gosh, anyone reading that I would hope would feel old if they know they have said it themselves) … this is about leadership.

It’s not about being cool or wearing flip flops to work to show you ‘relate’ to the generation.

In fact, dear leader, they don’t want you to relate … they want you to lead.

A leader doesn’t have to be a ‘giant’ like I have written about before but they have to be a leader. Employees don’t have to like you (although it helps) they have to respect you. And that crosses any generation at any time with any age employee.  Being a leader (and however that particular leader utilizes leadership-like charisma) will overcome 90+% generational issues (flip flops in the office should take care of the rest).

Those are just three.

But I would imagine the point here is that I tend to see a diminishing ability in leadership to effectively deal with the elephants within their organizations. They are either oblivious, ignore them or accept them. Any of the three are unacceptable.

Ah. The biggest argument I get from senior people? I have other things more important at the moment, I am simply prioritizing.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ….

I have a tendency to want to point out that an elephant is … well … an elephant. And they are big.

Deal with it.

Anyway.

This is just a trend I seem to be seeing these days.

One last thought (because some of the elephants live outside the office building but come in attached to employees when they come to work every day):

Brian Dyson, CEO of Coca Cola Enterprises from 1959-1994
“Imagine life as a game in which you are juggling five balls in the air. You name them – work, family, health, friends, and spirit – and you’re keeping all of these in the air. You will soon understand that work is a rubber ball. If you drop it, it will bounce back. But the other four balls – family, health, friends, and spirit are made of glass. If you drop one of these, they will be irrevocably scuffed, marked, nicked, damaged, or even shattered. They will never be the same. You must understand that and strive for balance in your life.”

Nice way of looking at it if you ask me.

Okay. My advice to leaders? Go elephant hunting.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

original ideas

Aug 26th

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments

Ok. The whole concept of “original” idea seems to bring out the worst in people.

And maybe because I get to teach and talk with high school kids on occasion (and, boy, do they have ideas … lots and lots and lots of ideas … all original) I get to talk about the “truth” about original ideas.

For example.

I get to say.

There are no original ideas.

Okay.

That was black & white.

Let’s say they are truly truly rare.

Look. I have been lucky (in the whole ‘seeing awesome ideas’ category).

I have seen some of the world’s best innovations groups.

I have seen some of the most successful entrepreneurial business people in the world present their ideas.

I have seen some of the most creative people in the world show ideas.

And?

I think I can count on one hand truly original ideas.

Okay.

Derivatives and nuances? Sure.

Original? One hand.

So.

Let’s break original ideas down into two aspects.

1. The thought. 2. The implementation.

The thought is a “what if” or “could this be” type scenario.

Forget it.

Here is the truth.

Someone somewhere has had the same thought.

Some people have figured out a way to share it.

And if those some people have figured out a way of articulating it well (or well enough that people understand it).

Oh.

By the way. All these are diminishing numbers.

Ok.

And then there are the ones who articulate it well enough to be understood and have an audience who (a) gives a shit and (b) wants to do something with it.

By this time you can be found somewhere dancing on the head of pin with the few others who fit there with you.

And.

“Wants to do something with it.”

Yup.

(b) is important because truly original ideas scare the crap out of most people.

“Don’t worry about people stealing an idea. If it’s original, you will have to ram it down their throats.”

-          Howard Aiken

Now that quote is dead on right.

Go ahead and visit most management teams and talk about scared.

Now you run into the infamous “what people say versus what people do.”

What do I mean?

People say: “show me ideas that scare me.” And then “if it scares us it must be a good idea.”

And then.

People do: <nothing>

They may say … “they (it’s never ‘me’ it is always ‘they’) were too scared to do it. They just didn’t see the risk return on it.”

Well.

I will make one point here and then move on …

ORIGINAL MEANS IT HASN’T BEEN SEEN OR DONE BEFORE SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!!

(yes. I shouted that AND used exclamation points)

Anyway.

Maybe because it is new (and therefore untried or unseen) people get nervous.

Anyway.

Original ideas are every rare.

Okay.

Moving on to the protecting the relatively rare original ideas.

(which is where I really started when thinking about writing this)

People spend lots (and lots and lots and … well … you get the point) of time worrying about protecting proprietary ideas and proprietary process and ‘original ideas.’

(even if they don’t have one they invest lots of energy discussing and worrying about them)

Okay. Look.

If I am a drug company, maybe a software company or technology company with some engineering widgetology or maybe P&G which has some skin lotion formulation that some whiz bang ingredient then, yeah, you get protective.

Oh. Just for humor at the end of this post I have included a “proposed confidentiality process” we sent to a maniacally protective prospective client (yes. We did send an actual one but they were fun people as well as maniacal and wanted to have a little laugh over their obsessive behavior with regard to confidentiality)

Anyway.

But.

For some reason it seem my last several jobs I have encountered company owners who were obsessed with ‘protecting our original ideas.’ I kept on trying to point out to them that unless you’re a new products innovation group (and we were marketing and strategy driven companies) the odds of you truly having an original idea is lower than USA winning the World Cup.

I sometimes believe people spend so much time thinking they have an original idea and investing so much energy trying to keep it a secret they forget the energy it takes to actually get it to happen.

In fact.

To be honest.

I believe I have been in several situations where we actually had a fairly original idea however in presenting the idea I probably went overboard trying to draw links to things people have done in non related industries. It’s a little crazy but original ideas have an easier time being implemented if it feels ‘fresh’ to the industry it is going to happen in but ‘used’ by someone else first.

So you end up making original ideas look ‘not so original’ so that they can be implemented.

Crazy.

In the end.

I would worry less about whether it is “original” or not. I would worry more about whether it was a good idea.

And idea that will work.

In fact … it is true (take this one to the bank) if you stop thinking ‘original’ and start looking for “similar to” it becomes easier to implement and easier to sell (or have someone implement).

Sound wacky? Yup. But it’s true.

Just face it.

Originality (as with many things in life) is a shade of grey.

Or maybe an aspect of something that already exists.

Just worry about his:

“Until you can create something that captivates people, I’d invite you to just shut up. It’s easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It’s a lot more difficult to perform one.” Chuck Palahniuk

Worry less about original.

Worry more about the idea.

And worry more about making it actually happen versus protecting it.

So. That said.

Here are some thoughts if you want to protect your “original” ideas:

(yes. We really shared this with a client.)

< maniacal company>: Additional Confidentiality Steps

-          Cyanide pills

The pills are embedded in team member teeth caps with a tracking chip set to identify and explode upon the presence of a <competitive company> employee.

(note: this is covered in our dental plan)

-          Enigma coding machines

We have identified the two last working Enigma coding machines.  We can place one in your offices and the other will remain in <the managing director’s> office (which is better than card protected room because his executive assistant is better than a pit bull protecting that office).

-          Etch-a-Sketch communications

All communications will take place via etch-a-sketch. Twice a day all team members will shake their etch-a-sketch.

-          Invisible Ink

All written communications will be conducted in invisible ink. (but still under lock and key guidelines).

-          Fort Knox

Quick research has uncovered that the majority of the gold has been removed from Fort Knox and space is available. We may have to tweak the compensation agreement, but we would be willing to consider setting up a field office in the Fort Knox vault to service your business.

-          Cosa Nostra

Through some relationships <our managing director> has we may be able to make some arrangements to completely eliminate the <competitive company’s> conflict once and for all (if you know what we mean). Once again, we may have to tweak the compensation arrangement to accommodate this service.

These are just some initial ideas which we would be willing to discuss in the interest of collaboration.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

architects of fate

Aug 19th

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments


I don’t really believe in fate. And it appears good ole HW Longfellow didn’t believe in it either.

He wrote a beautiful poem called The Builders (see below) suggesting that we, the people, are architects of fate.

In fact.

The beauty of what he writes (and this is a truly awesome thought) is that everyone does something, no matter how small or how large, that builds the structure of life.

That each and every one of plays some role. That is a really nice thought. And a nice reminder that no matter how inconsequential we may feel or the things we do …. We play a part in the tapestry of life.

Now.

I am a business guy.

And a business guy with a long history in the service side of the business world.

The side of the world that you often feel helpless and moving about at the whim of someone else and often not really doing anything important.

And I have used this poem several times with companies to remind us, employees, that our actions have consequences.

Even the smallest actions.

Each action contributes to the structure of who we are as a company and what we do.

It is a valuable thought in every organizational behavior or culture sense.

It is a valuable thought in encouraging each employee to understand that their actions contribute to the architecture of the fate of the organization (no matter how inconsequential they may actually feel buried down in the mailroom or the bottomless pit of account receivables department or the office manager ordering heavy stock paper for the copier because someone is bitching).

And (as my good friend Luke Sullivan points out in his book “hey whipple squeeze this”) this also pertains to output. Actual things we do for customers or actions we take in front of customers. Each action is a part of the overall tapestry of the architecture of the company. He also points out that each action often begets another action (in that once you have done something once it begins to feel more ‘okay’ to do it again … I would call that a slippery slope discussion).

Anyway.

As we hustle our way through each day trying to make sure we cross off everything on our to do lists and make our bosses happy and answer customer’s questions and requests it is nice to remind ourselves we are truly architects of fate.

Our company.

Personal life.

Life in general.

Go build.

The Builders

All are architects of Fate,

Working in these walls of Time;

Some with massive deeds and great,

Some with ornaments of rhyme.

Nothing useless is, or low;

Each thing in its place is best;

And what seems but idle show

Strengthens and supports the rest.

For the structure that we raise,

Time is with materials filled;

Our to-days and yesterdays

Are the blocks with which we build.

Truly shape and fashion these;

Leave no yawning gaps between;

Think not, because no man sees,

Such things will remain unseen.

In the elder days of Art,

Builders wrought with greatest care

Each minute and unseen part;

For the Gods see everywhere.

Let us do out work as well,

Both the unseen and the seen;

Make the house, where Gods may dwell,

Beautiful, entire, and clean.

Else our lives are incomplete,

Standing in these walls of Time,

Broken stairways, where the feet

Stumble as they seek to climb.

Build to-day, then, strong and sure,

With a firm and ample base;

And ascending and secure

Shall to-morrow find its place.

Thus alone can we attain

To those turrets, where the eye

Sees the world as one vast plain,

And one boundless reach of sky.

-          Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

innovations, collaboration and discovery

Aug 12th

Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

No comments


So. There was a fascinating article in a late 2009 Science Magazine (“innovation is more critical than ever”).

Oh.

No. I don’t make it a habit to read Science magazine. So don’t anyone worry I have completely lost it.

But.

I came across this article about maintaining innovations through collaboration and partnerships in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries (and having seen the P&G Innovations group in action I am always interested in innovations process and thinking).

I thought it was a nice article talking about collaboration in a highly intelligent employee based organization (I will get back to that).

Next.

There was a small article in the Economist 8/7 issue on innovation prizes.

Now. I am not a cash reward believer (tends to not create ongoing ideation as well as discourages emotional based behavior patterns) but in this case the Economist showcased a couple of thoughts that I believe are perfect with regard to the proper use of collaboration (and dollar reward mechanism).

The concept is outsourcing collaborative ideation opening up competition to non-industry knowledgeable individuals (I will get back to that).

Next (and lastly so I can get to the point of this post).

A book called “The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.”

Now. I am not recommending this book. It is not for the faint of heart and it makes a Michener book read like People magazine. But. It does a nice job of addressing how innovations (lets call them biological, cultural & economic forces) can be aligned to enhance overall human progress.

Ok.

The bottom line is that innovations are the lifeblood of not only corporate success (or let’s say business/industry success) but also human success. Not just ‘comfort’ innovations but dwarf grain, penicillin, combustible engine type innovations.

Stuff that enhances true progress.

That is what innovation is all about.

Okay.

Let’s talk about innovation and collaboration (with the intent of discovery).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … why did I add that last part?

Well. Collaboration when used improperly impedes discovery, it doesn’t enable discovery.

I have already written about this but I would suggest most companies today misuse collaboration to the extent that it wastes employee energy and resources and actually negatively affects morale (so basically they are killing their organizations thru an idea with the best intentions … yikes.).

Anyway.

Genentech.

Suffice it to say smart (if not frickin’ brilliant) employee base almost top to bottom.

Oh. And their top to bottom is pretty shallow in that they have a flat organization (makes sense … why do you need a huge hierarchy with brilliant people running around?).

Oops. Ok. And before any businesses owner starts looking at this and thinks “that’s it. Flatten the organization!” (gosh. When I typed that I thought of the old Thomas Dolby ‘she blinded me with science’ video … “Science!” … anyway) they need to understand Genentech is not, say, a Cisco or even a P&G. Those organizations thrive on multi levels (multiple levels of expertise and brain power working together … think of it as drones & stars).

Genentech does not and would not thrive in a hierarchal structure (they don’t have many drones). Plus. The majority are entrepreneurial ideators themselves as thinkers.

So. What does a brilliant employee base organization do to collaborate and come up with innovations? Well. They don’t put a group of these Einstein like people in a small padded brain storming room and have them play ideation games.

They go outside the organization and collaborate with partners or maybe even access collaboration opportunities through mergers or acquisitions.

In my words … they seek to not put two magnets side by side but rather take a magnet and start throwing some different outside objects at it to see what sticks.

To make another point. While the word “collaboration” is being used, at its core, ideas is an “individual” thing (meaning individuals tend to come up with innovative ideas all by their lonesome) and biotech companies empower individuals to ideate (simply create as much stimulus as possible through collaborative efforts so that the individual can ideate).

Oh.

And while I am not describing a creative (or advertising agency) the realities in these environments is exactly the same. Empower individuals to ideate. Multiple minds soften the sharp edges of an innovation.

Okay.

Moving on.

The innovation “prize” idea.

Let me start with the end on this idea as described by The Economist. The 7 winners of this $1mlllion prize (to be awarded to someone who designed an algorithm system to enhance online recommendations based on prior purchases) never met physically until they picked up the prize. They had collaborated online.

Let me repeat. They never met until they showed up to receive the prize.

So. Once again the collaboration was outside the “using” (or manufacturing/implementing) organization as well as it was a specific “here is the challenge” situation.

A one-off if I may use that term.

Now. I want to be careful here (as the Economist also cautioned). Innovations scenarios to me that work here are specific product enhancement innovations. Policy or “soft” innovations (if I may use that term) would seem to be a less attractive intent for this prize/reward system. This collaboration/prize concept is perfect for “solving oil spills” or “a car that gets 100mpg” or a “reusable space ship” or things that may seem slightly impossible and attract innovative thinkers outside the industry “box” who may approach the widget issue from a completely different point of view.

Lastly.

I threw in the book because it makes the point that innovations propel progress. Without innovations we (the people) kind of just chug along. Progressing but ambling down the progress road. Innovations (like some I have mentioned above) propel us forward. Like think leaps instead of steps. It would behoove us to have someone smarter than I and someone in a power position to be thinking about solving some of our progress issues (stumbling blocks) in this way.

Okay.

Hey. I know ongoing innovation is difficult. Mainly because great organizations exist on two levels. Continuity and discontinuity (and I believe people do also).

But only one is constant. Continuity. You need ongoing efficient coordinated alignment to bring all resources to bear in competitive environments. And yet you need steady (but interspersed) infusion of innovation (or discontinuity) to be successful.

One keeps you on the road. One keeps you from being stagnant.

Simply think OFF = ON. What do I mean?

When something previously deemed ‘emerging’ starts to invade the mainstream, or even better, is actually mimicked by it, new innovation opportunities abound. Case in point: the near-total triumph of the online revolution, which has the offline world more often than not playing second fiddle in everything from commerce to entertainment to politics.

So.

The idea of outsourcing collaboration is brilliant. Especially for one off specific challenges. And prizes insure innovative thinking toward solutions. And forward thinking innovative solutions propel progress.

(everyone should like that short paragraph)

One last point on innovations and collaboration (and why this outsourcing idea is a big idea).

Typically the most effective ideation focuses on the needs of “Lead End User” to Drive the innovation system at all phases of ideation. This principle is based on more than just the tired “the consumer is king” mantra.  It is a ruthless pursuit of Lead End Users, the consumers or customers who have legitimate change-agent DNA working in every aspect of their lives.  These change agents can truly help you morph and accelerate new ideas by maximizing lead end user input through early exposure to end benefit (or prototype) visual stimulus.  This seeing-is-selling visual stimulus is empowering to change agents, who often solve their unmet needs by developing their own product or service solutions.

The problem? (two of them)

1. internal organization collaboration will kill Lead End User ideas. Kill them so dead they will never come back.The ideas seem so impossible that within a group of collaborators there will be enough “unimaginative” people to clearly define it as a waste of time (as impossible). Collaboration kills here.

2. The process discussed above is often challenging and even scary to a company, because lead end users rarely reflect the current masses’ desires.  After all, lead end users are early adopters and reflect trendspotter characteristics. And, as with any trendspotter, the ideas uncovered can be unattractive at first glance because the market doesn’t yet exist. But that is the first step towards uncovering the big win new product innovation.

So. In the end real progress is maintained by innovative innovations (not all innovations are truly “spur on progress” innovative ideas.).

I do like the privatization of ideation (on some things). I caveat because (and it may sound like I am backpedaling) because I believe companies should be thoughtful and selective on any collaboration efforts. And then even more selective of what is solved in house versus the outhouse (ok, externally).

If managed correctly there are many ideas that can be generated internally within an organization. (Although not with a prize reward mechanism).

But.

Everyone should remember that great innovation progress is driven by (1) individuals with ideas and (2) reliance of outside resources to envision the impossible as possible.

Oh. And companies are not built for anything I have described in the immediate above as well as the process I described (or at least if they are they are the exception to the rule).

Why? Not only is it scary but the approach to capital budgeting and resource allocation at traditional companies is completely counter to nurturing and facilitating new ideas.  Multiple levels of in-grown management seek to protect the existing business model and ‘stay the course.’  In addition, new ideas are often forced to be synergistic to the current business.  Radical new ideas face a bureaucratic march of death up multiple organizational levels where a “no” at any point can kill the idea.  The key financial goal of this death march is to minimize the number of projects falling below a minimally acceptable rate of return.

In contrast, a typical VC incubator system is focused on insuring the big winner.  Resources are attracted to (not allocated against) the best ideas without any regard to protecting the status quo or forcing synergy.

Now that sounds a lot like what I have been writing about.

Outside collaboration.

Rewards to winning best ideas.

Set the specific challenges to have the “collaborative contests” over.

Start thinking this way and, by golly by gee, we are gonna have some progress my friends.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries