What Am I Supposed to Know about?

Penelope Trunk, in her wonderful blog Brazen Careerist, launched a discussion about going out of your way to show interest in (or learn about) things that don't necessarily interest you (such as popular culture or sports) "just" as a means of being able to relate and interact with those around you.

It's a great discussion, and it got me thinking a lot about "fitting in" and how hard one should try.

Should you, as many of Penelope's commenters suggest, learn a little about sports (even if, like me, you have zero interest) just to be able to relate to clients? Is that just being sensible (or sociable) or is it "pandering" and "phony" to pretend to interests you don't really have?

Penelope uses the example of college teachers telling us we "should" read Homer's Iliad because "well educated" people will have read it, and we wouldn't want to be left out, would we?

Oh, how I remember that challenge when I first went to college! I remember being completely overwhelmed at the extent of my ignorance. Not only had I never read Homer, but I knew nothing about poetry, politics, philosophy, art, classical music, public affairs, literature, history, let alone the ‘popular' culture topics – as I said, I knew nothing about sports.

How intimidating it all was! Where do you start? Or do you?

I recall with memories that still sting that, (especially in class-sensitive Britain), making choices among these things was a serious topic. By choosing to "get up to speed" in certain areas, you would be placing yourself in one social group or another. Was I going to make myself into an "intellectual?" Was I going to be a ‘trendy' who knew all about Jazz and the Beat poets? Was I going to be "one of the lads / guys" who knew all about football and the latest pop releases? Was I going to like – or pretend to like – classical music?

These choices scared the heck out of me because they involved – it seemed to me then and seems to me now – an act of conscious self-creation. It was about choosing one or more social circles, and learning enough to "fit in" to that social circle.

Since I had no idea who I "really" was, nor who I wanted to be, I took the "Cliff Notes " approach – I learned a little about a lot of things. I used to read the introductions to novels, rather than the novels themselves, so that I could understand what they were about without having to invest the time (or learn to enjoy) them. I read biographies and histories, so I could recognise the names of all the major philosophers and give you a one-liner or two about most of them. I learned to name a couple of Mozart's operas, and so on and so on. I learned enough to pretend to fit in with a wide variety of social circles.

In one sense, I suppose that's good. You meet a lot of different kinds of people as you go through life. But on the other hand, it felt superficial and, on many occasions, a lot like "faking it." Who was I really? Where did I fit in really?

I have found that this challenge exists throughout life. As Penelope said, you probably kind of have to know a little about a lot of things to relate to people.

For example, here's a quiz. If you went to a dinner party, could you keep your side of a conversation going on:

1. Local politics?
2. National Politics?
3. International affairs not directly involving your own country?
4. The latest tech gadgets
5. The latest fiction best-sellers?
6. The latest non-fiction best-sellers?
7. What's hot on television?
8. The latest art exhibition to open in your town
9. The popular music charts?
10. Yo-yo Ma's latest album?
11. What's good on Broadway this season?
12. The latest movies?
13. Local sports teams?
14. Sports events not involving local teams?
15. Latest theories of child-rearing?

Should you know about all of these things? Where, if anywhere, is your "obligation" to keep up?

And, to relate it back to the business and management specifics of this blog, could you, at the lunch or dinner breaks in a business meeting:

• Talk about what's on the cover of the latest business magazines, from Forbes to Wired?
• Talk about the other stories there?
• Discuss what's been in the Wall Street Journal recently?
• Compare and contrast the views of three or four of the recent best-selling business authors?
• Say something sensible on the business consequences of, say, globalisation, the continued war for talent, web 2.0, who the emerging business heroes are and who doesn't deserve his or her reputation?

I don't know about you, but I still can't do ALL of this, and find myself doing what I did in college: furiously skimming headlines and summaries so I can pretend to participate in conversations. My intentions, I hope are good, and I don't mean to misrepresent myself, but, just like in college days, it feels like I'm only skating the surface and "faking it" a lot of the time.

It's an uncomfortable feeling, and I don't know the solution, except maybe to have the courage more frequently to say "Sorry, I don't know about that."

Trite Formula?

Musical performers always thank their audience for "being a wonderful audience."

They often do this even in mid-performance, not just at the end of their act.

What's going on here?

It often comes across a phony and false modesty. After all, it's the performer's job to entertain US.

Do they really think the audience is being "wonderful" or are they just flattering us into liking them (the old reciprocity trick)?

Should those of us in business be copying the approach?

In the middle of an assignment should we say "I want to thank you for being a wonderful client / boss / subordinate?"

What's Our Deal? -- New strategy podcast episode available now

The fifth episode of my new podcast series, Strategy and the Fat Smoker, is now live and available for download.

It is dedicated to exploring the themes found in my article by the same name.  I encourage you to forward these to friends and associates who may be interested in the topics covered.

"What's Our Deal?" focuses on with how many companies strive for a climate of commonality and coordination, but fall short in practice due to a lack of commitment or even for a lack of clearly stated goals or rules.  This episode takes a look at how a company can build solid, non-negotiable rules of membership in order to create unified, forward momentum at all levels of the organisation.

NOTES FOR THE EPISODE:
00:42 -- Introduction
01:38 -- A hierarchy of concepts
03:44 -- The importance of purpose
08:35 -- Management and commitment:  The key to a mobile organisation
11:44 -- Will they follow you?
16:38 -- No final whistle:  excellence into the indefinite future
19:05 -- Revisiting values over time
21:40 -- Creating rules of decision making
23:26 -- Conclusion

You can download "What's Our Deal?" 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.

Performance Appraisals

Here's a question about performance appraisals:

We are in the midst of generating year-end reviews for our associate (ie non-partner) lawyers. We have moved away from a standardised report and have been coaching all year. The report we will give them will merely be a re-cap of all the coaching sessions for the year. We will of course be addressing monetary rewards and we are in a heated debate about one issue. Should we address the billing amounts of each lawyer at this review? Should one be congratulated over the others for doing more individual billable hours? Isn't there a risk that we will set up an unhealthy competition and seem to encourage less teamwork?

I have a few responses:

1. If you have been coaching all year, why do you need a year-end review?
2. If there is a need for something year-end, shouldn't it be less of a "review" and focus almost entirely on looking ahead as to what each person can and should be doing to enhance their career? What's the point of looking back?
3. In a law firm, aren't the number of billable hours determined by what the partners assign to the juniors? If so, what do high personal billable hours reflect? Popularity among the partners? A more dependable person? Someone too dumb to hide out when they are already busy? I'd discuss the personal billable hours and try to understand them, but I would stay away from using them as a performance metric.

Jury Duty

Having mentioned I served on a jury, I received an email asking me to reflect on my experience as a juror.

I'm afraid I don't have much to say that is profound. The case involved a labourer who was asked by the pastor of his church, he claimed, to perform some basic renovation work on a recently purchased building to make it fit to hold services. There seemed to be no argument that some amount of work was done, but the labourer claimed that all his receipts were stolen (along with his tools) from his truck, and hence could not submit them to the pastor (or the court). We had to decide whether the pastor had promised to pay the labourer, and how much the labourer was owed.

The plaintiff's case was presented very efficiently by his attorney, supported by testimony from some of the assistants the labourer had hired to help with the work. The lawyer told us what he planned to contend, and called witnesses to back up those specific contentions.

Things started to drag out when the defendant's attorney took over. As jurors, we were confused as to what it was and what it was not that he was contending. He seemed to taking scattergun potshots at whatever he could think of.

Astoundingly, for a case where less than $80,000 was in dispute, this whole thing dragged on for five days (9am to 1pm).

If there lessons to be learned, they were these:

• If a parishioner is suing the pastor and you want us to believe the pastor, have at least one other parishioner appearing court on the pastor's side

• Don't be mean, attacking witnesses as to whether they have ever been arrested, or ever had a drink of alcohol. It backfired.

• If you're trying to make a case, tell us up front what you what you are going to try to prove. We get lost easily.

• If you don't contest an issue, topic or fact, we the jury are going to assume you concede the point.

• It's amazing how the lack of organisation -- fumbling through papers -- affected our view of a lawyer's credibility.

• Body language mattered -- the defendant slumped and scowled and dozed throughout the plaintiff's case. It turned the jury off

• In post verdict discussions, all the jurors agreed we had formed a strong opinion on the character of the individuals involved within the first 30 minutes of the 5-day trial.

I know this is all obvious stuff, that's all five days out of my life offered me. What a waste!

---

Does anyone else have (more informative) lessons from their jury experience?

Lions, Wolves, Beavers and Humans

Back in August of last year, I posted a blog about Corporate Strategy and Personality Profiles. The basic argument was (and is) that many firms are incapable of firmwide strategy because the key players have not agreed either to (a) collaborate or (b) invest in their mutual future.

I have now expanded my thoughts into a full-length article (Are we In This Together? The Preconditions For Strategy), which has been posted on my website and can be read or downloaded now.

The article describes four kinds of people

• Type 1 is the solo operator who values independence, wants to make little investment in the future, but is willing to bet on his (or her) ability to catch fresh meat each and every day. I call this the Mountain Lion approach. "Pay me for what I do today (or this year)."
• Type 2 is the individual who prefers to act in coordination with others, but doesn't like to invest (or defer gratification) too much. I call these people (collectively) the Wolf-Pack. "If we act together we can kill bigger animals, but it had better pay off soon or I'm joining another Pack!"
• Type 3 is the individual who wants to be independent, but is interested in building for the future by investing time and resources to get somewhere new. Such people remind me of Beavers building dams to provide a home for their (own) family.
• Type 4 are individuals who want to be part of something bigger than they can accomplish alone, and have the patience, the ambition and the will to help the collective organisation invest in that future. I call this group "The Human Race" since one of the rare things about Homo Sapiens that differentiates it (at least in scale) from other species is its ability to act collectively to build and develop. (It's called civilisation.)

I don't have a precise metric to measure the differing orientations described here, but I have found two proxy questions to be useful.

On the issue of independence versus team-play, I ask people whether, in general, they would prefer rewards in their organisation to be based (compared to the current arrangements) a little more on individual performance or a little more on joint rewards for joint performance. I then ask whether, compared to the current arrangements, people would like their firm to invest more in its future, even if this meant they would have to accept less current income in the form of salaries and current bonuses.

These two (imprecise) questions tend to cause people to reflect on their true preferences. The underlying issue is not really about pay schemes, but phrasing the questions this way tends to crystallise the issues for many people.

The article then explores the question: what can be achieved if you have a mixture of all types in your organisation?

Defending Your Life

I'm sitting as a juror this week in a (civil) trial, and it made me reflect on an old Albert Brooks movie called "Defending Your Life."

The main character goes to heaven and has to bring witnesses to make the case that he has lived a good life.

Who would testify for you?

Who would testify against you?

How comfortable / confident would you feel that your "jury" would find in your favour?

A Case Study In professional Ethics

This (true) story was researched by Julie McDonald O'Leary, my former business manager.

She interviewed a property management company, whose client was a hospital. In dealing with government agencies regarding hazardous waste, the paperwork submitted has to be exact. In many cases, the paperwork is incidental to actual importance of cleanup work being done, and it can be more time consuming and costly than the actual work itself. However, it's more than required -- it's mandatory.

The property management firm (let's call them Acme) realised there was a mistake in the paperwork regarding a specific cleanup for the hospital. Basically, the paperwork said that waste was dumped in one particular site when it actually went to another. Both sites were the same type, but a clerical error had been made. No actual harm done because both sites accept the same type of waste -- but in these situations paperwork is supposed to be exact.

This was Acme's mistake, but it would be a costly one to rectify. The team involved knew that they could say nothing and no one would ever know and there would be no actual harm done.

They asked their CEO what to do, and he said: "We will meet with the hospital and take it on the chin. We'll look like fools -- it's a silly error. The hospital has had a lot of bad press lately and the last thing they need is any kind of environmental error going to the press."

Up until now, the relationship with the hospital had been a great one (representing a $0.5 million account) and admitting this mistake could become a real thorn in Acme's side, making them look incompetent. They could lose the account and the word of mouth publicity that would follow would hurt future business in health care circles.

Acme's CEO decided to meet with the client, bringing along to the meeting the whole team who had worked on the project -- fom the most senior person to the most junior. He revealed the error and told the client that action was already in progress to fix the error. The meeting lasted 4.5 hours, adjourning with no outcome.

The next day, the CEO received a call from the client saying that they had discussed it further and that it was obvious to them that Acme could have swept the whole thing under the carpet and the hospital would never have known the difference.

They also said that they recognised that Acme made a lot of extra work for themselves by honouring what they knew the wishes of the hospital would be and that is to fix it. They said "We totally trust you to do the right thing."

Another firm may have elected to go honest route as well, but may have been reluctant to do so with their juniors as an audience. By witnessing all of this first hand -- lessons in professionalism are usually learned first hand this was better than any training session. The juniors had a taste of what "owning the problem" really means.

Acme's young workers saw first hand the meaning of "ethics in action." They saw the CEO "take it on the chin" rather than be anything less than completely excellent to very high standards. They also saw that because of this, they had probably obtained a client who will work with them (and advocate them to others) with total trust.

Now here's another interesting question. A CEO might take the decision to handle things this way, but would a middle manager inside a company ever feel empowered enough to make a similar decision (absorb a significant expense to make right an error that no-one outside the company would ever know about?)

Or is this kind decision, which requires guts, courage and ethics, always kicked upstairs? Are any companies so "ethical" that a middle manager wouldn't need to ask permission to "do the right thing?"

Comments?

Would your CEO do this?

Has your CEO ever done this?

What about your "middle manager?"

What about you?

We're All Dentists

Well, not all of us, but many of us are.

The point about dentists is that while we may need them, we never WANT them. While they do very honourable, helpful caring things for us, their patients, we patients would rather avoid them if we can.

I believe the same is true of my profession -- consulting. I doubt that anyone ever said "Oh, goody, the consultants are coming in." Or "Oh, joy! I get to work with the HR department today."

Similarly, I doubt that anyone said "It's my lucky day, I need to bring the lawyers in!" (or the accountants)

And, of course, the same is true of IT technicians, PR people, and a whole host of other professionals, (internal and external.)

As providers, we see what we do in a positive light (solving problems and bringing about improvements.) However, from the users' perspective our presence signals pain, disruption, inconvenience, expense. Ultimately, we may benefit from the provider's activities, but I'd rather not HAVE to deal with them at all.

We need to remember our place. We're not glorious "saviours" of clients with problems: we are an unfortunate necessity.

***

Does anyone have stories to tell and when they learned this truth, and what changes in behaviour they had to make as a consequence?

Ayn Rand

When I posted last Friday's blogpost, making the point that "No-one will look after you, you have to manage your career yourself," my wife reacted by saying "Wow, Richard, that's tough! You usually write upbeat, inspirational material. What's going on?"

She is right that there was a different tone to last week's post, but I'd like to try and reconcile what I said then with the (more inspirational?) things I have previously advocated in my books and articles.

The key message is that the willingness to take responsibility for what happens to you, and to make things happen, is the beginning not only of healthy thinking and exciting productive careers, but also of a life of integrity, standards and relationships. These things, I believe, are connected.

Ayn Rand was (and remains) a major influence on my thinking, although I'm not sure she would recognise and endorse even a small fraction of my current thoughts and writings.

For those who need an introduction, Ayn Rand was an author who wrote "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," two novels that communicate her philosophy of "enlightened self-interest." She also wrote non-fiction books about her philosophy -- objectivism -- but it's the novels that have had the biggest impact. I first read her books when I was 17 (and met her briefly when I was 9.)

It would be hard to summarise an entire philosophy in a few words, but one way might be to say that she thought that each person should stand on their own two feet.

This doesn't mean you never help others, nor accept help from others -- just that you should never EXPECT it as a matter of rights or obligations. Others may choose to help you, and you may choose to help others -- but the key, is that it's a matter of choice. In a truly free society, nobody has a "claim" on your efforts, nor the "obligation" to help you -- unless they choose to.

When taken up to the societal level, this leads to a political philosophy of "libertarianism," but I don't want to discuss politics or political philosophy here. This is a blog about business, professional life and professional services.

Contrary to what many people think at first, "no-one owes you and you don't owe anyone" is NOT a pessimistic message of dog-eat-dog, where we're all against each other. It's a point of view that says "Not much can be done unless I get people to help me, but I have no CLAIM on their help, so I have to learn how to make them WANT to give it freely."

If you start from the assumption (or the real-world observation) that everybody else is a free agent, you can't expect others to give you what you want unless you deal with them in ways that make them WANT to give it to you.

That means the only way to really succeed in a society of free people is to be a person of integrity, honour, skilled at earning relationships and trust -- to be someone others want to work with.

If no-one OWES you anything as a matter of right, then you need to work at making them want to give you things -- and that means giving them what THEY want, in fair, enlightened exchange. And that means being consistent, dependable, intimate and not too immediately self-oriented: All the things that make up the trust equation in THE TRUSTED ADVISOR.

This is meant to be GOOD news, not sad news. If the negative aspect is that you can't rely on any one else to clear the path for you, the optimistic, positive, healthy thing to say "I'm in charge of me -- I can make things happen for myself if I accept the responsibility to do so."

As Ayn Rand would point out, there's great liberating power in that way of thinking (especially in contrast to an opposite which begins by saying "I can't achieve things because other people don't give me chances.") People who think the world (or their firm) "should" be looking after them will probably fail to develop important attitudes and skills, as they wait for others to act. As Ed Kless wrote on my blogpost: "When are we going to recognise that Ayn Rand was right in a lot of ways -- 'The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap.' "

As I see it, there's nothing in the "Take responsibility for yourself and expect that of others" that prevents you from being a generous person -- with those you choose to be generous with.

So that's my argument. It's the very fact that you ARE on your own that leads to the conclusion that you need to be an honourable, caring, high integrity, relationship-building person. Being generous, kind, trustworthy, attentive to others and a person of high integrity is not, I believe, inconsistent with the philosophy (and the REALITY) that you must take ownership of what happens to you, but a logical consequence of it.

But maybe, in the eyes of some readers, I'm trying to have it both ways. I start from the proposition that I don't OWE anybody anything (and they don't OWE me anything) and end up saying that FOR THAT VERY REASON those who will succeed are those who take the initiative to build bonds of relationships with the bosses, clients and employees that you CHOOSE to have relationships with.

1. Does anyone out there have a different view of all this?
2. Are there others out there who were influenced by Ayn Rand and have struggled to live by her principles (pure or modified) in their daily lives?
3. Or those who have rejected her philosophies as a guide to personal and business life?
4. Do you agree that Ayn Rand's core philosophy is not only consistent with idealistic, high-standards behaviour, but can be (is?) the cause of it?

Are We In This Together? -- New strategy podcast episode available now

The fourth episode of my new podcast series, Strategy and the Fat Smoker, is now live and available for download.

It is dedicated to exploring the themes found in my article by the same name.  I encourage you to forward these to friends and associates who may be interested in the topics covered.

"Are We In This Together?", the fourth episode in this series, focuses on disparate preferences amongst players within the same firm.  All too often, firm-wide strategy assumes firm-wide consensus.  However, it is rarely the case that all players within any given firm are team oriented.  We will discuss some of the widely held player preferences and prescribe alternatives in dealing with them.

NOTES FOR THE EPISODE:
00:37 -- Introduction
04:23 -- 4 types of individual and firm wide practice preferences
09:00 -- Are we in this together?
11:13 -- Bridging the gap:  organisational strategies managing a broad range of preferences
17:23 -- Conclusion

You can download "Are We In This Together?" 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.

Perspective on Careers

1. The cold, hard, truth is that you've got to look after yourself.
2. You can't assume that anyone is really looking out for your best interests (in spite of what they may say.)
3. There may be a human resources department in your firm, managers, coaches and a mentoring system. But don't get fooled. Your career is up to you and you alone.
4. No one will tell you what experience you should be obtaining, let alone help you get it.
5. If you want a specific experience, ask for it.
6. Better yet, just go grab it.
7. Do not expect that you will be promoted because you deserve it -- it is unlikely that anyone is really keeping track.
8. If you want to be promoted, ask to be promoted.
9. Generally, things do not come to those who do not ask for them.
10. None of this means you should be rude, disrespectful to others, or fail to be a team player. It just means don't be naïve.
11. In spite of what they may say, it's up to you. You're on your own, kid.
12. Manage your own career. No one else will.

Anyone disagree that this is both the right philosophy to have and the cold, hard reality?

Pricing and Promoting a PreSchool Business

Here's today's question from a participant on this blog:

We are moving to a new area, and my wife wants to start a preschool out of our home (which we have yet to purchase). Our question is how to price and promote such a business.

Most preschools in the area are more like "day-cares" (more like a baby-sitter than a private school education). The businesses may or may not be licensed (from what we hear), and the teachers are not certified. The highest end "institutional" preschools in our area charge as much as $100/month. My wife knows of someone who has run a high-end "home-based" preschool for years and charges $240+ per month, has 40 students per month and has a waiting list. Like my wife, this teacher is state certified.

My wife would like to have 20 students, all signed and committed by August 1. As we will purchase a larger home than we would normally need (to accommodate the preschool), the earlier we can receive cash flows the better. It would help if we could commit families to "terms" of about 4 to 5 months, but we feel like we probably would have to charge them monthly rather than up front (like a traditional school).

Extreme versions of your principles ("Earn a relationship by giving something free first") would tell us to give everyone a month for free and then charge a steep premium after they fall in love with my wife's teaching of their kids. Yet we feel we might get a bunch of free-loaders that way.

In addition, if we did start out at a discount to "earn and deserve the relationship" how would we then raise the price if people are willing to pay for a premium? Should we wait until we have a waiting list? We could also try the variation mentioned in one of your books of charging a minimum payment of (say) 80% of target fees, subject to parents agreeing to paying us a satisfaction payment at the end of term.

How should we think of marketing and pricing this business in an area that will be new to us?

It sounds to me to be very ambitious to aim for a "full-house" within 6 months in a new business in a new area where you are not known. And I don't think you can solve it with creative pricing schemes.

I suspect that your big challenge is not pricing but establishing a marketing presence; i.e., being accepted as a credible supplier -- particularly if people have to trust their kids to you. Is there any way of doing a deal with one or more of the current high-end teachers who have a waiting list? Paying them a commission or going into partnership with them? Since you're new and they're established, teaming with them for the first few years might make the most sense.

Since prices are set by supply and demand, I have lots of questions about both. Why aren't there more high-end certified preschool teachers? Is the fact that the one you know about has a waiting list evidence that there is a shortage of supply? Or is it just one anecdote? Are people unhappy with "institutional" preschool, thereby creating a pent-up demand? And what are the rule in your state -- can parents qualify for programs that get the state to pay (some of) the fees? State bodies might also be a good "partner" to get you launched in the new area. They certainly would be a good source of "market intelligence."

If it is a shortage of good teachers is the issue, where are the kids that you hope to attract going now? Will you be "stealing them" from the institutional preschools ($100 per month), from other high-end teachers, or from situations where the parents keep the kids at home? Which is the most likely source?

As to pricing structure, I don't know if "freebies" would work here -- they may be viewed with suspicion and a sign of low quality. Instead, I suspect you want and need to create an image of being "special", so a high fee with a money back guarantee might work better than agreeing to a discount up front.

Anybody else got some initial views about how to launch and price a business like this?

What Managers Do Least Well

Kathy Sierra, on the fabulous Creating Passionate Users blog, argues convincingly that managers should be getting people excited about the kind of work they do, not trying to get them to "do it for the company." She's right, but there's a very telling (joke) picture she uses at the top of her blogpost.

One person is saying to another: "Hey, isn't that Jim pulling out of the parking lot? He only worked ten hours today?" The other person responds: "We have a client demo tomorrow and he's only working a half day? I'd fire his ass."

It's meant as a joke, but there's an incredibly important and serious lesson here.

For decades I have been involved in conducting upwards evaluations of managers by their subordinates. Consistently, over time, geography, profession or industry, and size of firm, the one aspect of managerial performance that is consistently rated as done most poorly is "tackling underperformance promptly."

Subordinates, it seems, are rarely satisfied with how well their superiors do this. What's fascinating is that the result is subject to interpretation. Is it that managers, everywhere, always, are relatively poor at this compared to other aspects of managerial performance?

Or is it that, no-matter how well they do it, this issue is particularly annoying to co-workers.

Naturally, I think the answer is a little of both.

Many of us, as managers, find confrontation emotionally difficult, so don't want to tackle issues until we "have to." If a subordinate is only "average" not yet "failing," why bother making a fuss?

The reason is the effect that one person's underperformance has on the motivation, morale and energy of those around them. If management can't (or won't) enforce the standards and help underperformers achieve competence, then why should the rest of us try for excellence? It's hard to feel like part of an energising, exciting team if there are passengers (or what are seen to be passengers.)

This is not about management being rapacious and trying to get the most out of everybody, but the simple recognition that a team cannot form if group norms are not clear and adhered to, and it's a manager's job to ensure that that happens.

Your views? How well would you rate your manager at "tackling and dealing with underperformance in your group?" Do you have any theories about why it's often done so poorly?

Self-Promotion

I received two emails at opposite ends of an important spectrum yesterday. The first, from Bill Paul, Author (Ex-Wall Street Journal and CNBC energy reporter) read, in part:

As a former Wall Street Journal staff reporter, I'm not big on self-promotion, but I thought you might be interested in knowing about a new book just published by Wiley about the future of energy ... Title is: Future Energy: How the New Oil Industry Will Change People, Politics and Portfolios. Sorry again about the self-promotion.

The second email was from Keith Ferrazzi, the author of the best-selling Never Eat Lunch Alone, one of the most successful recent guides to networking and self-promotion. Here's (part of) Keith's email:

I really wanted to maximise the opportunity for readers to actually start using the advice (in LifeCoachTool 1.0) in their own lives, I also had my team put together a simple online quiz/survey/tool that doesn't cost anything and only takes a couple minutes to complete.

If you visit this link

You can:

• Watch a brief video of me explaining what it is
• Try it for yourself
• Even enter a contest we're running that rewards you for helping make others more successful -- prizes include personalised coaching calls with me, signed books, and DVDs. Should be fun.

What struck me about these two emails is not just the extra thought and investment that has gone into promoting Ferrazzi's new venture, but (no surprise here) his utter self-confidence in putting himself forward.

By way of contrast, Bill Paul, (in common with many people including myself) actually feels so bad about letting me know about his new book that he apologises -- twice -- for doing nothing more than politely informing me of the availability of something I might be interested in.

But here's the interesting thing. While it's clear that Ferrazzi's approach is going to get more response, I'm not sure I could do it on behalf of myself. Like Bill Paul, there is something in me that holds me back from the more explicit forms of self-promotion.

Like many other professionals, I'm comfortable with showing my material and saying "Let the work speak for itself" but I've been around long enough to know that more than that is required. I'm just not comfortable doing it.

Those who are in marketing often laugh at the people who don't want to "get out and network," but the reluctance to self-promote is something many of us were brought up with. We can read and be impressed by Ferrazzi's book about networking, but find it hard to do personally. (Maybe that's why we try to hire other people as our marketers for doing it for us -- which rarely works out too well.)

These are the things I am reflecting on:

1. Where does the reluctance to self-promote come from? Is it a "social graces" thing that we were taught by our parents? A psychological characteristic we are born with? Is it a class-based thing?
2. How many of you out there are like Bill Paul and me -- fundamentally uncomfortable with self-promotion?
3. Can non-self promoters be taught to get psychologically comfortable with it? (I know I can be taught to DO it, but can I be taught to get comfortable with it?)
4. Are the Keith Ferrazzi's of this world -- stellar, skilled, unabashed networkers and self-promoters -- born or made?
5. Can, or should, I be doing more of what Ferrazzi advocates (eg., Never Eat Lunch Alone)?

January Top 5 Roundup

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

What a Company Needs Most
This discussion of the most important key ingredients for an organisation stands out for eliciting some outstanding comments from readers.

Can We Be Manipulated?
A great discussion on how to discern between convincing hucksters and actual trusted advisors.

Politics Part II
Readers weigh on on how to cope with, or avoid, office politics.

How Polite Are You
Readers report that they are a very polite group of professionals in this discussion on replying to phone calls.

Managing Up
A collection of great ideas from readers on how to deal with a less-than-perfect boss. (Don't miss out on Managing Your Boss, the careers podcast episode based on this blog post as well.)

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

It Takes a Virtual Village

It clearly takes a virtual village to run a blog, because this month the site has been teeming with support and participation from at least a village worth of people (and a big village at that).

It is my pleasure to acknowledge the contributions of everyone who joined in here during the month of January.

Commentors
Adnan, Adriana, Lora Adrianse, AdsBay, Jerome Alexander, Stephanie West Allen, Allen, Ann, Kishore Balakrishnan, Ann Bares, Jason Bates, Richard Becker, Nagesh Belludi, Stuart Blake, Wally Bock, Breakingranks, Eric Brown, Rob Brown, Duncan Bucknell, James Bullock, Shawn Callahan, Johnny Canada, Brian Cassell, James Cherkoff, Clarke Ching, Brendon Connelly, Carmine Coyote, Jef Cumps, Krishna De, Kathleen DeFilippo, John Dillard, Bill Dotson, Stephen Downes, Bill Dueease, Lance Dunkin, Heidi Ehlers, Judith Erickson, Doug Ferguson, David Foster, Adrian G., Robert Gagliano, Gautam, Paul Gladen, Mark Gould, Charles H. Green, Lisa Guinn, Rachael Heald, Ken Hedberg, Heidi, Brad Hendricks, Scot Herrick, Dennis Howlett, S. Anthony Iannarino, Jennifer, Jim, Timothy Johnson, Danielle Keister, Dr. Delaney Kirk, Matthew Klein, Howard Krais, Greg Krauska, Peter Linton, Stephanie Lunn, Bruce MacEwen, Carolyn Manning, Arnoud Martens, Marti, James Mason, James McGee, Bob McIlree, Arthur Mcbeth, Ann Michael, Mike, Nitin, Emmanuel Oluwatosin, Erek Ostrowski, Peggy, Bill Peper, Tim Percival, Steve Portigal, RJON, Brady Reed, Rob Reed, Steve Roesler, Stephen Ruben, Rich Saletan, Bryan I. Schwartz, Daniel Scocco, Stephen Seckler, Tracey Segarra, Shank, Maureen Sharib, Mark Shead, Pamela Slim, Stephi, Ed Strickling, Bilal Succar, Charles Tippett, Tom "Bald Dog" Varjan, Tim Travers, Heidi Tryon, Peter Vajda, Raj Waghray, Michael Wagner, Ellen Weber, Ian Welsh, John Wesley, Gerald Whyte, Randy Yniguez, Liz Zitzow

Trackbacks
A Girl's Guide to Managing Projects
Accountants Round-Up
Afficionados of Ink
All Things Workplace
Anecdote
Aridni
Balanced Life Center
Be Excellent�
BIZ GROWTH NEWS
BizInformer
Blawg Review
Blog Business World
Blog Critics Magazine
Bob Brown's Consulting Intelligence Briefings
Bryan C. Fleming
BurstCreativity: Personal Development Blog, Innovation training, Creativity and Self Help community
Business Growth Network
businesspundit
buzzflash.net
carpe factum
Chief Innovation Officer
Clarke Ching's I Think Not, Baby Puppy
Common Ground
Compensation Force
Connecting Technology, Strategy and Execution
Conor's Blog
Converstations
Copywrite, Ink.
Creating a Better Life
CRM Lowdown
Cultivate GREATNESS | Personal Development
Data-Scribe Blog | Musings & News
David Crow
David Jacobson's External Insights
Endless Gibberish Personal Finance Blog
Execupundit.com
Fat Pitch Financials
Flooring The Consumer
Free Money Finance
Gautam Ghosh -- Management Consultant
Half an Hour
InsureBlog
JainTech Blog
Jarango
Jorge Arango
Lead and Gold
Legal Andrew
MabelandHarry
Managing the Professional Services Firm
MANGROVE ROOT GANG.com
marketingLEGAL
McGee�s Musings
Minor Wisdom
Modern Marketing -- Blog by Collaborate PR
MorePartnerIncome
One Man Band
Organize Your Home and Office
PMToolbox.xom
Positive Psychology Blog
Pro PR
Public Defender Stuff
purple motes
Re: The Auditors
Roth And Company, P.C.
SalesMotivation.net
Searchlight Crusade
sellingbrand
Software Project Management
Stark County Law Library Blog
Startup Spark
Strategic Design | marketing & branding thoughts by Nick Rice
SuccessJolt
The Agonist
The AntiSyphus Effect
The Benin Epilogue Part I: Africa-Ready for Busine
The Career Encouragement Blog
The Changing NHS
The Conway Group LLC
The Dragon Slayer's Guide to Life
The Engaging Brand
The Entrepreneurial Mind
The General Counsel Blog
The Lawyer Coach Blog
The PR place
The Sales Blog
Think Happy Thoughts
This is not
Towards Better Life
TrackKnacks: Aptitude Wizard Watch
Trusted Advisor Associates
Verve Coaching
Victus pro Scientia Opus -- Food for the Knowledge
Your Trusted Selling Brand

Podcast Trackbacks
Accountants Round-Up
Balanced Life Center
Burst Creativity
Creating a Better Life
JainTech Blog
Michael's Thoughts
Re: The Auditors
SalesMotivation.net
Think Happy Thoughts
Towards Better Life
TrackKnacks: Aptitude Wizard Watch
Verve Coaching

These lists represents a collection of some tremendous blogs and professional experts. If you are looking to add to your reading list, take a moment to click through and visit everyone on their "home turf."

Sad Truths for Leaders

I find that I keep needing to repeat these points:

• Those you lead will never have a longer-term horizon than you do
• Those you lead will never operate to higher standards than you do
• Those you lead will never be more optimistic than you are
• Those you lead will never live the vision if you don't

Business Development in Professional Businesses

Here's another email question I received. (By the way, I LOVE receiving them -- it ensures that I blog about real-world topics of interest to at least ONE person!!):

Things seemed to have shifted since you wrote Managing the Professional Service Firm.

In that book, you described a world where it was the partner who was tasked with developing business. Today, in many professional firms, including the Big-4 accounting firms, it is dedicated Business Development Managers (BDM) who work hand-in-hand with the partners. I am curious to better understand how such a relationship works.

I currently work at a large IT manufacturer which, over the years, developed a services arm. Dedicated business development people (and even departments) are a lot more common in my industry, but over the years, a lot of people who came up through our services area have found their way into this type of positions at the Big 4 (and seem to have succeeded well.)

My current role at the IT firm services group involves developing and maintaining key relationships with six major accounts and setting the strategy or direction in how we work with them. While there are various sales representatives and specialists across the country working with various contacts, it my responsibility to see we all march in one direction and that we are providing solutions to these customers in a uniform or consistent fashion. The interesting, and sometimes challenging, aspect is that none of these folks report to me, but instead to the local company operations.

Are things now similar in Big-4 accounting firms?

In most professions, things have changed significantly since I wrote my 1996 article. Many professions (not just large accounting firms) have made significant transitions in getting organized for marketing, selling and business development, with marketing departments being established with significant roles, responsibilities and budgets. The teaming you describe is now a lot more common than it was in 1996.

However, I must report that it really is firm-specific, and can easily wax and wane. When the Big-4 accounting firms had large consulting practices, they successfully made a big transition to hiring dedicated salespeople who worked, as you say, hand-in-hand with the partners. In addition to people hired for sales activities, there was a sensible investment in marketing support, so that the firm could efficiently keep the partners informed (in real time) on industry trends affecting their clients. This teaming made it easier for partners to research their clients, prepare sensible proposals when needed, keep up to date, and allowed for wise allocation of tasks between specialists.

This teaming could and did work in some firms. However, when the regulatory environment changed (post Enron) and many firms sold off their consulting businesses, their commitment to marketing and sales teaming between the remaining audit and tax professionals and the marketing professionals sometimes was weakened. Some firms cut back their commitment to marketing and the use of marketing professionals.

The situation has also been "muddied" in the current climate. Many large accounting firms in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley environment have more demand for their services than they can handle. Marketing is now less about looking for new clients than it is about ensuring that key major clients are happy. This is EXACTLY the role you say you are now performing in your IT firm: co-ordinating activities for major accounts without having "formal" powers.

By the way, the same should be true in other professions like law firms, although there is still the common mistake that marketing professionals are more often used to hunt for new clients, rather than help in nurturing existing relationships. What you say you do in your current IT firm is very sensible and important, but it is less common in some other professions.

You will obviously know that the role you currently play can be either very fulfilling or a nightmare: it depends on whether the firm you join is serious about (a) cross boundary coordination; (b) investing in client relationships and (c) teaming between partners and marketing professionals. As always, culture and seriousness of intent is crucial.

My advice is to tread cautiously. Some firms are serious about all three of these things (cross-boundary coordination, investing in relationships and teaming with marketing professionals.) When they are serious, it's working very well. However, some other firms are only pretending. And guess who wins when the firm is only pretending? It isn't the marketing professional.