The New Year

Go have a look at Charlie Green's A Better New Year's Resolution. You'll be glad you did.

The Hardest Working Leader in Show Business?

I received the following email from Matthew Moore:

Richard:

I have been mulling the life & work of the late, great James Brown and given your love of pop music, I thought I'd share this with you.

JB's gift was as much collaborative as it was individual -- he took musicians such as Maceo Parker and Bootsy Collins and then created environments where they did their best work. He was tough -- he was legendary for fining musicians for insufficiently shiny shoes and bum notes. And most of his collaborators ended up leaving him eventually.

He was definitely a great leader. Was he a great manager? I dunno, but here are some things I learnt from JB:

• Give people the opportunity to shine. Everyone is his band gets an opportunity to showcase their particular talents. And results can be something like Funky Drummer or Superbad.

• Work with what you got. When JB remade his band (usually after the previous one had stormed out or been fired), he had to work with the talents of his musicians. Not every bass player is Bootsy Collins. But that doesn't mean that the bass can't be a compelling part of the track.

• High standards are not popular but very important.

• Less is more. Cold Sweat has virtually no chord changes but is mesmerising.

• How the parts fit together is key. Funk works not just because you have great individual musicians but because the basic elements (polyrhythmic drumming, synchopated bass lines, horn stabs) play off each other in a rhythmically compelling way.

I don't live up to these lessons but I think there will be a picture of JB next to my laptop for a few weeks.

There are also some negative lessons from the life of JB (beating up your wife, smoking PCP, alienating your most talented colleagues) but I don't want to dwell on those now.

Seasons greeting, Matt Moore

You're Lucky Fellow, Mr. Smith

I was just watching a 1940s movie with the Andrews Sisters and heard the following chorus:

"If some poor suckers could choose
They'd love to be in your shoes.
You're a lucky fellow Mr. Smith."

Appropriate to the season, no?

We Succeed When We All Succeed

In a previous blog post and article, I wrote about Jay Bertram, president of the TBWA office in Toronto, who asked his people to evaluate him and offered to resign if he did not improve how well he performed his role as their leader.

As a follow up, here's an end-of-year email that Jay received from one of his people:

Subject: We Succeed When We All Succeed

Dear Jay,

There are few leaders that have the many qualities that you have. You guide, support, listen, mentor, advise, educate and best of all lead by example (and these are only a few of your great qualities.) You find the good in everyone you come into contact with. You bring out the good in everyone.

It is because of you that I want to work harder, work better and not only achieve, but also exceed my personal and professional goals. You have allowed me to open new chapters in my career and to further my knowledge. Sure we are working hard, and although at times it can be stressful, you still make it a fun place to work. Nobody could ask for a better job; nobody could ask for a better President. I certainly can't. I am proud to work with you in a dynamic Advertising Agency.

Thank you for the many opportunities; the many, many chats; your continued support and teaching me to become a stronger person. Neither our colleagues nor I would be where we are at today, without you at the helm.

We have worked together for four great years now. I look forward to working with you for many more.

I hope that you get some R&R and enjoy the spirit of the season with your family during the Christmas break. I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and best wishes for 2007 and beyond.

Sincerely,

(name withheld)

PS -- We are closed Monday thru Friday next week. I am begging you to take this time to NOT WORK. But if you do work, you are always welcome to call me at anytime if you need anything. I'll be there!!

Isn't that fabulous?

Jay was kind enough to say that I had made a real difference in his life and now he is affecting others. As he says, it clearly demonstrates that if you practice what you preach you can make a difference in the lives of others.

I Can't Believe This Worked on Me!

We all love to believe that we are very rational in our own buying, especially when it comes to purchases of important things like professional services. Nevertheless, there are times when marketing and selling approaches that we would like to believe don't work on us, well, they actually do.

For example, this is a terrible confession, but you've almost always got me to complete those silly questionnaire's that come in the mail if you include a dollar bill with the questionnaire. It's an old direct marketing technique, but just as Robert Cialdini analyses in his justifiably famous book Influence, the "sense of obligation" that putting that dollar in my wallet creates is enough to make me complete and return the darn questionnaire. And there's no way I'm going to avoid the problem by throwing the dollar away, am I? And it will cost me more in time to send back than it's worth! I'm trapped with no way out!

Similarly, I hate it that I'm a sucker for the freebies that exhibitors give away at conferences. I know, if I had more courage, I could just go and help myself to the freebie (pens, computer flash memory, free software) without getting into a conversation with the people staffing the booth, but it just feels rude not to enquire politely about their product or service. I'm not saying I always end up buying, but a high percentage of the time they get my business card, and they follow up. The darned approach works on me and I wish it didn't.

I'll confess that I'm also a sucker for "extra features." If you show me a plain vanilla option and an "extra special option," I'm going to listen hard for what the latter can do for me. I hate that I fall for it -- but I do. I hate it that I buy the "extra insurance" when renting a car, even though my statistical training tells me it's a stupid purchase. They play on my insecurities, and they win.

Have any of you got confessions to make about marketing or selling tactics that worked on you that you really didn't think were going to? I don't just mean at the supermarket or the car showroom, but perhaps in hiring a professional provider to assist you.

Have you ever spent more than you planned to on a service provider? What did they do that "worked" on you? I don't mean the honourable, trust-earning things that truly make you want to work with an honourable provider. I mean the things that make you say (as the title of this blogpost says): I can't believe this worked on me!

Happiness at Work

I received this email earlier today:

Dear Richard

I've taken the liberty of sending you this email and attaching a copy of my brand new book Happy Hour is 9 to 5 -- How to Love You Job, Love Your Life and Kick Butt at Work as a pdf-file.

Now, if I was sitting there talking to you, the conversation might go something like this:

You: Thanks for your email Alex, but come clean here: It's obvious you're just trying to get me to mention your book on my blog.

Me: Weeeeelll ... OK. I am.

You: Give me just one good reason why I should do that ...

Me: I'll give you three good reasons:

1. Many workplaces are plagued by stress, burnout, bad management, conflicts, power games and disengagement. We must change this. We can change this. Happiness at work is enormously important for both employees and companies alike, and this is the first book specifically on this topic. It's also a great book -- or so all my preview readers assure me.
2. The whole book can be read free at this link
3. -- so this is not just about me making a buck. Well, that too -- people can also buy the book on paper or on pdf.
4. It will make me really, really happy :-) .

You: Are you spamming thousands of people in this way?

Me: No, this goes out only to a few, carefully picked people who blog about themes relevant to happiness at work. I specifically picked you because your take on HR is very much about creating good workplaces. I've also cited one of your statistics in the book.

You: What's the book about anyway?

Me: The book is for employees and managers who want to love their jobs and create organixations that are inspiring, meaningful, energising and fun. It's about taking work from crappy to happy. From drudgery to luxury. From "shove it" to "love it". From ... I'll stop here! I've been writing the book on my blog The Chief Happiness Officer over the past six months with the help of my readers. They've been giving me constant inspiration and feedback and even came up with the title for me!

You: Hmmm ... Interesting. What would you like me to do?

Me: Here are some things you could do:

1. Mention the book on your blog.
2. Read the book and review it. You can read the attached pdf or I'll be happy to send you a free copy of the book.
3. Do an interview for your blog. You can email me some questions about happiness at work and I'll send some answers back right away.
4. Something else that I didn't think of that you think would be fun.
5. Any combination of the above.

Stay amazingly happy,

Alexander

The Chief Happiness Officer

So, I read the book instead of doing what I was supposed to be doing today. (Darn!) And you know what? It's very, very good. I learned a lot. It's incredibly well written, full of insights, and there are exercises to improve your own happiness at work. You can't ask for more than that!

Thanks for sending it, Alex. (And my compliments on a brilliantly composed, irresistible email approach!)

I'm Terrified and Need Help!

A European newspaper has decided to drop the weekly business column written by Jack and Suzi Welch (for those who don't know, he was CEO of General Electric, she was editor of the Harvard Business Review) and they have asked whether I would write a weekly column in their place.

Help! I'm immensely flattered, of course, but terrified at the same time. This is where I have to try to live up to my own principles, and keep stretching myself.

But am I really ready to take on a weekly commitment of writing 1000 words? What an obligation! It's not the writing that worries me (I can pontificate at the drop of a hat.) It's having something fresh to say, week in and week out.

Actually, that's been the fear throughout my career, and is probably every authors fear. Do I have anything left to say? I'm already doing a blogpost per day, a podcast per week and an article per month. Can I realistically do a 1000-word newspaper column as well?

So, help me out here. If you've been a regular reader of this blog, then you know I like to build blogposts around the questions that readers submit. It makes it easier to focus my thoughts, and also to ensure that I'm writing about real issues that address what's happening in other people's lives, not just my own.

So, if you'll be willing to help me by sending me emails containing a description of real-world issues you face, I can accept the challenge and keep trying to contribute through the various media I use. (I ask for emails -- otherwise the questions and issues will pile up in this blogpost.)

Here's my guidelines for submitting your "advice requested." Imagine you are writing not just to me, but to your peers in the blogosphere.

You should not choose a trivial, minor matter of no significant importance to you. Similarly, you should not pose an unanswerable question about which no-one else is likely to be able to offer any truly helpful advice.

A good compromise is to describe, in some detail, a specific situation that you face, or have faced recently, which is likely to re-occur. Describe the alternatives open to you, or how you may have dealt with this type of situation in the past. Ask others how they would deal with the situation. Include sufficient background information for them to understand the important considerations surrounding your problem.

Choose any issue you wish, as long as it passes two key tests: (a) you would really like to hear the opinions of others, and (b) you think others might really be able to help.

Will you help me help you? If you send me questions in the next few weeks, I'll be able to assess whether I have enough to say for a weekly column (as well as this blog.) Thanks!

Rights and Obligations

I have long held a theory that organisations ought to have (enforced) "rights and obligations" that each of their members (ie employees at any level) must follow. Here's a first attempt to draft a sensible "rights and obligations" list for a professional business.

Members of the organisation have an obligation to:

• Act with integrity and high ethical standards at all times
• Serve client first, firm second, themselves last
• Continuous self-improvement (no cruising)
• Preserve reputation of the firm
• Reach out for additional responsibility
• Take the initiative
• Help others (that report to them) succeed
• Be a team player
• Work hard
• Treat all people as valuable members of the "team".
• Treat all professionals with trust and respect.
• Cooperate with everyone within and between departments.
• Delegate work to the appropriate level.

Members have rights to:

• Stretching assignments
• Be kept informed of what’s going on in the organisation
• Be treated with respect
• Know the criteria by which they will be assessed
• A good understanding of the overall goals and objectives of our firm.
• Freedom to make the necessary decisions to do their work properly.
• Be kept informed about the things THEY need to know to do their job properly.
• Input on issues that affect their work.
• The resources necessary to provide high quality client service.
• Understand how their compensation is determined.
• Work that makes good use of their knowledge and ability.
• Work that has variety, interest and challenge
• Encouragement and opportunity to learn new skills
• A clear understanding of their responsibilities.
• Useful performance feedback throughout the year.
• High quality of on-the-job training.

***

What would YOU add or delete for an ideal professional business?

I Need to Stop Changing My Mind!

Instigator Blog has come up with a neat idea: asking people what they have learned this year.

In the past year, I have been trying to get a great deal done. I have been working not only on continuous improvement for my own website (and my consulting work) but also helping with a thousand decisions needed for my wife's new business.

New ideas and new initiatives have been launched weekly, sometimes daily -- and that's been the problem. A great deal of effort has been put in to things that were started and never finished. It's not that they were bad ideas -- it's that the priorities always seemed to be changing. I lived with it because I thought it was evidence of innovation and creativity.

Now I'm not so sure. I (and the people who work for me) have wasted a lot of time stopping and starting.

When I heard Craig Weatherup (former CEO of The Pepsi Bottling Company) speak he was asked what he thought his strengths were as a CEO. He said that one of his strengths was that he was always good at having a "filter" for actions, decisions and topics. He would lay out a strategy, and from that develop a strong decision screen that clearly identified which issues should be passed through the screen and brought to his attention, and which should be refused.

If, for example, his Board wanted him to look at something that was "off the screen," he would say "I'm not going to change my priorities just for this topic. If you want me to go back to the beginning and redesign my entire screen, I will, but I'm not going to make constant readjustments."

Another way he said it was that he felt that one of his strengths was that we was slow to say "Yes" and quick to say "No."

Every two weeks, he would look ahead at the appointments on his calendar and eliminate non-essential, non-strategic activities.

There's a term for all this that some other people, especially those in software design: the point comes in every project when you must "freeze the design."

I now understand the power of that, and the wastefulness that results from constantly shifting priorities and work tasks. Weatherup's rules are invaluable: Be ready to make changes only if it's truly worth going back and redesigning the entire strategy of what you're up to. Have a slow yes and a fast no. Brutally eliminate off-strategy activities.

Now, if only I had the personality and discipline to do all that!

What do you think? Is it better to go for focus and constancy of purpose, or be open and flexible to new ideas as they emerge? Is it possible to have the best of both worlds?

The Size and Growth Impulse

In most companies and firms, it is taken as a matter of unexamined faith that the organisation must grow. A related article of faith is that size matters -- in marketing, in recruiting, in profitability.

The "growth and size" school of thought has some eminent supporters. Jack Welch of GE famously believed that to be a viable competitor an organisation had to be number one or number two (measured by market share) in its industry. Many contortions of analysis have subsequently taken place by companies (or divisions within companies) trying to redefine their market so that they could claim to be the first or second biggest in that market.

Wall Street analysts seem to care about little else but growth when valuing share prices, and CEOs respond to this strong signal. Even if they can't grow "organically" (or maybe especially if they cannot grow organically) CEOs eagerly seek out "deals" to expand their empire.

To this day, academic institutions teach the decades-old "Bermuda Triangle" theory of industry structure, which says that you can only survive by being either the biggest overall in your industry or be small and dominate a focused specialty. (The Bermuda triangle is the space between small and large where most firms disappear, apparently.)

I do understand the need for growth that derives from the fact that employees seek promotion opportunities, and that to hold on to good people the organisation must grow in aggregate size (unless it is prepared to get rid of its senior people with enough frequency to make way for the juniors!)

In spite of all this, I have my reservations.

I worry that all these good reasons for seeking growth get turned into a mania for *ANY* growth, where the measure of success becomes growth at all costs, not **wise** growth. I don't believe all growth is good.

For example, if two average quality firms of average size merge, is the bigger entity really more competitive? Do customers and clients REALLY re-allocate their business based on who's the biggest firm?

And if you think growth is needed to provide opportunities for employees to advance their careers, what good does it do to grow by bringing in large numbers of senior lateral hires who then occupy the very positions that the juniors were aiming for? Or, how does it help to create opportunities for junior people by launching totally businesses involving totally new disciplines in totally different geographic areas? The given reason for growth (provide opportunity) is often a façade for other reasons (empire building, the belief that being big helps attract customers.)

My biggest concern is that most strategic plans place a greater emphasis on growth and size than they do on quality.

I have seen as many (perhaps more) companies get in to trouble by trying to grow too fast than by growing too slow. "Too-fast growth" can lead to a lack of discrimination in chasing business, unwieldy and unmanageable structures and a poor, low-quality "if it moves, shoot it" culture.

There's a paradox that some really great firms understand: -- If you really operate day-to-day by having the primary goal of "being the best", then growth and size may indeed result since the marketplace will notice and reward your extra value. Quality LEADS to growth and size, but only if growth and size are secondary.

It's pretty clear that firms (and individuals) that put growth and size AHEAD of quality (that would be most businesses) will end up with weaker reputations and will, in the long run, be likely to get **less** volume and growth. Putting volume and growth first may be self-defeating. Yet it is how most firms are actually run.

Let's play fair here. It happens to us as individuals, too. It's easier to measure our success on volume (did I get more work) as opposed to how fast we are building new skills. How many of us can honestly say we put getting better ahead of getting more?

What do you think of these questions:

(a) Do most companies place size and growth ahead of quality and getting better?

(b) Is this, ultimately, bad for them?

(c) What, if anything, can be done about that (or is it inevitable and irresistible)?

What's A Professional Firm?

I just received an email from Atta-ur Rehman in Pakistan, who writes:

Many times in your podcasts you refer to "Professional Firms". I've not been able to understand what exactly you mean by the term. Aren't all businesses like professional firms? Could you please clarify it for me or refer to me some definition that you might already have on your website?

Great question, Atta. I had a stronger opinion twenty years ago what the term meant, but nowadays I'm not so sure.

Of course, many years ago, the term "profession" or "professional" had a sociological, cultural or class meaning -- there were only a certain number of "learned" professions (medicine, the law, the religious ministry). A lot of effort went into defending membership in this privileged group -- doctors, lawyers and priests were special (they claimed) but everyone else was in BUSINESS (Yuck!) or were a lesser breed (nurses, for example).

Part of their claim was that they had a superior commitment to service instead of commerce, but very few people believe that any more. Nevertheless, a great deal of time and money has been spent by other industries trying to get recognised as "real" professions.

When I began my work in the early eighties, I used the term "professional service firm" to mean businesses that (mostly) gave advice -- not only law, medicine and priests, but including consulting, accounting, advertising, public relations, engineering, executive search, financial advisors of all kinds.

The central thing that these industries have in common is that (in principle) they do CUSTOMISED work -- they do not sell the result of standardised processes. They hire "knowledge workers" (although not everybody thinks that's synonymous with professional workers) to apply education and training to create different outcomes for different clients.

However, even this definition gets "fuzzy." What happens when so-called professional firms start taking a process-intensive approach and create customised outputs with a standard process? At the commodity end of many professions, it doesn't take an advanced degree to produce really valuable outputs -- just some good systems, databases, training and a high-school degree. Is that still a professional service?

Then comes the challenge that you hint at, Atta. Many of us think that being a professional has nothing to do with what degrees you have, what industry you are in, or what position you hold. Maybe the REAL meaning of professionalism is close to what the priests, doctors and lawyers were SUPPOSED to have, except that it applies to ALL of us in all industries: a moral commitment to be of service and to run our organisations to high standards based on unwavering values.

Viewed this way, maybe Atta is right. Aren't ALL industries like professional firms? Does the term professional business mean anything anymore? Does it mean anything to say some people are to be categorised as professionals and some as something else?

What do the rest of you think? Have we outlived the usefulness of "professional service firm" or "professional business" as a helpful categorisation?

What If You're Not That Interested in People?

In yesterday's blogpost on leadership the central points, which all the subsequent commenters seemed to endorse vigorously, were that the key to being an effective manager was to be interested in people, and ... and ... and ... (drumroll, please) you can't fake that stuff! It's either genuine or you're not going to be an effective manager.

In my experience, there's too little reflection and examination on the consequences of those points, and too much glib advice (including by me) that you "should" get interested in people.

I think that misses the whole point about not being able to fake it. People array along a continuous spectrum of how genuinely interested they are in other people, and how comfortable they are in relating to other people on an intimate one-to-one ("drop the mask, be human") basis. Given different underlying characters and personality types, maybe we need to stop pretending that everyone CAN become "interested in other people." If you really can't fake it, then what use is the advice that you should "get interested?"

Very frequently when I am doing a seminar or consulting about effective management, people look at the list of what effective managers do and they say things like "That's not too hard -- why doesn't everyone do that?" And the answer is that it's not too hard if you are genuinely interested in other people. But it is my experience that, in real life, only a minority really are. That's not a moral failing, or a lack of skills -- it's about relatively fixed personality traits, in my view.

For example, some people have high social needs -- they revel in being part of a lively, active circle. Others, just aren't wired that way. They'd prefer to cuddle up with a good book rather than go to the bar or the pub with the "gang." Some people REALLY enjoy listening to the details of other people's lives. Others, meaning no disrespect, just don't want or need to know.

So, here's the point for discussion. If you can't fake a sincere interest in people, what's the point of advising people to do it? Should we shut down all the management training programs or restrict them only for people who first pass an attitude test?

Now, That's Leadership!

I just heard a fabulous presentation on leadership by Craig Weatherup, former Chairman and CEO of The Pepsi Bottling Group.

The group he was presenting to had just spent much of a day debating whether a leader needed to have "charisma" so it was almost a shock for many in the audience to meet this low-key, self-deprecating "down-home" man. He may now own and live in (just as a summer home, mind you) a 110-room mansion formerly owned by the Rockefeller family, but he still comes across primarily as the humble (and loyal) graduate from the regional college (Arizona State) that he also is.

Among his messages was the importance of actually, really, sincerely, "don't even try to fake it" caring about people. Again and again, he stressed the view that you can only be an effective leader if you view it as a privilege to serve in that role.

Describing various times when he had to lead Pepsi, his employees, his Board, the bottlers, and others through times of change, he said he was only able to bring everyone with him because they trusted him. When asked why he thought people trusted him, he said that he had worked very diligently for all his life to connect with people as individuals, not just people in a role. Just as one small (or not so small) example, he made it his business to talk with fork-lift truck drivers whenever he visited the company's bottling plants which he did regularly.

People trusted me, he said, because they knew me. They knew I cared about them. You can't fake that, he said. That's what gave me the power to lead.

WOW!

How to Layoff 2,000 People

There's been a lot of press about Pfizer's decision to cut about 20 percent of its US sales force as a cost cutting measure. (That's about 2,000 out of about 10,000 people.)

Leaving aside for the moment whether or not this is a good decision (though see Charles Green's interesting insight on this, entitled Pfizer, Doctors, Sales and Trust), there was a challenging aspect pointed out to me in an email by Nick Saban. He wrote:

A good friend of my family works as a sales rep for Pfizer. She told us that on or around December 18th, the company will notify its entire US sales force if they are or are not being terminated VIA EMAIL. I am not interested in condemning Pfizer, per se, and I realise my information may not totally be accurate. However, this begs two questions, really.

First, are we to a point in our society that face-to-face delivery of bad news is so uncomfortable that is it being replaced by email (and probably text messages soon)? I suppose this is akin to the old pink slip, but termination notices by email, phone, or anything less than face-to-face are just completely dehumanising to me.

Second, from a practical standpoint, how does a company notify a 10,000 person strong national sales force regarding who will stay and who will go? Email certainly makes this easy, cost-effective, and works out bugs in timing. But are there other methods that could possibly be as effective, yet be more respectful towards the people being cut?

Great questions, Nick, and eternal ones. By complete coincidence, I was killing time over the weekend watching some old English TV shows that I have on DVD (a 1991 episode of "Drop the Dead Donkey" to be exact) and the entire plot of this sitcom (!) was about a group of fellow-workers waiting to find out which of them were going to be fired as part of a cost-cutting program. (Great topic for a comedy, right?)

Different time, different country, different context -- same issue.

So, let's accept Nick's challenge. Let's not debate whether large-scale layoffs are a good idea, fair, or anything else. Let's address his question. If you know you're going to have to lay off a large number of people, what's the best way to do it? Short and sweet or slow and thoughtful? An email blast all at once or have everyone talk to their manager (which would take quite a bit of time)?

I actually think I can make a case for the virtues of the email approach. I once wrote that all business decisions contain a finite amount of pain, and you get to choose -- either a lot of pain for a few people in a short period of time, or a little bit of pain for a larger group of people over a longer period of time. Guess which (in general) I would recommend? You got it -- if you HAVE to choose, I think it's better to get things over and done with as soon as possible. And if that means it has to be relatively impersonal, then that's what it's got to be.

The choices aren't perfect. Of course we would all want to be more human and respectful. But leaving everyone in doubt as to whether they're in or out isn't very respectful, and it could take forever to arrange one-on-one's for 10,000 people (or even just the 2,000 who are going to get the chop.) It's the scale that causes the problem.

That's one view. Anyone else want to offer a perspective on this tough managerial topic? If you have no choice but to layoff 2,000 people, is there a better way to do it?

Thanks for the memories

We're already into December, which means November's gone (!), which means it's time to thank everyone who joined in here during the past month.

Again, it's been an interesting, interactive month, and I'm grateful to all of you.

Commentors

Lora Adrianse, Jason Alba, Scott Allen, Stephanie West Allen, Tyler Allison, Andreas, Ann Bares, John Beck, Jim Belshaw, Leo Bottary, Breakingranks, Ed Brenegar, Duncan Bucknell, Tim Burrows, Paul Buseyne, Martin Calle, Tom Chandler, Colin, Robert Crampton, Dan, David, Jennifer Davis, Mike DeWitt, Bill Dotson, Lance Dunkin, Heidi Ehlers, Eric, David Ferrabee, Dean Fuhrman, Ed Gabrielse, Mike Gilronan, Paul Gladen, Michelle Golden, Marcel Goldstein, Mark Graban, Charles H. Green, Peter Gwizdalla, Isabelle Hakala, Ted Harro, Marc Hoppers, Amanda Horne, Lee Iwan, Ron K Jeffries, Juliet, Danielle Keister, David Kirk, Greatest American Lawyer, Steven Ledgerwood, Dave Lee, Ed Lee, Bruce MacEwen, Peter Macmillan, Manny, Marco Antonio P. Gonçalves, Susan Marshall, Arnoud Martens, A F Massari, Patrick McEvoy, Sharon McGann, Mel, Carol Metzker, Mike, Milan, Warren Miller, MillionDollarCountDown, Maggie Milne, Dan Murray, Arvind Nadkarni, Mark Needham, Erek Ostrowski, Yiannis Pavlou, Bill Peper, Jerry Van Polen, Steve Portigal, Russell Rensburg, Ric, Rob, Roman Rytov, Jon Sacker, Spencer Schmerling, Frank Schophuizen, Bryan I. Schwartz, Stephen Seckler, Shuchetana, Carl A. Singer, Andrew Smith, Sonnie, Mark Stevens, Tojo Thatchenkery, Fiona Torrance, Peter Vajda, Coert Visser, Michael Webb, Michael Webster, Alan Weiss, Ian Welsh, Susan Wittenoom, David Zatz

Blog Trackbacks

Advertising Age
ALMResearchBlog
Asia Mind Dynamics -- Accelerate Your Performance
Be Excellent (TM)
Benjamin Bach and Associates
Better Communications Results
Blawg
Blueprint for Financial Prosperity
Bryan C. Fleming
Business & Technology Reinvention
BWPrice's Marketing U
Career Intensity Blog
Ceci N'est Pas
Cloudy Thinking
Combat Consultancy
Compensation Force
Corporate eLearning Development
Counsel to Counsel
Creating a Better Life
Creative Outlet Labs
Cultivate GREATNESS Personal Development
e e learning
Forward Blog
GEO 12.97�N 77.56�E
Golden Practices
idealawg
Integrated Marketing
Internet Marketing Resource Center
itjournalist.com
Larry Bodine's LawMarketing Blog
legal sanity
LexBlog Blog
Limbic Nutrition
MabelandHarry
Manage to Change
Managing the Professional Services Firm
MANGROVE ROOT GANG.com
Michael's Thoughts
More Than A Living
Nadim Habib
One Man Band
Oplossingsgerichtmanagement
purple motes
Re-model 4 Life
Re: The Auditors
Small Business Gurus
Sonnie's Porch
Spooky Action
Stark County Law Blog
Strive Notes
SuccessJolt
The Agonist
The Globe and Mail
The Greatest American Lawyer
The New View From Object Towers
Towards Better Life
TrackKnacks: Aptitude Wizard Watch
Transcending Gender
Unleash Your Potential
Verve Coaching
Votelaw
Wealth Building World
Working at Home on the Internet

Podcast Trackbacks

And a special thanks to the kind bloggers who have written about my Business Masterclass podcast series in November.

Corporate eLearning Development
Forward Blog
Mangrove Root Gang
Michael's Thoughts
Spooky Action

Since the holiday season is coming, get your participation in early during December. We wouldn’t want things to slacken off, would we?

November Top 5 Roundup

Thank you to everyone who contributed to make these posts the most linked and discussed ideas in the month of November.

Are we too negative?
We're criticising way too much, pointing out the flaws in other people ... is it getting worse?

Why are some people so motivated?
If the key to individual (and organisational) excellence is a greater determination to get somewhere (and that seems to be the emerging scientific conclusion) then can such attitudes be bred in others or must they be "found"?

I've stopped reading
A while ago, I was asked which books I was currently reading, and I realised it had been a long time since I really sat down to read a book that I wasn't absolutely required to read for work.

Who are the marketing experts in professional business?
Do marketers, particularly those in professional businesses, actually know anything?

We'll follow the old man wherever he wants to go
Do any of you have examples of managers who led by force of personal example and willingness to go first? Managers who have been prepared to be personally accountable for their role?

If you still have ideas or opinions to add in to these or any other discussions on the blog, please join in!

First Annual Audience Survey

Regular readers know that I frequently write about the importance of feedback, and I am great proponent of asking for feedback from one's clients.

As my first year of blogging winds to a close, it is time to practice what I preach and ask you, my readers, for your feedback: about this blog, and also about my podcast and my articles mailout.

I have been heartened and pleasantly surprised at the generous response when I have asked readers for your advice and suggestions in the past, in discussions like Help me with my strategy, Are we too negative?, and Creating Awareness -- Advice Please.

I hope that once again you will be willing to take just a few minutes to let me know what works for you at vistageconsulting.com, what doesn't, and how I can make this site more useful and enjoyable for you.

Client Service Questionnaire

For each of the following statements about our firm, please indicate whether you: strongly disagree (1); somewhat disagree (2); neither agree nor disagree (3); somewhat agree (4); strongly agree (5)

• You are thorough in your approach to your work
• You show creativity in your proposed solutions
• You are helpful in redefining our view of our situation
• You are helpful in diagnosing the causes of our problem areas
• You staff my work well: there is enough senior time
• You staff my work well: you don't have high-priced people doing junior tasks
• Your people are accessible
• You keep your promises on deadlines
• You document your work activities well
• Your communications are free of jargon
• You offer fast turnaround when requested
• You listen well to what we have to say
• You relate well to our people
• You keep me sufficiently informed on progress
• You let us know in advance what you're going to do
• You notify us promptly of changes in scope, and seek our approval
• You give good explanations of what you've done and why
• You don't wait for me to initiate everything: you anticipate
• You involve us at major points in the engagement
• You have a good understanding of our business
• You make it your business to understand our company
• You are up to date on what's going on in our world
• You make us feel as if we're important to you
• You deal with problems in our relationship openly and quickly
• You keep us informed on technical issues affecting our business
• You show an interest in us beyond the specifics of your tasks

If a business acquaintance asked you about your experience with us, would you give us an unqualified endorsement?

BusinessWeek Editor speaks!

John Byrne, Executive Editor of BusinessWeek Magazine, talks to me for 20 minutes about his career and the managerial lessons he has learned in a very special podcast available on my website.

After nearly two decades as the pre-eminent business and management journalist (and co-author of former GE-CEO Jack Welch's book Straight from the Gut), Byrne made the transition to becoming the editor, first, of the magazine Fast Company, and then the print edition of BusinessWeek, overseeing 180 people.

His vantage point is unique, and as he observes, managing a knowledge-based enterprise like a magazine is only a little different (if at all) from managing a professional service business.

I found his remarks fascinating and I hope you will too.

You can download my John Byrne interview or sign up to receive new Business Masterclass seminars automatically with iTunes or other podcast players. (Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to subscribe.) My seminars are always available for download at no cost.

Partner Compensation in a Start-Up

A reader wrote in to ask:

"What's the best way to structure a compensation system for partners in a small startup firm? I have recently launched my own consulting practice with another partner. We also have a third minority owner (1%) and we expect to hire between 3-5 associates this year. We might even bring in a third partner if things go well. Should it be simply a division of retained earnings by ownership share? A formula that builds in factors such as total sales, revenue managed, etc? Obviously, fairness and trust among the partners is critical."

It would seem from previous comments on this blog during the year that some of you might have been through this, or are in the business of advising start-ups. (I am not.)

But here are some of my thoughts to get your juices flowing:

(i) I always like "look ahead" systems, not "look back" systems. In other words, let's discuss how we are going to allocate next year's profits. Once we've agreed on that, and each have our shares, we can move together during the year aligned in our interests, focusing on making the whole enterprise successful. If that proves to be a little unbalanced, then we'll tackle it at year end when we plan the division for the year after that. However, if we have a system whereby you're always looking back -- trying to allocate funds based on performance that has already taken place -- you'll always be fighting over differing interpretations of history.

(ii) Stay away from formulas based on origination or anything else. In a start-up there are just too many things that need to get done to allocate incomes on a few measures.

(iii) Recognise that, even in a tiny partnership, it's possible to invent a system that has different categories of splitting available cash. For example, you could begin by saying "tranche" number one of any end-of-year cash is to be split by ownership shares, while tranche number two is to be split on some other "performance" basis. The weighting between these two might vary over time. Initially, to encourage a focus on overall success, you could say "Let's allocate 80% to reward for ownership -- which gets everyone focusing on the firmwide result -- allocating only, say, 20% to be divided to the basis of performance. As the years go by and you add more people, you will then have choice as to the weighting between the reward for ownership and the reward for performance.

(iv) In general, I like systems where everybody shares in the overall performance (relatively fixed shares, adjusted only infrequently), but that can only be sustained if your "system" is good at addressing performance issues, so that you tackle performance problems by talking to each other during the year, not trying to invent crazy formulae. So, how well can you and your partners talk with each other? Are you the type of people who are comfortable addressing issues during the year and commenting if you think the burdens are not being equally shared? If so, you won't need the comp system to do it for you.

(v) What you REALLY have to ask yourself is: do I want to be partners with this person? With these people? Am I prepared to trust that we can work it out? IF yes, then any scheme will get you through the first couple of years, and you can re-examine it later. If the answer is no, then no comp scheme will cover up that lack of trust.

---

OK everybody else -- jump in. What advice do YOU have to give about structuring partnership compensation in a start-up?

A Shakespearean Retreat

I said in an earlier blogpost that I wanted to seek out praiseworthy things. Here's one.

The picture above is Bryan Schwartz, Managing Partner of Levenfeld and Pearlstein, a law firm in Chicago. Let me use his own words to describe how he ran a recent partner's retreat.

"I did a Shakespeare theme where I showed some clips from Henry V (1989) starring Kenneth Branagh, an adaptation from something I had learned from the Young Presidents Organisation that I belong to. The clips made the messages powerful. The partners had to play the role of the king and determine how they would behave under the circumstances. This lead into the themes below.

"We discussed the issue of managing friendships in business and whether we would deal with those of our friends who were not living up to our firm's standards for quality and service. Would we hang the thief who stole from the French? We decided that we would maintain our friendship but be firm about adherence to our standards and that one did not conflict with the other.

"We talked about how Henry V walked around and talked to his people to get a sense of how they were feeling the night before the big battle at Agincourt.

"We talked about being optimistic and being of the right mind when we observed Henry's speech concerning St. Crispin's Day. We talked about compensation and our subjective plan. You set that up beautifully. We spent 10 minutes on that -- a miracle for a law firm. I believe people are realising that in the absence of subjectivity, which we currently employ, we become a mercenary firm, which we do not desire to emulate.

"We really embraced the fact that we had choices to make. The question about how much of our work fell into the category of "God, we love this!" really hit home with many and we all discussed this at dinner on Saturday night. We discussed the power of change at the dinner on Saturday and weaved it in on Sunday. We viewed the battle scene at Agincourt, where the smaller English forces were highly focused and fought the battle on their terms against the arrogant but larger and better equipped French. We talked about the distinctive weapons that were created and the use of strategy to win that battle. I made the analogy of big firm vs. small firm and focus.

"We incorporated the scene where Henry is trying to woo Princess Katherine even though he could grab her by the hair and say do what I tell you to do because I am the king. We made that analogy to our associates and also our clients. We focused winning the hearts and minds of people we deal with, not just telling them what to do and avoiding intimacy. I think intimacy is the right word by the way.

"We went through various tensions that exist in the firm and spoke about those tensions out loud. We had a great deal of honest and worthwhile discussion.

"It was probably our best retreat."

---

Has anyone else been using Shakespeare or other authors to form the basis for real, substantive discussions at business meetings?

A Video Interview

There's a video interview with me on the website of CONSULTING magazine. It was posted there Novemeber 9, but can still be viewed in their This Week in Consulting video series.

Why Are Some People So Motivated?

The October 30, 2006 issue of FORTUNE magazine had a series of articles on the question of what the secrets of "greatness" are. Geoffrey Colvin's introductory essay reported that formal, scientific research now shows that repeated conscious practice, always pushing oneself to improve, is a better explanation of who succeeds than attribution to "inherent talent." (Yes, he discusses people like Tiger Woods and Bobby Fischer.)

This is, of course, the conclusion I had also reached anecdotally and reported in my recent article It's Not How Good You are, But How Much You Want It.

However, as Colvin also concludes, there is a large mystery that remains. Why do some people always push themselves to work at getting ever better, while others settle for competence or moderate improvement? What makes "driven" people driven? If the key to individual (and organisatonal) nnexcellence is a greater determination to get somewhere (and that seems to be the emerging scientific conclusion) then can such attitudes be bred in others or must they be "found?"

James McNerney, CEO of Boeing, answers that question by saying "I do know that there's a restlessness in some people ... I don't know if it comes from the toilet training, if your parents do expect a lot of you and you're always trying to grow and meet their expectations ... Another (component) is that success and achievement can feed on themselves ..."

Next question: Does it come down to the inner motivation that people have, or can a manager bring it out in other people? Can a manager turn an "uninspired," "not-driven" person into an inspired, driven one? McNerney says: "expect a lot, inspire people, ask them to take the values that are important at home or at church and bring them to work"

For anyone with a career or interested in business these are important questions. Do you get inspired, driven people by hirinrg well those who bring it all with them (for whatever psychological reasons) or can a good manager create repeated passion, energy dedication?

I'm torn between the two points of view. It does seem as if the amount of "internal fire" that people have at work (or outside it) is a built-in characteristic. It may be there for admirable reasons (ambition, the desire to excel) or less admirable reasons (paranoid insecurity) but it's an observable phenomenon that some people have it and others don't.

But I'm also reluctant to give up the notion that managers can't make a difference. As I said in the (audio podcast) interview that I did with BUSINESS WEEK, maybe managers can't create the fire, but they sure as heck can suppress it if they don't perform the managerial role well.

So, over to you? Why do YOU think some people are continually motivated to improve and keep trying while others are not? And can a manager influence that or is it inherent in individuals?

BUSINESS WEEK interview

There's a 20-minute interview with me, conducted by John Byrne, Executive Editor of BUSINESS WEEK magazine in his podcast series on "Climbing The Ladder." You can find it here: Developing Accountability for Your Career.

At the same time John interviewed me, I interviewed him. That "reverse" podcast will be on my podcast page in a week or two. Look for it!

Are We ON The Same Side?

What follows began as a piece that I wrote for PSVillage.com (a great location for IT professionals), and I plan to expand it into a longer article if you all find it interesting and worth commenting on. Here it is:

In the November 6 issue of The Wall Street Journal (page B1) there was an article by Erin White and Gregory Zuckerman entitled The Private Equity CEO, which explored how life for a CEO changed when a company went from being publicly-held to being owned by private equity investors.

What caught my attention was this excerpt:

"Mr. Bilborough (the CEO of privately-held Generation Brands) says one of his biggest challenges is motivating employees amid uncertainty. Most companies controlled by private equity are sold within three to seven years. Senior executives receive equity, which can be lucrative. But middle managers and lower-level staffers typically don't get stock. 'You're trying to lead an organisation where everybody knows we're going to be sold,' said Mr. Bilborough. 'It just hangs over them like a cloud as a constant distraction for people.' "

Exactly!

When management and employees have very different vested interests and incentives, employees really begin to question whether everyone's on the same side. They begin to ask "Is management doing this because it's good for the company, or because it's good for them?" People begin to wonder: "Are we in this together or not?"

By the way, before you get too far in reading this, don't think I'm only talking about "THEM" -- the top people in large companies. These tensions apply to all of us, even if we manage only a small project team -- or even if we don't manage anybody, but just have to collaborate with others on a project or across departments.

People will always be asking:

a) What time-frame are you using for your decisions; and

b) Are we in this together or not?

We are all tempted by (and seek) immediate gratification, and doing things that pay-off in the short term. Under-investing in our future is something we all due as individuals and human beings, not just as organisations. And we've all probably done something, sometime, where we were seen as looking out for ourselves rather than the team.

The timeframe issue is crucial, because it's hard to get your team to accomplish things that take time if they think that you, their manager, is acting with a shorter -- term horizon.

This is not a matter of morality (like some Animal Farm chant of "long-term good, short-term bad"). It's OK to be either at different times, but you need to be honest and self-aware about which game you're playing. Managers need to learn that they rarely fool anyone else about their timeframe, and it's dangerous to try and fool yourself!

So, putting all this together, there could be four outcomes of how people view you:

1. You're in it for yourself and want a quick payback for your efforts.
2. You'll "play ball" as a team player as long as the team is working, but will bail out if it stops working for you.
3. You're in it for the longer term, but you're still primarily focused on yourself.
4. You're both a team player and in it for the long haul.

---

Which way do your people see you?

Note that these questions don't necessarily have to have permanent answers. People will come to a judgement about which game you are playing THIS TIME.

In my latest article called Accountability: Effective Managers Go First I argued that the best managers work hard to remove the distance between themselves and those they manage. By this phrase, I don't mean you have to get "buddy, buddy" with those you manage, but, if you DO want them to pull out all the stops on behalf of you team, then those being managed need to feel that the manager is part of the team, not separate from it. Managers and managed need to be "on the same side." All too often they are not.

If the people you are trying to manage think you're not on their side, or are only trying to meet short-term goals, you'll have a lot less ability to influence them. You'll be able to manage them because they (temporarily) want to keep their job, but its unlikely they are going to put their hearts and minds into your team's activities. You'll get today's sausages made and shipped, but you won't be going anywhere new as an organisation.

---

So, those are my thoughts. Your reactions, please?

Wise words

After a speech I gave, Francis Sheridan, whose title is Resource Efficiency Manager at 3 CES/CEOEE, sent in this comment:

"About ten years ago, while still a manager for Washington State, I took a week's class from a person considered, at the time, maybe the most talented and accomplished person in Washington State governement, Dick Thomas. He'd been Chief of Staff for the Governor, house majority leader, president of Evergreen State College, etc., and a very cool guy to boot.

When I took that class, he said two things over and over until I, for one, wanted to kill him -- figuratively, of course. Long after the class ended I finally began to understand the wisdom of these two simple thoughts:

1. Policy is what happens.
2. Peoples' feelings about the process largely determine their feelings about the outcome of the process."

---

If only more managers understood those two lessons!

Policy isn't goals, visions, missions, values, principles, etc. It's what happens around here. Manage that!

Don't just manage the goals, manage the process. Simple!

I've Stopped Reading

A while ago, I was asked which books I was currently reading, and I realised it had been a long time since I really sat down to read a book that I wasn't absolutely required to read for work. Even then, I found I skimmed a lot, looking for the punchlines, rather than settling in to absorb the logical or narrative flow that the author wanted to present.

Truth be told, I don't really have the patience for magazines either anymore, and I rarely read the newspaper nowadays -- certainly not as regularly and thoroughly as I did. Even the glorious ritual of settling in to absorb the Sunday paper has gone. If it weren't for airplane rides, I probably wouldn't keep up with any reading at all.

It's not just that I am busy with my own career as well as helping to launch my wife's new business.

What's happened is that I have (slowly or rapidly, I'm not sure) been losing the ability to read. Ever since I started really participating in the Interent -- particularly the blogosphere -- my mental metabolic rate has been re-set. I find that I can no longer slow my mental processes down long enough to give attention to a well-reasoned, expansive think-piece. A 250-page book is now a mountain, and a 400-page biography an impossibility. Yet I used to consume these with relish.

And, if what I hear from other people is true, many of you are suffering from the same problem. "Give me the punchline" I'm told. "Get to the point." Clients ask me "What's the one article I can read on this: don't give me a book!" The blogosphere is filled with top ten lists. We want the action points, not logic or narrative flow. Venture capitalists tell us that if we haven't grabbed them in the first few sentences or pages of the proposal, they're not going to read on.

There's something very important being lost here. At the personal level, I grieve not only for the loss of my (deeply satisfying) leisure reading, which has almost disappeared. It's happening in my business reading which is increasingly rushed or not done at all.

By reading less (and reading less well) some very adverse things happen:

a) I learn less.

b) I'm missing nuance and logic in what I am reading.

c) That forces me to rushed conclusions (accept/reject) about what I'm skimming.

d) My critical faculties are declining from lack of use. I'm not reflecting enough to ask questions like "What would it mean if this were true?" "Under what circumstances would this apply?" "In what other contexts might this be applicable?"

e) The failure to ask those questions is making me less creative in my thinking.

f) Obviously, by reading less (and less in depth) I am becoming less informed -- about the world, my clients' world, my own specialty

---

Here are some questions for you:

(i) What's your experience? Do YOU find yourself reading less (and less well) nowadays?

(ii) What other negative consequences do you think it has?

(iii) What approaches have you tried to solve the problem?

"Solve This" #1 -- How to Get into the Flow of Better Work

In a previous blog post discussion on avoiding negativity, it was suggested we start a series of posts called "Solve This" where we invite everyone reading this to pitch in and offer real-world, practical advice to solve a particular situation.

Here's one to get us started.

In my Are You Having Fun Yet article I reported on a survey I have done for more than ten years around the world. I ask people what percent of their work they would put in the "I love this" category versus "It's OK It's what I do for a living. It doesn't excite me." There's also a third category called "I hate this part of my work life."

I also ask people what percent of their clients they would put in the category "I REALLY like these people I serve and find their sector fascinating" (as opposed to: "It's OK, I can tolerate them.") The third category here is "By my taste, they're idiots in boring businesses."

The "typical" answers I am given (by people at all levels) are about 20-30% for "I love this" work, 60% for "can tolerate it" and 10-20% for "it's junk." On the client questions, typical numbers are 10-60-30. (I'm not making this up. By and large, people don't REALLY like those they serve, bosses or clients.)

My message has always been that these are depressingly low numbers -- I don't want to spend the majority of my life doing tolerable stuff for tolerable people just because they pay me. I'm going to work to change that!

One young person wrote in to ask: "People will wonder what your message is if they really cannot find favourable numbers where they currently work, or at least on the tasks they are currently assigned to. Can someone in a junior position influence the flow of tasks that he / she is assigned so as to increase the proportion that is stimulating? What can a junior person do?"

Some obvious first thoughts:

• Build RELATIONSHIPS WITH POWER PLAYERS who can get you in the flow of work you would prefer to what you are doing now? (Go be helpful to someone.)
• VOLUNTEER for challenging activities so you can say "No, sorry, I'm too busy, when the bad assignments come along?"
• PROPOSE and INITIATE suggestions for innovative projects that will get you assigned to things you would like to do?
• TALK to those who are currently doing the work you aiming for in order to find out if it truly is as satisfying as you think it is?
• Talk with OTHER STAFF MEMBERS in your firm, to find out which senior people you can learn from and which ones will just exploit you and dump you?
• Go get friendly with CLIENT PERSONNEL. Any client intelligence you can pick up and bring back will mark you out as a go-getter, and it mike lead to more work for your organisation.

Alright, everybody, we've all been juniors in an organisation at one time or another, so let's help. How do you get more of the interesting work and avoid getting stuck on the dull stuff? What's YOUR top 3, 4, or 5 suggestions to an individual at the lower levels of an organisation that would help him / her bring about a better future for him / herself?

Creating and Sustaining Professionalism (In Oneself and Others)

Following up on the previous post I published today about my latest podcast episode, I would like to get a discussion going about professionalism: what it is, and how you can/should treat others to elicit it in them.

The podcast (and the article it was taken from), suggests that professionalism is when people:

• Take pride in their work, and show a personal commitment to quality;
• Reach out for responsibility;
• Anticipate, and don't wait to be told what to do -- they show initiative;
• Do whatever it takes to get the job done;
• Get involved and don't just stick to their assigned role;
• Are always looking for ways to make things easier for those they serve;
• Are eager to learn as much as they can about the business of those they serve;
• Really listen to the needs of those they serve;
• Learn to understand and think like those they serve so they can represent them when they are not there;
• Are team players;
• Can be trusted with confidences;
• Are honest, trustworthy and loyal; and
• Are open to constructive critiques on how to improve.

Julie MacDonald O'Leary commented:

Professional is not a label you give yourself -- it's a description you hope others will apply to you. You do the best you can as a matter of self-respect. Having self-respect is the key to earning respect and trust from others. If you want to be trusted and respected you have to earn it. These behaviours lead to job fulfillment. The question should really be, "Why wouldn't someone want to do this?" If someone takes a job, or starts a career worrying about what's in it for them, looking to do just enough to get by, or being purely self-serving in their performance -- they will go nowhere. Even if they manage to excel through the ranks as good technicians -- they will not be happy in what they are doing. The work will be boring, aggravating, tiresome and a drag.

When asked what brought out the professionalism in others, Julie observed:

• Remember to show appreciation to the one who has taken that extra step or surprised you with an exceptional performance. This will breed more enthusiasm and more good work.

• Don't be afraid to give people ever more responsible assignments -- trust them -- and if it doesn't come out perfect, let them try again after you've given them some pointers. Everyone likes a challenge.

• Get people involved. Share reports, conversations, information about competitors and, clients, etc., so that everyone can see the big picture and how they fit into it.

• Constructive critiques are one of the most powerful learning tools available to the employee. Take the time to help people learn -- not as a matter of performance appraisal, nor an issue of compensation, but simply as a sincere desire to help them improve.

• Don't promote teamwork and then only recognise the captain. Make sure recognition is given to everyone in some way -- it doesn't have to be money -- it can be as simple as saying "Well done. Take a friend to lunch -- it's on me."

• Work hard to make people feel part of what's going on.

---

What's your view? What would you add to the characteristics of what a "real professional" does, and what do you think is the best way to create and elicit these attitudes and behaviours in others?

Are we too negative?

I'm doing something on this blog that I don't like, and I think many of you are doing it too. We're criticising way too much, pointing out the flaws in other people.

If you look at some of the topics I have initiated here on this blog in recent weeks (or even months), I have encouraged discussion of the flaws of managers, consultants, marketing people, lawyers, trainers. I'm getting good at pointing out what's wrong with the world (and most of you are too). I think the comments have been largely accurate and fair, but taken together, an unfortunate pattern is emerging -- "let's talk about what's wrong with OTHER people."

I don't think it's me alone that's doing this. When you go visit other blogs, you see lots of criticism, complaints, cynicism and scepticism. You only see a very little praise and celebration of successes, triumphs and things done right. For every blog post or comment illustrating excellence, creativity, trustworthiness or professionalism, there are multiples bemoaning the lack of these things.

Quite honestly, I'm getting a little depressed by my -- our? -- negative tone. My message in my writings has always meant to have an optimistic one: true professionalism wins, you can have high standards and still get rich, quality beats volume, trustworthy behaviour leads to greater riches as well as personal self-worth, treat people with respect and they'll repay you with their trust and loyalty.

But somehow I've drifted here on this blog, and so have many of you. Actually, it's largely true of the blogosphere in general -- more blogs are iconoclastic in the true sense of that word -- "tearing down" the powerful or prominent -- and very proportionately fewer are about building up useful knowledge, ideas, tips, insights.

Now, I must rush to point out the paradox of these past few sentences. I'm complaining about complaining! Being negative about being negative! (Seductive isn't it?)

There's a lot more to say on this, but the first topic of discussion for you all is:

a) Are we all becoming too negative (cynical, sceptical)?

b) Why?

c) Is it worse on the blogosphere than in real life, or is it a reflection of real life?

d) Is it about like it always was, or is it getting worse?

We'll Follow the Old Man Wherever He Wants to Go

In "White Christmas" (the movie with Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye), the plot turns on the loyalty that the troops felt towards their leader, General Waverly, even long after the war had ended. "He ate only after we ate," Bing's character said, "He slept only after we slept."

Back in July, I wrote a blog post about Jay Bertram, president of the Toronto office of TBWA, the global advertising agency, who asked all his people to evaluate him as a manager and announced to all his staff that if he did not improve in their ratings -- by 20 percent within one year -- he would resign!

I have now written a full article explaining the case for doing precisely that. It has been published and is called Accountability: Effective Managers Go First.

It makes the case why effective managers must run a process that:

• Clarifies their role
• Gives them feedback
• Demonstrates the crucial principle of commitment to continuous improvement and
• Reduces the emotional distance between "us" and "them"

---

Back to our topic: I've asked this before on this blog, but I have no apology for asking again: Do any of you have examples of managers who led by force of personal example and willingness to go first? Managers who have been prepared to be personally accountable for their role?

Innovations about Innovating

Recently I had the privilege of participating in a workshop in Denmark on the topic of innovation in professional services. It was organised by Stefan Lindegaard, who has been responsible before for bringing me to Denmark and organising conferences for me. (Thanks, Stefan, keep up the good work!)

On Stefan's November 2 blog post, he summarises the results of our discussions on innovation. They included:

• Most firms (and individuals) have lots of innovative ideas -- that's not the shortage. Rather, the problem is lack of follow-through in diverting the time away from current production to get the innovative projects done. At the individual and organisational level, we just forgive ourselves for not investing in our future -- especially if the reason we are able to give is that we "made more sausages" (ie increased current production.)

• To get more innovation going in a professional environment, you need to pull, not push. The truth is that people do things for themselves, not for the glory of the company. So, you need to find out what innovative experiments people would want to pursue for their own reasons, and figure out which ones would benefit the company most if they worked out.

• Messy, self-selected teams or networks are better at driving change and innovation than teams hand-picked by top management. Stefan points out that, in many organisations, there is a tendency to keep teams going forever. He says you need to dissolve teams of all kinds when a mission is accomplished and then form new teams or networks for new missions.

• Innovation wins through its portfolio of experiments, not by being super-geniuses at spotting in advance the one that is going to work. So, you need to stimulate a large number of experiments.

• Start out with small innovation projects that have a chance to pay off early -- small scale, quick payback projects. Get the early wins. They will help build the confidence, change the culture and over time create a larger and longer-lasting impact.

Stefan reports on more lessons than these, and I'd recommend looking at other posts on his blog if innovation is your interest.

And it should be. One of the first lessons I was taught at business school was: "Most innovations fail, but companies that don't innovate die." The same is true for individual careers.

What have you tried in the past three months that gave you a shot at building your capabilities? What plans do you have for the next three months to try something radically different?

I really want to know. Let's share here. What experiments are you trying? I'm not asking you to betray confidences and give away your secrets -- just help others in this community, as individuals or in firms, get better at innovating.

What's working to stimulate innovation where you work?

October 5 Most Popular Blog Posts

Here are the Top 5 most popular posts of the month.

How Did You Lose Your Innocence?
I'm really interested: What (specifically) happened to you that made you lose your innocence about how business (or academia) was run?

Guns for Hire
Do all firms have to end up just as gun for hire, doing it for anyone who will pay? If not, how does an organisation avoid it?

Value Pricing
For each of thus, whether we are individuals or large firms, our challenge is "How do I make myself special, in ways that clients value?"

It's THEIR Fault
At some point, when I am doing what I was hired to do and explaining how the people in my audience could perform their roles better, someone always sticks their hand up and says: "It's not us, it's them!"

What do Consultants Know?
As consultants, many of us give advice on things we were not trained in, and do not actually have "proof" that what we advise is correct. We know less than people think we know.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to these stimulating discussions.

If you still have ideas or opinions to add in to these or any other discussions on the blog, please join in!

Who are the Marketing Experts in Professional Businesses?

In recent weeks, two bloggers have raised a related and important question. Do marketers, particularly those in professional businesses, actually know anything?

Suzanne Lowe (Expertise Marketing) recently wrote

I have spent a career helping professional service firms market their experts and their collective expertise. But I have yet to hear a single person refer to their MARKETERS as experts. Do we marketers have any idea what makes one marketer more expert than the other? It's intriguing to imagine that we could do better at identifying our hoped-for marketing team members if we thought more critically about what it takes to be a professional services marketing expert (especially since we often end up scrambling for just the right marketing talent, and we often end up settling for someone who has simply got the right number of notches on his or her marketing belt).

The amazing Seth Godin had a related post about this on October 17. He said:

Marketers and designers will be quick to tell you that marketing and design are critical to the success of any venture. That's why it's so sad/disturbing/surprising/wonderful to discover that so many successful ventures were created by amateurs. Yes, they were professionals at something ... but the marketing and design was not created by a "professional". The list is long, and runs from the Boy Scouts to Google, from Nike to the New York Yankees. One possible lesson is that marketing is easy. The other, more likely lesson is that marketing is way too important to be left to professionals.).

It doesn't impugn the good intentions (or talents) of marketing directors in professional businesses to point out that, in fact, we probably KNOW very little about what works in professional firm marketing that we didn't know 20 years ago. There's a little bit more accumulated experience and wisdom, but not much.

Most of the advice given today (publicly and inside firms) is the same (sensible) advice that was flying around back then. If you want to check that, go back and look at the trade magazine articles in each profession concerning marketing. You'll see the same recommendations then as you still do. Or read the old books and the new books.

My own tentative hypothesis is that professional business marketers (and consultants) probably know quite a bit about the processes of marketing (listen to your clients, get feedback, build relationships, form client teams, manage media relations, etc.) But I suspect we actually know very little about marketing itself, ie major breakthroughs in positioning, actually achieving differentiation and branding (as opposed to claiming it.)

Thinking back, I don't know what I would point to as a major MARKETING achievements in the professional world. Just as Seth Godin has pointed, I can think of many professional businesses built by the professionals themselves (i.e. the marketing amateurs), but it's very unclear (at least from the outside) what the marketing professionals contributed.

I'm not sure what I would offer as evidence of marketing experts at work. For example, I know a lot of firms have worked at improving client service and a lot of copies of my TRUSTED ADVISOR article have been downloaded and circulated, but I don't know which firms if any to nominate as having pulled off a distinctive client service strategy. I know a lot who have tried, but few to nominate as successes and evidence of a real expert at work.

It's clear internal marketers have helped with various marketing processes (client feedback, media relations, sales training.) But I don't think these would qualify for Suzanne, Seth (or me) as examples of "innovative, creative experts" at work.

At the other end of marketing, what are we to make of advertising? It is astounding the commitment and dollars that Accenture is showing to its Tiger Woods ads and they are VERY creative and appealing, but is there any evidence that they are working? How come none of their IT or BPO competitors are copying them? Does that prove Accenture are marketing geniuses or marketing idiots?

In other professional businesses, others are beginning to dabble with advertising. For example, two nights ago I was surprised to see a TV ad for accounting firm Grant Thornton during the evening news. Courageous and innovative? Probably. It hasn't been tried often, and the precedents are unfortunate. Brobeck, the aggressive Californian law firm did the same thing just before the tech bubble burst and the firm imploded out of existence.

One way that we could begin the discussion here is to ask the questions in a slightly different way. If we (please) exclude boasting about our own firms, our own accomplishments (or our own writing and consulting advice),

a) what would you point to as EVIDENCE that an expert, creative marketing advisor has made a real difference in a professional business?

b) what would you point to as the MARKETING successes in professional businesses over the past 20 years?

The October Gang

Many old friends and many new participants in the past month -- just what a blog host wants, so thank you all for responding and participating.

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce you please to your fellow interactors:

Commentors

Lora Adrianse, Jason Alba, Stephanie West Allen, Tyler Allison, Ron Baker, Jim Belshaw, Kent Blumberg, Sue Boggs, Eric Bostrom, Leo Bottary, Rob Brown, Jean-Claude Brunner, James Bullock, Nigel Burke, Tim Burrows, Allan Carton, Niall Cook, Ctd, Andrew Davis, Debbie, Ahmet Dogramaci, Stephen Downes, Lance Dunkin, Scott Dunn, Heidi Ehlers, Carolyn Elefant, Adam J. Fein, David Foster, Jordan Furlong, Barbara Garabedian, Alexei Ghertescu, Michelle Golden, Phil Gott, Charles H. Green, Dan Griffiths, David Harmon, Ted Harro, Ken Hedberg, Heidi, Joseph Heyison, Tom Hoff, Chris Horne, Dennis Howlett, David Jacobson, Jaylpea, Tim King, David Kirk, Alexander Kjerulf, Edward J Kless, David Koopmans, Peter Kua, Norma Laming, Stuart Liroff, Karen Love, Suzanne Lowe, Brett M, MG, Macz, James Mason, Matt Mason, Alex McCafferty, Pat McGee, Francine McKenna, Ann Michael, Mike, Warren Miller, Stephanie Fox Muller, Nancy, Miika Niemelä, Nneka, Erek Ostrowski, Bill Peper, Florin Petean, Erich Peters, Lars Plougmann, Prem Rao, Ric, Rightwingprof, Jeff Risley, Nick Saban, Mark Schenk, Frank Schophuizen, Tim Scout, Steve Shu, Tom Siebert, Linas Simonis, Carl A. Singer, Sonnie, Dustin Staiger, Stephen Thomson, Richard Thornton, Tom "Bald Dog" Varjan, Bo Warburton, Michael Webb, Ellen Weber, Michael Webster, Ian Welsh, Ed Wesemann, Fred Wiersma, Mott Williamson, David Zatz

Trackbacks

AccMan
Accounting for a Detoured Economist
ANDERS|denken
Balanced Life Center
blissblast
Bob Sutton: Work Matters
Bryan C Fleming
Creating a Better Life
Cultivate GREATNESS | Personal Development
Execupundit
Expertise Marketplace -- Professional Service Firm Marketing Blog
Kent Blumberg
Kicking Over My Traces
Leadership for Lawyers
legal sanity
Luis Villa's Blog
Managing the Professional Services Firm
Marketing Profs: Daily Fix
My 1st Million At 33
NewBusinessEducation
Patent Baristas
Scot Herrick's BizBlog
Small Business Gurus
Sonnie's Porch
Spare Change
Tech Law Advisor.com
Why I FAILED
Worker Bees Blog
WUCL Career Services News
Zen and the art of Nonprofit Technology

Y’all come back agin y’hear?

New Translation

A simplified Chinese translation of my article FIRST AMONG EQUALS has been published by China Citic Press

Marines and Mercenaries

I wrote an article for the Sloan Management Review called "The One-Firm Firm," which turned out to be one of their best-selling reprints.

It identified a strategy common to leading firms across a broad array of professions -- creating instituitonal loyalty and team focus.

The firms named in that article were McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, Arthur Andersen, Hewitt Associates, and Latham & Watkins -- still today pre-eminent and fabulously successful firms. (Assuming you accept Accenture as the legacy successor to Arthur Andersen, that is.)

Today, I have added to my website a new article The One-Firm Firm Revisited. (The One-Firm Firm Revisited can also be downloaded in pdf form.)

I examine what has happened to these one-firm firms in the past 21 years -- what they have preserved, what they have abandoned and what they have modified.

The one-firm firm approach is similar in many ways to the U.S. Marine Corps (in which Jack Walker served). Both are designed to achieve the highest levels of internal collaboration and mutual commitment in pursuing ambitious goals. Loyalty in one-firm firms, and in the Marines, is based primarily on a strong culture and clear principles rather than on the personal relations or stature of individual members. The key relationship is that of the individual member to the organisation, in the form of a set of reciprocal, value-based expectations.

This, in turn, informs and supports relationships among members -- who often do not know each other personally. Everyone knows the values they must live by and the code of behaviour they must follow. Everyone is commonly and intensively trained in these values and protocols. Everyone also knows that if an individual is in trouble, the group will expend every effort to help him or her.

Marines have a special bond and a shared pride, built on shared values and a shared striving for excellence with integrity. Critical to the success of the organisation is respect for both the past and the future. Every marine grasps the concept of stewardship -- the organisation, its reputation, and its very effectiveness have been inherited from previous generations and are held in trust for future generations.

A contrasting, and more common, approach to running a professional service firm is the "star-based" or "warlord" approach, which succeeds by emphasising internal competition, individual entrepreneurialism, distinct profit centres, decentralised decision-making and the strength that comes from stimulating many diverse initiatives driven by relatively autonomous operators. The rainmakers of the firm are the warlords, and their followers, the mercenaries, are doing it for the money.

Which would you bet on to win? In which environment would you want to work?