Posts tagged organizations
older experienced people and transformational hires
Jul 28th
So. In the past months I received two things that didn’t seem related but in my warped mind they did:
1. Ralph Cutcher (a nice really smart guy) talked in his newsletter about helping companies hire more transformational people. Here is what he said:
- Transformational Players –During the last year, most of our assignments have been for what I would term “transformational players”. Sounds like an impossible search assignment right? Not really. What these searches represent is an expectation of change and new possibilities, principally tied to establishing new capability, a new leadership approach or new business creation. And they are always entwined with an expectation for revenue lift. Our view may be skewed somewhat by the nature of how our practice has evolved, but I also see this when I talk with connections in every corner of the marketing and advertising world. A great replacement is not really considered a high value staffing move. More often than not these transformational player moves are accomplished by trading out another role(s) to fund this move, making an incremental FTE add or moving a star player into a transformational role. The result over time will be a version of the GE model… every year trade out the bottom 10% of your performers. In this updated model, every person is intricately tied to a higher value role with a constant re-evaluation of the roles and how they fit in. This future view will put a premium on a person’s ability to influence and activate the organization regardless of their current role.
2. I was forwarded an email suggesting about only 4% of employees in advertising (say marketing) agencies are over 50 … so where is the knowledge and experience coming from (and the editorial suggests how can agencies developing communications to boomers do so without boomers guiding the relevance)? Here is the quote from EngageBoomers:
- The PEW Center released a study at the end of last year suggesting that the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50-year history of the study. Even larger than during the Vietnam war era. Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. And then there’s this … The average age of an advertising agency creative person is 28. The average age of a media planner is 24. And less than 4% of advertising agency personnel in America is over the age of 50. I know why all the ads look and sound the way they do. I know why none of them talk to the 50+ audience. A friend of mine offered up this paraphrased quote from the Greek philosopher Xenophanes: “If horses had gods, they would look like horses.” Thirty-five year old creative people are always going to create messages that look like them, sound like them and act like them. Why? Because they’re 35.
Okay.
I have to tell you.
I think the market place needs more 50 year old+ employees than ever before (and I am gonna tell you why).
Now. I am not suggesting all 50+ people are the same. And this generalization may be translatable to other age groups but let me suggest there are three groups:
- Over 50 and all they know and believe in is what they were taught when they were in their 20’s.
- Over 50 and they have all the knowledge they need to be on their own and like being on their own (I call these builders)
- Over 50 and have accumulated iterative learning over the years and have a unique combination of old and new (and like renovating)
(note: I wrote a post about Builders versus Renovators if you want to check it out)
The first group is lost in the past.
They will struggle because their thinking and ideas and even their vocabulary can be out of date. They will suck at transformation or renovation. Their hope is finding someone who needs to work on their internal construct of how to get shit done because … well … they know how to get shit done within a system. But mostly these are the people when we were young we thought were ‘out-of-touch’ from the real world (or chuckled to ourselves because they would throw out up to date buzzwords acting like they knew what was going on).
The second group has accumulated enough knowledge and expertise and confidence where mentally they have flipped from ‘working for someone’ to ‘working for myself.’
They have recognized their ability to build. And they like building (which is different than transforming). They would suck at transforming because they want to run the place and not simply be an enabler for the organization to shift. (Ralph also talks about this within his newsletter as “fear of flying” and learning about yourself). They could possibly be out of touch or they could be leading edge entrepreneurs. But it doesn’t matter because they are now going forward as their own boss.
And then there is the third group. They are renovators (Ralph calls them Transformation people).
Companies should be fighting over these people.
They are old but not old. They are experienced but still learning. They have a solid thinking construct but flexible in application. They may have their quirks (because I believe all of us older people start feeling more comfortable in our own skin and therefore are a little less worried about ‘fitting in’) but also tend to be more interested in the result than worrying about step by step how they get there. They can actually make the current buzzword understandable by using past functional learnings to explain them. They clearly have one foot in the past (history & knowledge) and one foot in the future (restless & learning). Great at transforming. Great at bridging generation gaps.
So.
When I say “fighting for these people” I don’t mean to suggest that companies should be stockpiling these people at the expense of young energetic fresh thinkers and doers. I am simply suggesting that companies need a good tier of these boomer types to transform themselves when, frankly, a lot of companies need to be ‘transforming.’ (and my definition of transformation is leveraging from solid good older characteristics an injecting some new characteristics).
I am also not going to suggest there should be a direct correlation between % of boomers in population and % of boomers in the makeup of business organizations.
That would seem kind of silly to me.
You don’t need a shitload of these people because they are catalysts (and I think if you have too many catalysts in a room it creates either a black hole or an implosion … I cannot remember which).
But the numbers are pretty compelling that organizations should seek that third group of over 50ers (let’s be nice and call them boomers … hey … I am one … well … officially I think I am a Joneser).
In 2009 The PEW Center released a study outlining the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50 year history of the study.
Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. 
Truly the only way to bridge that gap within an organization and eliminate generational divisiveness is to have boomers who can effectively communicate with and motivate all age groups.
Look. Just to make a point for all organizations.
I don’t know that I buy the dire extent of the issue the editorial in Media Post suggests with regard to boomers in advertising/communications agencies (The average age of an advertising agency creative person is 28. The average age of a media planner is 24. And less than 4% of advertising agency personnel in America is over the age of 50).
To the facts just stated I frankly say “so what.”
I don’t believe only women have to work on female driven communications, African Americans on African American focused communications or clowns to work on circus communications.
Talented communicators can create links with anyone they desire to communicate with.
This leads me back to the importance of that third group of boomers with the talent I outline.
That group will tend to be generalists.
They will have such a varied experience background that their value will be exponential in that they know how to transfer learnings to different situations. 
They will know how to take company vision (or ‘dream”) and give younger people purpose. And they will be flexible enough to do it in a variety of ways.
Organizations today should be absolutely climbing over each other to find those people.
Why?
Because no 25 or 30 year old can have that ability (that I guarantee).
Why?
Because there is no possible way they would have had time to accumulate the experience and learnings to be fully (they could be partially at that point) capable of what a good third group Boomer type can offer an organization.
But hey. I am biased. I am selling my own age group.
But.
I will also say.
This is one of the few topics I feel pretty confident that I am right on.
separate but one
Jul 28th
“… be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” 
Booker Washington
Ok.
I am going to take this awesome quote and talk about two things: business and personal.
Business.
Whenever anyone asks me about “integration” this is the quote I use.
We talk so often of “staying on strategy” or “meeting objectives”.
Why? Because there is so much everyday other shit going on you worry about losing control. So you have one of two choices. Leverage off of something (strategy) or aim for something (objective).
That’s it. Let’s call it vectoring for success. Okay. Let’s not.
And you have to choose because today everyone is “integrating.” What I mean is everybody is seeking to implement a shitload of tactics in a shitload of different vehicles and it can all go to shit really really fast.
Ok. So you are on your ‘vector.’
You have one of two choices (in general).
Create chemistry through conflict management (think dictator insuring all the fingers stay on one hand or get chopped off if they start flipping you off). This hand can punch a bunch of people along the way but just as a boxer ages over time your career as a conflict hand organization will wear out in a relatively short time.
And then there are hands that face conflict with chemistry. Create a culture that thrives on that vector. (whenever I type that word I want to ask “what’s your vector? Victor” … anyway …) this one is a little scary because it contains that evil word “decentralization.”
Uh oh.
Great organizational chemistry almost always has a thread of some autonomy. But great organizational chemistry embodies the quote also. So. Choose your path. But if you like the quote you know which way to go now.
Personal.
Whenever someone asks me about what makes a great relationship this is the quote I use.
I believe being one while remaining two is the greatest thing that can ever happen in any relationship.
‘To be one yet remain two’ is the way I believe I have heard it said before. But Booker says it better.
I would imagine this means a balance between independence and dependence.
Uhm.
Yes. Dependence.
Being dependent isn’t a bad thing on occasion. In individual moments we all need someone. If we don’t … well… I would argue you aren’t human.
But having some independence keeps the partnership healthy and growing. And actually keeps the “ones” stronger as ‘ones’ so when they become ‘two’ they actually have strength far beyond the numbers. (I think Pythagoras proved this in his third marriage).
a rant on ad agencies differentiation: part 1 the missed opportunities
Jul 25th
So. I have managed advertising agencies, I have been business development director at agencies and I have talked with so many business owners about advertising agencies as well as search consultants (kind of like executive search people for businesses looking for agencies) that I think I have seen pretty much every angle any agency has ever taken to differentiate themselves.
And I think any sane person who stuck their head into this padded room advertising agencies live in would suggest the occupants exhibit some relatively insane behavior patterns on occasion.
Look. No matter how you slice it my friend Luke Sullivan said it best “it’s all about the work.” An agency both has the work and can do the work or they don’t and they can’t (but are trying to convince everyone they do and can).
We in the agency business hate admitting it’s “the work” because then it makes us sound like a manufacturing plant cranking out widgets. Well. Tough nooogies (I love typing that). Agencies are what they produce. Simple as that.
Do they produce ideas (so they can claim they are ‘thinking agencies’)? No.
Those are consulting firms (who typically in my harsh point of view have absolutely no value to the world because they shirk the responsibility of the actual ‘doing the work’ once they have the insight/idea).
Anyway.
Advertising agencies produce “tangible creativity” based on an idea.
Doesn’t mean you should be any dumber because you shamelessly state it’s the work (cause if you don’t have the insight or the idea you ain’t gonna produce ‘the work’ anyway).
A person I admire said “well, our work sells shit.” That works for me too.
Does it mean they do crappy work?
Nope. Just that if you come to them and they develop work for you it will … well .. work.
Anyway.
Differentiation.
So most agencies that can do the work fall into three categories.
- Ones known for a charismatic talented personality. Jeff Goodby. Roy Spence. Alex Bogusky. Stan Richards. And going back in time … David Ogilvy, Mary Wells, Bill Bernbach. Let’s call them “zen masters.” Kind of the Phil Jackson’s of the advertising industry. These are at the top but there are a slew of well known charismatic personalities that can raise the level of an agency that can and does the work to a place in the marketplace where they are differentiated. Oh. And charismatic takes on all shapes and sizes. You may not know the people I stated above but one is reserved and taciturn and brilliant, one is bombastic and pulpit worthy and one is casually brilliantly articulate and one is formal and disciplined and concise. There ain’t no formula here folks for charismatic talented personalities. Other than the fact people like to listen to them and follow them.
- Ones who are known as an agency that does ‘this kind of work.’ So the agency isn’t driven by a charismatic personality but most probably by a distinct culture or attitude that has consistently generated a distinctive look & feel of “work” that has worked and they have become known for something. Cliff Freeman agency probably the easiest one to point out here.
- Ones in between but wanting to be one of the above two (oh. Most agencies are here).
This third group is a morass of all size agencies ebbing and flowing as several are always on the cusp of moving into one of the two categories above and some slip in and some never make it and fall back into the pack. All always seeking that ‘differentiation’ that makes them get considered. And group three is doubly difficult to compete in because this is also the group where agencies who don’t really do ‘the work’ (because they cannot … because … well …. they suck) reside and wander around trying to look like agencies that can do the work and confuse the whole kitandkaboodle (another word I like to type).
Oh. Before I get to the differentiation thing.
So why can’t some really good agencies get up into one of those two categories?
Well. I am going to generalize but try these on for size:
- Charismatic personality. Agencies are typically hotbeds of egos and politics. Elevating one person above the rest is a gauntlet that even the most charismatic person has to be slightly lucky to get there. It is certainly the easiest way for an agency to get in the game but most agencies waste this opportunity through politics and egos. Or. They simply choose the wrong horse to ride to the top. What do I mean by that? Well. An owner of an agency may feel they are the anointed ‘charismatic one’ because it is their name above the door. When in reality they are simply the one who has the cahones to own an agency and manage an effective agency and hire great people so it becomes a great agency. The owner is the wrong horse in this case.
- Agencies that are known for their work. This is a complex group. Couple things fall in here. If you don’t have the account how do you get known for the work? (that is the issue but I will suggest an answer in part 2 in differentiation). Or even worse is the battle between making money and doing work. All agencies have clients in their stable where they don’t do work that completely sucks but it isn’t “all about the work” and it pays a lot of bills. Maintaining that balance is really really difficult. Combine that fact with the fact that most agencies in this group chase anything hoping it is ‘the one.’
Please note that almost everything I have written in this section translates into “the agency is not in control of their destiny.” That is until they get ‘the client’ and even then you are having to prove it wasn’t a onetime fluke but sustainable. Even Crispin, who began in group three, shifted into group 2 (about the work) and ultimately now resides in group one (Alex Boguskyland) was only able to achieve this over a period of time. It takes some consistency to move from group three to two. The one thing that doesn’t take time is a charismatic personality. If you got one ride that horse until it breaks a leg and you have to shoot it.
Ok. Back to the work and differentiation.
First.
I believe most agencies confuse differentiation and being distinct. Agencies known for their work aren’t really different. They just have a point of distinction. For whatever their work is known for.
Second.
So. In the attempt to break out of the morass in group three agencies go to incredible heights of zaniness to break out. The most typical and tried & true is the “proprietary process.”
whew. Okay. Unless some agency has a magic cube they throw their work into that they shake up and then pull out the magical “work that works” no one has a proprietary process.
Sure. They may be some differences. But they are nuances. Pretty much everyone does a derivative of everyone else.
Why wouldn’t you? The best processes are smart and well done and copied.
Anyway. Process differentiation is part 2 of this rant.
Part 1 simply suggests differentiation is simpler than ad agencies tend to make it. Doesn’t mean it is easy. Just means it is simpler if they would allow it to be so.
simple complicated. complicated simple.
Jul 23rd
Making the simple complicated is commonplace.
But.
Making the complicated simple is not commonplace.
That.
Is.
For.
Frickin’.
Sure.
In fact. I have almost started believing that they are teaching “how to complicate things” in schools these days.
And even worse? (and this is really nutty)
Say for example you really have been able to articulate something simply AND it is actually so awesomely simple it is brilliant.
You are feeling pretty good with yourself about right now. You were clear, concise and brilliant in simplicity.
(here comes the nutty part)
No one believes its right.
Yup. No shit.
“It cannot be right. That’s too simple. WE MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING.”
(I capitalized it not because when it is said someone is shouting but, rather when you hear it, it sounds like someone shouting in your head and there is a buzzing sound in your ears like a grenade went off beside your head)
You want to look around and calmly say:
“You are correct. Brilliant insight in fact. What’s missing is all the COMPLICATED SHIT YOU WANT TO COMPLICATE THIS WITH.”
(note: on occasion you may actually shout this but on the off chance you don’t you will want to shout it)
Somewhere in the past it became uncool to do something simple.
And since that time (and I would shoot the bastard if I could find him who did it) it seems like we have gained momentum surrounding this concept and not is it uncool to do something simple the majority of people cannot even recognize a simple solution.
Simplicity has gone the way of the Dodo (extinct).
On occasion someone stands up and says “hey, I am not sure Dodos are extinct, I am pretty sure I saw one in that conference room.”
Everyone laughs. “Dodos are extinct.”
“Well, I have seen a picture of one and I am pretty sure it was one.”
Needless to say you either become extinct in the company if you stay the course or worse they throw you into the loony zoo with all the other Dodo sightings.
So.
Here’s the deal.
If you are one of the rare birds who can see simple things as they are (simple), don’t get frustrated. And every time you watch something simple become more complicated just take note and put that thought in a little box for another day.
Because one day you are going to be in a position to tell people what to do. I guarantee it.
How can I guarantee it?
Because you are one of the rare birds who can see the simple within the complex.
It won’t matter how many of these discussions you lose in early years.
Oh, and you really aren’t an extinct bird. Just so rare no one recognizes you.
You will lead one day.
Then you pull out your box and start doing simple things and kicking some ass (just don’t tell anyone you are a Dodo … probably not a good idea … let them think you are extinct).
Fun aside.
Lack of simplicity in the business world is probably the biggest issue in business these days. And it is overlooked as everyone focuses on ‘building brands’ and bottom lines and organizational alignment and whatever the business buzzword du jour is.
Shove ‘em off to the side.
The biggest issue facing American businesses today is over complicating simple things.
It’s that simple.
(and no one will believe me)
unhealthy eating Part 4: implementation
Jul 15th
A friend (I use that term loosely) asked me how the program I suggested in Part 3 could be effectively implemented when there is an economic cost of eating healthy and the role the government would have to play in altering that.
Well. First. He is correct.
It is a fact there are some significant subsidies and a lot of companies with great interests in keeping things the way they are:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/
Second. Look. I don’t really believe the wacky pyramid charts in the article (too many dimensions and % of %’s aspects that make it difficult to put in a useful pyramid).
But.
Let’s just agree in the current situation/environment the government subsidizes (for a number of good reasons as well as some wrong reasons) a variety of unhealthy focused items versus more healthy items.
Bottom line? The government spends an average of $4.6 billion on subsidies for corn and nothing on fruit/vegetables.
And according to a March ‘08 NY Times article, My Forbidden Fruits (and vegetables), farmers are actually fined when they plant fruits and veggies on land that is designated for corn (oh, here’s a random factoid for you, a Big Mac registers at 53% corn due to all the corn that the cows ate and the high fructose corn syrup so Big Macs – not picking on McDonalds although I like Wendy’s burgers better but they are also in the same situation – are actually partially subsidized by the government).
Anyway.
I guess the point of all these facts is to point out that the existing farm and government infrastructure is not really conducive to a large population shift in eating behavior.
Well.
You could pretty much have said the same thing about the tobacco & government relationship at the onset of the anti tobacco initiatives in the early 1970’s. In addition that battle continued for decades before subsidies and government programs actually swung in a different direction.
There were lots of subsidies and “keeping things the way they are.”
But. It has changed. It has been a long complex battle but in the end smoking (tobacco) has lost … or let’s say is in the process of losing.
All that said let’s go to implementation (because that will be the way to actually affect unhealthy eating behavior AND actually change the way that government looks at this issue).
So. I have suggested Unhealthy Eating as an addiction.
And Mortality education is the linchpin to a communications program.
My thoughts on implementation.
First. I do believe the recent healthcare reform where the government will become more active in day to day health insurance programs should benefit unhealthy addiction programs. Well. Let me take that back. IF the new healthcare reform (which, ladies & gentlemen, is unlikely to happen as the government argues over stupid stuff) happens, an unhealthy initiative would benefit.
Second. I have already written here I am not a big detractor of government developed programs. I do believe they do a nice job developing and initial implementation of national programs (ongoing management not so much). So some type of national federally funded initiative would work well here. Let me clarify this also. This does not mean it has to be an actual federal program but rather a national fund where states could access matching funds if they meet some specific criteria (portions of anti-tobacco does this same thing I believe).
Third. I would implement unhealthy eating programs on a state level (primarily).
Similar to anti tobacco (anti smoking) campaigns from day one the most successful case studies came from individual states and in fact success at an individual state level eventually drove a stake through the heart of federal subsidies and the tobacco lobbyist construct.
We should let states take this one on in the beginning.
Some will get it righter than others but they learn fast.
The key is getting some success and some trial & error things in place. State driven initiatives are incredibly good at ‘borrowing’ successful ideas from other states (as well as challenging ideas with the intent of always improving … or simply the competitiveness of ‘looking better than those jerks in that other state).
Going back to my “primarily” comment I would like to note that it was a federal program that created the controversial smoking black lung messaging and drugs scrambled egg and John Lennon ‘imagine’ gun control messaging. So a federal based campaign can create a strong messaging platform. That means, stating once again, I wouldn’t be opposed to a federal unhealthy eating campaign.
I just believe in the end if we really want to get some traction and develop campaigns that will affect behavior they should be implemented on the state level.
There you go. Nothing brilliant here. In fact I am stealing the successful learnings from the anti-tobacco initiatives. But why reinvent the wheel?
Change part 4: broken pieces
Jun 18th
“I was never one to patiently pick up broken fragments and glue them together again and tell myself that the mended whole was as good as new. 
What is broken is broken — and I’d rather remember it as it was at its best than mend it and see the broken places as long as I lived.” – Margaret Mitchell
This post is kind of a hybrid of management of change (part 2) and embracing change in plans (part 3) and whatever else you can think of with regard to change (parts to continue ad nausea).
So. I begin with … it drives me crazy when a manager’s plan falls apart and then they run around (or have their “people”) trying to put all of the broken plan pieces back together again solely so they can “stay with the plan.”
Ok. That was a generalization.
Some pieces of a plan are more important than others. You save those. And most times those pieces don’t break off that easily anyway.
Regardless.
When a plan is broken super gluing it back together again is probably not the best plan of action.
Yet. Time and time again you see leaders slavishly having people run around sticking pieces back onto the plan like little barnacles on a ship.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Why? (me asks myself).
Well. Interestingly a leader runs into a different aspect of the same issue the organization is dealing with.
While the organization (and people in general) typically hates change it helps they have a plan to follow (kind of like going on a trip and at least you have a map), the leader likes a plan to implement change and yet hates changing the plan (despite the fact it is all directed to creating a change).
Yikes. That was confusing.
Suffice it to say human nature says we want the plan to stay the same but are not opposed to it being better (ah. The contradictions in life).
“Our dilemma is that we hate change and love it at the same time; what we really want is for things to remain the same but get better.”
Sydney J. Harris
So. In practicality the organization (people) loves having the plan but inevitably will be shaking their head over some things and say “wouldn’t it be better if we do this?” (and start implementing change on their own).
This is where I go back to the beginning where I said I hate managers who maniacally glue the plan back together when it breaks. The organization, the people, in the midst of the change transition start implementing plan changes (let’s call these, at their best, course corrections) and then you have managers running around with glue putting the original plan back together again and, well, that would be call disorganization. Or maybe negative energy. Or maybe even wasted energy. At its worst it is unadulterated chaos.
(needless to say … on the McTague good bad scale that is bad for an organization)
I would suggest to leaders “go with the flow” when a plan breaks apart (but I tend to believe that is slightly too flippant).
In the end change is a funny thing. In business it is often the same as in life.
There may be a grand plan and a vision. But during the ‘change’ we (personally and/or organizationally) are never quite sure what we are becoming, or why. Then one day we look at ourselves, and wonder who we are, and how we got there. But if it’s done right we are pretty happy with what we see.
And if we are really true to ourselves we have changed in some way by being broken and picking up some old pieces and some new pieces and just “are.” (no superglue involved)
So. All that said (because this is about gluing together broken plans) great leaders recognize that the people they started with in their organization will not be the same people when the “change” is done.
What this means is that a leader can’t glue back the original employees into the plan … they have changed.
And treating them as the unbroken original is silly (and non productive if not chafing). Change means breaking from what is. And assume a change plan of action will change. If you don’t, have lots of superglue.
Oh, by the way, employees (and people in general) don’t like to follow a plan that has been superglued back together again.
charging to learn corporate culture
Jun 2nd
So. I just heard the craziest thing I have heard in awhile (it may not be true but it’s worth ranting about).
I heard Zappos is charging people to come in and do a 3 day seminar (visit, exploration, whatever) on their culture and building a culture.
Okay.
What’s up with that?
Seriously.
Who would pay to do that?
Maybe more importantly … why would you pay to do that?
Ok. Look. I get the fact that it’s different world today when trying to make your company (or products or services) into a “brand.” With internet connecting everyone with every minute tidbit of information companies have to become a little more transparent whether they like it or not. An unhappy customer or a disgruntled employee can spread a bad experience faster than ever before.
I guess the good news is that the reverse is true as well. A great experience with a company can be read by millions of people almost instantaneously as well.
But, c’mon, the fundamentals are exactly the same as in the past. The best brand names were always the ones who emanated from the internal culture of the company. And by “best” I mean the ones that have lasted and passed the tests of time. Everyone knows that. Heck. Everyone knew that.
I don’t care if there are a zillion touchpoints today versus something less than a zillion before. The fundamental issue was always the same. You should attempt to make each touchpoint be positive. And each touchpoint should be a reflection of your character (or company culture). Because then (which makes it sound as if it was sometime prehistoric) you couldn’t anticipate problems just as you cannot today. Truly the only thing you could, and can, control is who you are and what you are selling (or offering).
In addition. We have always known the power of the employees in the marketplace (managing perceptions or ‘brand’ if you want to use that word). I know for a fact even in my ancient past in my first job it was important that even when I wasn’t “on the clock” I was always “on the clock” with regard to the company I worked for. Sure. I may have bitched some but in every instance I knew I represented the company in some form or fashion.
Would that stop me from getting shitfaced and dancing on a bar? Nope.
Would it stop me from denigrating the company, our clients, their products and what we (I) did for a living? Yup.
We didn’t need handbooks to talk about culture in those days.
We understood it.
We knew every employee had the ability to create a positive or negative impression.
We also knew that culture wasn’t just about whatever it was we were selling. It was an attitude. It was a character. We weren’t cloned but it was certainly a culture. And, sure, there were aspects of our culture that bled into “customer service” or “customer experience” but they were simply aspects of an overall culture.
Okay. Getting to the point of this post.
So. If you think going someplace to see someone else’s corporate culture and copying it (or copying how it is implemented) is going to work, well, get another job.
- You cannot copy someone’s culture. Period. That’s like saying you want to be someone other than who you are. Your company is made up of your people. Unless you can hire away their people and their management (and management possibly being the most important) you ain’t never gonna be them. So why would I pay to see their culture?
- If you cannot copy their culture you cannot copy how they implement (or the stuff they do to cultivate their culture) the stuff they do within their culture. No can do. Why? Because your culture begets the stuff you do to cultivate it. So if I took all the whiz bang Zappo’s internal things and applied it to my own personality/character/culture … well … some may not come naturally. Because it’s someone else. All that internal culture stuff bubbles out of who you are. Unless you want to try and clone forget it.
some culture chart i wanted to include because i have no clue what is says but its about corporate culture
So. In their words … “At Zappos, our belief is that if you get the culture right, most of the other stuff — like great customer service, or building a great long-term brand, or passionate employees and customers — will happen naturally on its own.”
Do I disagree with them? Shit no.
Do I believe it I some epiphany? Shit no.
Sure. Some companies “lose their way” on his issue (heck. I worked at one of the world’s greatest agencies who had the culture mojo and lost their way by losing sight of its importance). But. I cannot imagine one viable well run company’s leader (or group of leaders) who doesn’t know this and does it in their own way. Every one of us who has ever held a C level position knows that your “brand” is, and should be, simply an extension of your culture (because if it’s not you are screwed if not in the short term definitely in the long term).
Zappos certainly is an excellent example of “how to do it the right way” tactically (I don’t debate that):
- Hiring with an eye on culture first
- Training aspects on what is important to culture (historical knowledge and functional aspects)
- Employee empowerment tactics
- A willingness to hire & fire based on cultural fit (this is actually a biggie)
They are clear in stating their values (although I am not a big fan of the “10 core value list”) and it helps them, within their character, to put a stake in the ground organizationally to measure everyone and provide a north star for actions and decisions and commitment to ‘something’ organizationally:
1) Deliver WOW Through Service
2) Embrace and Drive Change
3) Create Fun and A Little Weirdness
4) Be Adventurous, Creative, and Open-Minded
5) Pursue Growth and Learning
6) Build Open and Honest Relationships With Communication
7) Build a Positive Team and Family Spirit
Do More With Less
9) Be Passionate and Determined
10) Be Humble
By the way, before all this ‘brand ambassador” and “corporate brand” stuff we used to call it the “DNA of the company”. Just connecting with the company “DNA” which was its’ roots, management/leadership style and personality traits.
Oh. But that was probably developed in the 40’s or 50’s so that was no good.
Anyway.
Visiting some company and paying to learn their culture and how they implement it just seems wacky to me (and an odd way to spend money).
I don’t think you can “learn to build a culture” from someone else. As a leader you build a culture. Your own. Or you are becoming a leader of a company that already has a culture and you are fostering an existing culture. And you do it throughout your organization in all actions big and small. That’s it. No book needed. No class. And certainly no money spent visiting someone whose culture you can’t copy anyway.
Spend the money and buy their shoes. They will like you better anyway.
Getting Ahead means Being Ahead
May 21st
So. It seem like I have been visiting a lot of 20something blogs lately seeking good writing and thinking. And there is a lot out there. I guess as the tradeoff is I get asked some questions as they try to understand the work world (because I am certainly not qualified to explain the social and personal world).
Here’s is the big one it seems (and I faced this question a lot from the junior members of any organization u have worked within).
How can I get ahead when I have so much to do I can barely keep my head above water?
With companies getting leaner all employees are getting stretched on the “to do” list but inevitably the less experienced (and hence less senior) people get dumped (delegated) the entire task oriented “to do” things. And, to be clear, this happens typically not because senior people are not capable of doing them and nor, in most cases, are they against doing all the ‘to do’ tasks they could take on, but rather there is more pressure on senior people to “get it right the first” than ever before. Therefore it’s kind of like making sure your best member of your team has the energy and focus to get it done when it needs to get done (ok. some younger people are gonna argue that the senior person in question is “not the best member of the team” and they may be correct but, like a pendulum, if that senior person isn’t as efficient as they can be the remainder of the organization suffers .. so just suck it up and make the c+ senior team member as good as they can be ..)
Anyway. This post isn’t about whether a senior person is good or not this post is about getting ahead.
So. Junior people (or less experienced people looking to move ahead in an organization) have a combination of major challenges to ‘get ahead’ in their career (and they are like dominos to their ‘getting ahead’ goal):
- Just getting all the shit done
- Managing perceptions of how you are getting the shit done
- Finding time to do the things over and above the shit to stand out
First. Getting all the shit done.
Accept the fact you cannot get it all done all the time. No one has. It’s all about getting done what can be done great … great. And then. Getting what can just be done … done. (and learning the difference between these two things is an art and will take some trial & error to get right). That is about the only way you can get all the shit done and make sure some of the shit gets done great so it doesn’t look like you don’t recognize just done from great.
This may be contrary to some advice you get. Some managers say “I want everything to be A+ output.”
Well. Frankly. That is silly. I say “if you are going to do it make sure you do it right.”
Semantics? Possibly. Big difference? Absolutely.
Keep in mind.
Details should always be A+ effort (spelling, punctuation, make sure your cut & pastes make sense, crap like that).
Quality of information (or depth) can vary between C+ and A+.
Format delivery can vary between C+ and A+. The simpler you deliver the information the more likely there is no confusion the faster the shit gets through the goose. Kind of a simple rule.
Lastly. Remember. There is a correlation between time and expectations (this is a HUGE thing in the next point but relevant in just getting shit done). The faster you get shit done right the lower the expectations on how the shit gets shared/delivered. For example, if someone asks for something and you deliver it within an hour how it looks is a boatload less important than if you wait two days (and that is also true on the depth of the information).
Oh. One more lastly. This one is truly frustrating to junior people. The reason why it really really helps to turn around things quickly is because sometimes the senior person doesn’t know exactly what they want (hey. you don’t know what you don’t know.) so if you turn something around quickly with brevity you probably have a better than 50% chance that you will get the infamous (and desired) “thanks, just what I needed.”
Second. Managing perceptions (about getting shit done and getting ahead of the shit)
Getting ahead doesn’t mean you have to be ahead of your boss. In fact if you try you can’t (particularly if you have good senior people around you) and will just get frustrated. All you will do is lose (because you will have invested so much energy trying to always be ahead of the senior person you wont have gotten all the shit done).
So what do you do to get ahead?
Get ahead in the process. Get ahead of the “so where are we on that project” follow up question.
Every boss has a rhythm. Figure it out. Senior people don’t mind less experienced people being responsive (and doing) to initial ideas. They don’t expect less senior people to have many ideas. What they do find aggravating is always feeling like they have to continuously stimulate progress on an idea/project after the project has been initiated (by the way this could simply be perception or reality … doesn’t matter). So this is where the rhythm comes in to play. All you have to do is beat the boss to the question. If you do they will at least feel you are ahead. If they feel you are ahead you will be ahead.
Oh. When in doubt recognize that with lack of information (or silence) a senior person will assume nothing is happening. And then asking the follow up question only feeds that perception (regardless of what your answer is). Just keep it in mind.
Lastly. Back to the Time versus Expectations continuum. The longer you wait to deliver a result the higher the expectations in depth and delivery form of the result response. Oh. And this is not a straight line continuum. It is like a ski slope upwards. Expectations gain momentum with time.
Third. Beyond getting the shit done and then choosing your opportunities to be ahead at the right times.
This is a follow up to the “many ideas” thought. As noted earlier senior people don’t expect less experienced people to have many ideas. However, they do expect you to have some initial ideas (not on how to improve process but an actual “idea”) so they can feel like they can take a mental break with you every once in awhile and they have an opportunity to actually respond instead of creating the stimulus. So. You need to find a spot or two to have an idea and be ahead of either your peers (because then at least you are not a parity employee) or be ahead of the senior person with an idea (harder to do but worth trying every once in awhile).
Unless you have a goofball for a boss or senior person this issue is never about quantity at a less experienced level, it is about quality. If you want to move ahead you do have to contribute some new thinking or proof that you can do something more than “doing.” Pick your moments and contribute an idea or two. The more successful you are at it the more likely senior people will figure out how to alleviate some of your doing and give you more thinking type projects. But you have to earn that decision on their part.
There you go. So getting ahead doesn’t mean being ahead all the time. In fact at some point in your career you are “following” (an idea) but you can “lead the charge” on the implementation or the “doing” of the idea.
lets tell people to trust us
May 21st
As most people know I don’t really like business help books. To me they are mostly like trying to read a People magazine to catch up on the world news. Sound bites. Lots of entertainment. Some great gossip and you either feel like you want to be one of them or glad you will never be like them.
But. I needed help one time. A client said to me (with a straight face). “We need to tell people we are trusted. Research shows we are trusted. Let’s tell everyone. Let’s do a trust campaign.”
Me. (crickets)
Them: “what do you think?”
Me: (to myself) “gosh. I hope they cannot see the thought bubble above my head.”
Me: (aloud) “what do you say if we explore what we could tell people about us, without ever saying trust, that we make them think we are trustworthy? Kind of let them get there on their own.”
Them: “wouldn’t it be simpler if we just told them?”
Me: “well, they may be more likely to believe it if we didn’t actually say it to them.”
Anyway. You get the point.
In the end I was able to get up from the table knowing I had to work backwards and develop a strategy that would create a consumer response of “hey, they seem trustworthy’ (or the actual words would have been “I would trust them to advise me”).
I had a whole bunch of strategy writing tricks up my sleeve but ultimately I had to hit the business bookshelf for some source I could throw on the table and say “hey, look at this, they say if we say something like ‘x’ and continuously do ‘y’ over a period of time people will truly play back ‘trust’ in association with you guys.”
There is a book I found (which of course I cannot remember the name of and all my business books are in a box in storage but I do have page 202 copied to be able to write this). It’s actually not a bad book for a business book. It did give me something to buy for all the clients so they could become experts on building trust and we didn’t have to build a “hey, trust me” campaign.
In the end though I actually found something that I have copied and given to many young employees (as well as parceled out the advice to senior people particularly in a new business situation where inevitably even the smartest people seem to lose all sense of what they really should do).
On page 202 I came across this little checklist of “top Things to Remind Yourself.” I use it all the time (as I said in the previous paragraph).
- I don’t have to prove myself every ten seconds.
- I have a right to be here in his room; I can add value without worrying about it.
- Shut up and repeat again and again: “really, and then what happened?”
- Also again and again: “gee, what’s behind that.”
- Is my pulse racing? Why? Why not say so, and say why, out loud?
- Have I earned the right yet to give an answer?
- Am I trying in any way to won an argument? Turn it back into a conversation.
- Emulate Columbo: “I may be a little slow here. Maybe it’s just me, but …. “
- Take responsibility for the emotional outcome.
- Don’t blame anybody for anything anytime.
- More value is added through problem definition than through problem answer.
- Just because the client asks a question doesn’t mean that’s the right question to answer.
- Don’t be insecure. Say to yourself: “hey, if I don’t know the answer, and I’m a pro, then this is a really neat question, let’s get into it.”
- Is my stomach telling me something’s wrong? My stomach’s right. Let’s talk about it.
Good advice.
Unfortunately this great find has screwed me because now I still have to pick up business help books to see if any have a little great tasting truffle like this hidden amongst the mud.
change part 2: managing change
May 20th
Managing change is tricky.
Mostly because if you are managing it you probably have a to-do list that is so long sleeping is nowhere on it. You find yourself staring at the mid level manager who comes through the door who softly says “I am not sure the people are happy with all this change” and you have to stop yourself at the last minute from saying “no shit Sherlock.”
Organizational change, even if you are a great delegator, means you are being bombarded from a zillion directions with real issues and real non-issues none of which are actually on your own to-do list (which are the things that kind of insure the organization actually make it through the change transition).
But. Despite it all there is a really critical aspect that can help.
Experiencing what the on-the-ground people are experiencing.
Not just lip service but real experience.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, matches experiencing the change.
Now. No one expects the senior manager, even some junior managers, to step down and do the day to day job during a change transition. But to truly manage change nothing beats actually going through the experience of it, in some form or fashion, with the people who are actually making it happen.
What about empathy? Sure. Empathy helps because it shows some glimmer of understanding.
But empathy by throwing parties and focusing on the ‘destination’ ain’t gonna cut it.
This is about the journey. And making the journey together … bumps and all.
So. Experience comes in a variety of forms (or let’s say aspects). I guess beyond the initial plan construct I would suggest as a manager/leader there are a couple of key things in the experience sharing:
1. Communication. Recognize that communication happens (between the people within the change as well as amongst all levels) so decide to manage it rather than letting it manage you. Communicate openly, often and in two way discussions. Try and tailor your messages to the audience. Ah. Here comes the experience part.
Step in, experience something on the ground, communicate while in the experience and then “of the experience” to others.
Let’s say you visit the third shift and see what’s happening. Don’t interrupt their workflow but communicate. Talk about what’s happening (and who know … you may actually learn some actionable thing).
And then share that experience with the others.
2. Organization Participation. Let’s face it. Participation increases a sense of ownership and control. People want to be part of the solution so find as many ways as you can to involve yourself and them. Once again experiencing it helps (sure better than a ‘suggestion box’).
3. Be visible (not just with words). Someone in some business book a long time ago called this “management by wandering.” Now. I am not big on management by wandering (in general) however during a change time it is a valuable technique. On several levels it is valuable. The visibility factor is obvious. But the observation factor (being observed by others … actually seen beyond a memo or an email) is probably underrated. As you will see in Change 3 & 4 I discuss when plans break apart. Well. They do. And if you are in the midst of the shattered pieces it is easier to see what is salvageable and what is not (in addition you may actually observe better pieces being developed right before your eyes).
Experiencing what is happening is a great leveler of the playing field.
Everyone in your team or organization will feel differently about change (or let’s say some typical groupings will emerge on how they think about it).
For some the emotion is excitement enjoying the adrenaline rush associated with change. They seek to change large and small things in their personal lives so in business it is a natural action. Their enemy is monotony.
For some the emotion associated with the word change is anxiety and fear. Losing control is not something they embrace and any type of change, regardless of the size, will send them into a tizzy (and are typically vocal about it). They enjoy knowing what will happen, when it will happen, and to what degree it will happen (e.g., what is the plan).
Regardless of the variety within an organization “change happens.” It is inevitable. In fact, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says, “There will always be an element of uncertainty in the universe.” So, if something is not certain, wouldn’t that indicate there is change on the horizon?
So leaders should take note it is better to manage change than react to change (we all know this).
And in managing change everyone needs to remember that Change Agents, or people who initiate change, can be some of the most well-liked or deeply-despised people in any organization, office, or even family. There are expectation to live up to with energy, out of the box thinking, foresight & flexibility and conviction. I can almost guarantee if you are a change agent, and you are successful at it, you are both loved and hated.
Once again. A great equalizer? Experiencing it. To get beyond ‘like or hate’ and to earn their respect (which may be more important than being liked or hated in a change transition) you have to experience what people are going through.
Lastly. Where on-the-ground experience really benefits.
You have put the plan in action (and this doesn’t have to be organizational like I am focusing on but could also be purely from an individual perspective) and change is happening. And even with a tight plan true change is typically organic where the plan is set and some seeds are planted and the growth is not systematic or even always predictable. To manage this you need some flexibility to work in this environment and be aware of the progress and ready to ride surges in change transition. You may not be able to control and report progress as easily as with systematic change, but with this organic change, when it starts happening, it can happen quickly. You will be surprised how often being involved in some way within organizational change that you; a leader (a change agent) can affect the speed and the outcome. It may sound odd but true change agents seem to draw critical change pieces like a magnet (I have seen it time and time again).
So. Wrapping thus up. Managing change. The interesting thing about managing change is that you need to be prepared to accommodate flexibility (e.g., change) in all aspects of everything.
The plan will change.
The people will change (attitudinally as well as comings & goings sometimes).
Maybe even some words in the forward vision may change (as long as the intent doesn’t change that is okay).
