Coffee and a Do Not: Multi-Tasking in Meetings

/0 Comments/in /by

Multi-tasking in meetings?  Inevitable.   The real issue is how you respect those around you.

In thinking through this particular professional “do not,” I had to come to grips with something…  I’m a multi-tasker.

On the most interesting of days, I crave motion like a ferret with ADHD and an espresso IV staring into an open sock drawer.

That’s life.  You and I like to have a lot of things going.

So, when I thought through this particular “do not,”  which is about multi-tasking in meetings, I thought about how it’s typically framed.

Usually, we hear about how multi-tasking in meetings is a bad thing because it takes our eyes off the ball.  It creates inefficiency and distraction.

Those things are right.

However, some level of multi-tasking is going on in almost any meeting; and the higher level the meeting, the more there is.

By that, I mean that people’s minds are on other things.  It might be their kids, or a problem at the plant, or a customer call that’s coming in over the next hour.

People are multi-tasking, they just might call it distraction.

So, what’s my angle?

My angle is that I’d rather not worry about the fact that professionals get distracted.  That’s going to happen.

What I suggest on this Saturday morning is that we focus less on the fact that people multi-task in meetings, and more on the fact that people are disrespectful to others in meetings by willfully distracting themselves.

In other words, we should avoid being unprofessional in our distractions.

The most obvious and pervasive focus of disrespect these days is facilitated by the use of phones and devices.  At some companies I’ve been around, having devices in hand during meetings is a given.  Laptops are open in every meeting, smart phones are used with impunity in meetings; and people generally accept or at least tolerate it.

Indeed, laptop use in meetings is viewed by some as a sign of forward thinking (“wouldn’t want to kill too many trees.”).

The issue is that far too often the “forward thinkers” are the ones looking online at new apparel to buy or what the latest political news is, all while other people are discussing content in the meeting. And, others know it. Behind privacy screens (or not) and in front of their peers, these folks put their disdain for the meeting and for other professionals in the room on display.

If you are senior, don’t do this.  Even if you don’t avoid it because it’s wrong; avoid it because it’s transparent to others in the room. People watch you too closely.

In the worst of cases that you and I might come across, relatively senior managers carry on instant messaging conversations with each other while sitting near one another in meetings–giggling  to one another along the way.  The more junior people in the room stand dumbfounded after some of those meetings, wondering what kind of role modeling they just witnessed.

In a few other companies I’ve been around, devices were verboten in meetings.  No, nobody stands up and says “no devices,” it’s just a norm.

Yes, they use more paper.

No, they are no less distracted than other company managers.

But, get this:  When they are present in a meeting, they “look” present in a meeting.  They leave the multi-tasking to the mind.

And, trust me, the “no devices” crowds get just as much done as the fully wired crowd.  And, they tend to do it in less time.

Oh, and they make eye contact.  Eye contact is a good thing when one is looking to show respect.  Devices distract from it.

So what?

Multi-tasking happens.  Sometimes it happens because we are focused on the right things (“How am I going to get that deal closed???”); and sometimes it happens because of personal distractions (“gotta go get my kid from school in 20 minutes…I hope this meeting doesn’t run long.”).

Your mind multi-tasks.  Sometimes you have to fight it and focus; and sometimes (believe me), you just have to go with it and see where it takes you.

This “Coffee and a Do Not” is titled “multi-tasking in a meeting.”  But, the reality is I’m saying “sure, you are going to multi-task…Just don’t be disrespectful and unprofessional in the process.”

Have a great weekend.

Mark Cuban: This Bubble is Worse

/0 Comments/in , /by

Mark Cuban, famed Internet bubble beneficiary, Dallas Mavericks owner, and willing pundit, posted on his blog a couple of days ago about the new bubble in early stage assets.

Here’s your LINK

Cuban makes a compelling case that the current frenzy of investment in early stage companies (especially apps and small tech companies) is actually worse than the year 2000-era tech bubble.

Why?

Because there are far fewer options for liquidity for the types of early stage investments that are dominating today; and there is a far more diverse investor base putting money at risk.

He sets up the situation with this quote:

“In a bubble there is always someone with a “great” idea pitching an investor the dream of a billion dollar payout with a comparison to an existing success story.  In the tech bubble it was Broadcast.com, AOL, Netscape, etc.  Today its, Uber, Twitter, Facebook, etc.”

Interestingly, Cuban lists Broadcast.com… That caught my eye.

When a billionaire puts the source of his vast wealth on a list of companies that perhaps just maybe were sold based on a pitch and a dream, it catches my attention.   He actually overcomes the cognitive dissonance induced justification of how his own company was different; and just throws it in the street right alongside Netscape.

He then goes on to lament how the average Joe and Jane are now part of the angel investment crowd.  He explains how they have access to illiquid investments through angel investments and crowdfunding that they would not have had 15 years ago.

And he thinks it’s a bad thing.  His quote:

“All those Angel investments in all those apps and startups.  All that crowdfunded equity. All in search of their unicorn because the only real salvation right now is an exit or cash pay out from operations.  The SEC made sure that there is no market for any of these companies to go public and create liquidity for their Angels.  The market for sub 25mm dollar raises is effectively dead. DOA . Gone. Thanks SEC. And with the new Equity CrowdFunding rules yet to be finalized, there is no reason to believe that the SEC will be smart enough to create some form of liquidity for all those widows and orphans who will put their $5k into the dream only to realize they can’t get any cash back when they need money to fix their car”

It’s an interesting read.

Informed consent is a big deal.  When people have access to illiquid and extremely high risk investments, they have to know what they are getting into.  The implication here may not be so much that public valuations are totally out of whack, but rather that there is a shadow bubble of money being thrown at “big things” that come in illiquid packages.

I think Mark Cuban has hit on one of the dark sides of the democratization of capital allocation.

God Help Your Risk Takers…

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Recent studies show that references to God in prompts to survey subjects lead them to take on more risky behaviors. This can have interesting implications for your strategy.

If you’ve been following this blog, you’ve seen multiple references to the need for leaders to underwrite risks and back their people.  I’ve cast this as the need for leaders to say “I’ve got your back.”

Here’s a post that goes into that concept in some depth.

Now, researchers at Stanford University have published studies that show people seeking more risk when they are reminded of God before making a choice between lower risk behaviors and higher risk behaviors.

Here’s a link to an article that outlines the findings.

The researchers posed various choices between higher risk and lower risk behaviors, and varied whether there were subtle references to God in the prompt.  For instance, an ad for skydiving might say, “Find skydiving near you!” or it might read, “God knows what you are missing. Find skydiving near you!”

The studies also differentiated between high risk behaviors in a moral sense and high risk behaviors in a non-moral sense.  Prior studies have shown that religious people tend to take fewer “moral” risks than non-religious people.

The summary of the study is this:

“…people are willing to take [more] risks because they view God as providing security against potential negative outcomes.”

Some implications for the strategist and leader:

The gist of this study is that when people believe they have some backing, even by supernatural forces, they are willing to do “more” than they otherwise would.

They view the security as valuable.

A few implication come to mind:

1.  People will take more risks if they know somebody is underwriting it, even (and especially?) God – You and I need to be good at letting people know when we have their backs.  Simple phrases like, “I know this is a risk, but it’s one that I’m taking, not you” can go a long way to putting people’s minds on business strategy instead of survival strategy.

2.  The source of risk backing has to be credible to the person taking the risk – It’s not enough for you and me as strategists and leaders to know that we have the backs of the people taking risks for us…we have to show, credibly, that we have sponsored others through tough risks and failure.  Religions form around stories;  so does your risk taking (or risk-averse) culture.

3. People have to be reminded – It’s important for people to know constantly that risk taking is backed by someone or something. In the study referenced above, people made marginally different choices by merely being prompted with the word “God.”  In your organization, simple prompts make that much difference.  When people are contemplating risks in your organization, do the prompts come with “I’ve got your back,” or do they come with “You’d better not mess it up…”?

All of this matters for you and me as leaders and as strategists.

Strategies involve taking risk.  Otherwise, they aren’t really a strategy.

They also involve people taking risks on behalf of the company and themselves.

Unless, and until, we get good at being clear on the risks we expect other people to take, and have credibility on the point, our people will take fewer risks.

Compound that with the converse situation that tends to get more play at the water cooler in risk averse cultures–namely, constant references to the negative things that happen to risk takers–and the leverage of a few simple words and actions becomes clear.

God help your risk takers…

One Habit to Create Action From Every Meeting

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By focusing on three simple post-meeting reflections, anyone in a professional environment can drive for better action orientation…

I wish this post was based on a blindingly original insight about how to be action-oriented.

It isn’t.

Instead, it’s based on a blindingly effective one.

The situation

I have walked the halls at dozens of companies over the years.  I’ve observed that one of the most pernicious yet obvious problems of strategic management at organizations large and small is the inability to drive action from meetings.

Some organizations I have been around have highly structured, up front requirements for meetings…They include things like lists of “desired outcomes” or “purpose and process” or “meeting objectives” written into the meeting agenda.

Those things can help.

Still, even those companies with strong meeting discipline struggle to avoid the “meeting to meet” habit that can come up.

Over the years of working on relatively ambiguous strategy and operational issues, I’ve found one leadership habit that has allowed me and a lot of my teams to go beyond objectives and process and toward a more action oriented approach to work.

It works in concert with good meeting planning; and leads to even better meeting planning for the next day, week, and beyond.

The habit

The habit I’m talking about is a 5 minute post-meeting reflection on most every professional interaction.  It focuses on three elements of action.  They are:

1. The insights gained in the interaction.  You just met for an hour.  What did you learn?  Those insights may be about facts presented and discussed, motivations of different parties in the interaction, or interpersonal dynamic in the room (or, sometimes, not in the room when unhealthy things like backbiting come into focus).  The focus on insights is a focus on what I learned.

2.  The implications of the insights and of the meeting overall.  It’s not enough to know what you learned.  You have to know what it means in the context of your organization’s or team’s macro-level agenda, the path of work that you may be following, and the objectives of the given meetings.  Often, studying the implications of a meeting brings you to drastically alter course on objectives, agenda, and problem-solving approach.  The focus on implications is a focus on meaning.

3.  The next steps implied by the insights and next steps. What actions will we take based on the things we learned and the meaning that they bring to the problem solving approach? The brief reflection on next steps in light of the insights and implications drives action orientation. It drives it–more importantly–based on the facts on the ground.  Many professionals are great at putting the next steps they think are going to come out of a meeting into the meeting agenda.  I’m saying that the next steps should be written on reflection, not strictly based on the agenda.

That’s it:  Insights…Implications…Next Steps.

Those three reflections, done personally or in team format for maximum of 5 minutes after a meeting, can drive toward more effective action in most any environment.

The more ambiguous the environment (factual, interpersonal, strategic, etc.), the more useful these reflections.

Parting thought

I received a part of this habit many years ago through good coaching from a manager early in my career.

I don’t see it as some groundbreaking insight.

I do see it as a way to increase speed and effectiveness in most any professional environment.

It is fundamentally action oriented…

But…

It requires a leadership approach that is grounded in vision and a hypothesis about direction and context.

If you have that, then Insights, Implications, and Next Steps will allow you to gain more from every interaction you have.

Try it out.

Why Your Entrepreneurs Leave

/3 Comments/in , /by

In large organizations, if board oversight and management incentives aren’t aligned with value creation, entrepreneurial mindsets can and will be crushed by “iron bureaucrats.”

In a recent post, I juxtaposed the decision-making approaches applied by hard core entrepreneurs and those applied by big company executives.  My thesis was that big company execs can learn from the decision making approach applied by entrepreneurs, if only their incentive structures can allow for it.

One reader, Graham Moores, responded on LinkedIn with this comment:

“In my experience the collaboration between Entrepreneurs and Executives is what should be aimed for, when one side does not understand and respect the other, problems will exist.”

This is a fantastic point, and in the ideal world, makes great sense.

If we can couple the entrepreneurial mindset of building businesses and bearing risk with the executive mindset of allocating resources and protecting against downside; all can win.

However, as Mr. Moores noted, the two sides often don’t understand one another; and therein lies the rub…

Why are real entrepreneurs so often bred out of large organizations?

The classical answers tend to be given offhand.  They include that big organizations move too slow, are too risk averse, and are double ungood at listening to new ideas.

These “reasons” tend to imply that large organizations are uncomfortable for people with an entrepreneurial bent.

That may be true…

But…

I’d argue the real reason entrepreneurship is bred out of large orgs is actually rooted in an organizational phenomenon best articulated by science fiction author Jerry Pournelle.  It has been called the “Iron Law of Bureaucracy.”

I’m capturing it from his website, but it has been quoted in many other places.

It reads (with my emphasis added):

“In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

If we replace Pournelle’s well-known government-connected bureaucracies with some generic corporate examples, then you and I can start to see how this law applies to the problem of entrepreneurship and executive management.

It could easily read as follows (to be clear, all edits are my own and I present it only for conjecture):

“In any business bureaucracy there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are people dedicated to customer satisfaction, product excellence, and advancing the organization’s reputation among employees, customers, and the community…

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples include executives and administrators who focus exclusively on defending position, avoiding risk, and managing to the letter of all incentives.

It’s plausible to argue that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization.It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

What this might mean is that instead of large organizations being uncomfortable for entrepreneurial people, they actually become actively hostile to people who want to rock the boat in the name of building value.

The two don’t merely misunderstand each other; they grow to be fundamentally incompatible.

And, since the second group is far more likely to play the bureaucracy game with alacrity, its most senior representatives will eventually call the shots, just as Pournelle’s law states.

They are the “Iron Bureaucrats.”

So what?  Isn’t that just life?

Well, sort of.

As my reader, Mr. Moores, noted, it’s actually ideal if the entrepreneurial and executive mindsets can coexist and collaborate.  We want large organizations to both embrace business building and risk taking while at the same time embracing discipline and risk awareness.

That’s a good strategy.

But how?

Much of the time, this comes down to the inherent bent of the CEO and senior management.  If the CEO is an iron bureaucrat, then entrepreneurs will struggle.

If the CEO is a closet entrepreneur, even within the trappings of a large bureaucracy, then entrepreneurs can thrive.  One need only look at some of the shifts in strategy at bellwether companies like IBM, Apple, Nucor and many others over the years to see the evidence of this factor.

The other factor is the incentive set that is outlined for senior executives.  In a sort of Judo move, boards can take an iron bureaucrat’s best strength (hitting the numbers) and make it work for the long term value of the company by measuring business building activity aggressively.

So, while entrepreneurs are likely to be bred out of large organizations, they don’t have to be.  Through better board oversight (particularly on the philosophical bent of the CEO) and incentive alignment (particularly around business building) the curse of the Iron Bureaucrat can be overcome.

It’s always great to get thoughtful responses on blog posts, regardless of platform; and I hope you’ll add your thoughts here.

 

How to Handcuff Your Talent

/3 Comments/in /by

Talent waste is a leadership issue…

Have you ever walked around an under-performing business and marveled at the level of individual talent it has?

Have you ever seen a team comprised of “A” level talent deliver a “C” level result?

If you haven’t, keep looking. You’ll see it.

In a gross over-generalization of what constitutes “talent” it’s a proven fact that you can walk around some organizations and see hordes of squandered university degrees, MBAs, and PhDs; not to mention mountains of practical experience sitting shelved, squashed, and frozen.

We waste talent.  It’s a fact of life.  Sometimes that’s a conscious thing; and sometimes it’s accidental.

The curious case of Barbara the sales leader…

Let me tell you about Barbara.  Barbara is a deeply experienced professional in the technical materials field she has worked in for her entire career.  She has spent time across disciplines and functions, spanning engineering, manufacturing, customer services, product development, and–at the midpoint of this story–sales.

Barbara the sales leader was comfortable.  She had been working for Kenneth for a long time; and Kenneth called the shots.  Barbara learned when to speak up, and when to shut up. She was a good soldier.

When I engaged in a strategic planning project with Kenneth’s organization at the request of another sponsoring executive, Barbara was a distant figure–the sales leader who sat in the back of the room and didn’t say much.

On the one hand, I’d say Barbara was a good listener and perhaps a bit of an introvert.

On the other hand, I would call her disengaged.

She wasn’t under-performing.  She was “fine” as an employee.  She had good experience and used it well; but was a wallflower when it came to strategic thinking.

Then…Kenneth left the company.

And, Barbara, as the most senior person on the team, was named as the interim executive.

Guess what happened?

Barbara blossomed.

In one of the better examples of a senior person grabbing the bull by the horns that I have ever witnessed, she suddenly became a highly thoughtful, engaged, and action-oriented leader.  She has subsequently led the business to several successful years of performance, largely on the back of her own strategic and customer-centric mind.

It seems that all it took was to ask her to lead.  That, and to perhaps get out of her way.

Barbara was an A player just waiting to be asked to be what she was.  In a sort of sad reality, Barbara was only asked to be a C-level contributor; and her talents as a business leader were squandered for years because she was exceptionally loyal and remarkably under-led. 

What we can learn from the Barbara case

Just as Barbara was an A-player only tasked with a C result; sometimes, a team of “A” players can play like a team of C players.  They can produce a C result through a combination of disengagement and disenchantment.

I’ll go even further:  “A” talent is squandered when it isn’t tested.  In corporate cultures built on stability and loyalty, “A” talent waste can become acute.

Why?  Because in those cultures the employees with “A” talent are docile enough to let an organization squander their talent.

Shockingly, my experience has been that organizations that are exceptionally stable do more to squander talent than those that engender some turnover.  That’s why a talent performance management is a critical strategic tool.

In an odd and maybe counter-intuitive reality, organizations with high churn squander talent, but rarely squander careers.

Careers get squandered in stable cultures.  And it happens because of loyalty and leadership. These two powerfully valuable facets of culture combine to waste talent every day.

5 ways A-level talent can be led to C-level results.

I’ve alluded to all of these in the case above, but let me outline a few of the reasons great talent can combine into under-performing results.

1. Managers don’t systematically stretch their followers – They never figure out that they have A-level talent on their team.  They run a system based on time vs. one based on effectiveness.

2.  Managers know they have A-Level talent, but don’t want to let it go – A players are systematically hoarded by savvy bureaucrats who won’t open their hands and let talented people find their level in the organization.  A lot of bad leaders focus on talent having to “pay dues” in the organization; which is usually just code speak for “don’t take my job.”

3.  Managers are scared of good talent – Yep, it happens.  Insecure leaders will bury talented people in the organization. Ask around your organization, you will find stories of managers who have “killed careers” of talented people who have either taken a risk or shown up their manager (even accidentally).  As organizations approach the “cult of personality” archetype, this factor tends to be the dominant one.  Managers only promote those who promote them.  Ugh.

4.  Managers respond with indignance or confusion when A-players ask for “more” – Whenever a manager pooh pooh’s a talented subordinate’s desire to do more, he or she inadvertently puts a cap on what people will ask for in the future.  Pretty soon, people stop asking to be stretched.

5. Loyal followers learn the game and stop asking – Just as in factor 4, where people are subtly ridiculed for asking for more and stop asking, loyal people who “like their jobs” and “like the people” will understand that asking to be tested as an A-player comes with consequences.  So, they stop asking.  Pretty soon, they look at their careers and a decade has passed.

It’s sad.

When all of these things come together, you find yourself walking around the organization and marveling at the juxtaposition of amazing talent and middling performance.  You see brilliant people watching the clock.

And, you see senior managers with shocking blind spots about how they have kneecapped good talent.

The bottom line on this article is this:  All organizations squander some talent; but organizations that get a C result from A talent have a special combination of leadership myopia and organizational inertia.

Don’t let talent waste be a part of your company’s social contract.

What Entrepreneurs Know that Corporate Execs Forget…

/3 Comments/in , /by

By looking at what entrepreneurs do well, the rest of us can learn something about strategic decision making and action.

It was 1997.

I was lucky enough, though I didn’t know it at the time, to score an internship as employee number 5 or 6 at E-Loan, Inc.  Such was one of the benefits of being a college student in the heart of Silicon Valley:  There were a lot of start-ups, and there was a lot of work to be done; so a guy like me with no experience beyond manual labor, retail, and a stint as a bouncer could find himself uploading the entire database of lending products to the start-up’s website every morning–performing the critical action of the company’s existence.

In the months I spent at the company, which spanned the launch of the website and the tripling of the employee base, I gained a lot of respect for what high-pace entrepreneurship actually is.

The rest of the E-Loan story is a lot like many others of the dot com era:  Growth, then a hot IPO, then challenges, then acquisition, repositioning, and ultimately in the years that have passed, a company that resembles the original only in name.

The rest of my story is a bit different. I took that experience, along with some other quality early-stage investment experience, and ended up as a larger company consultant and diversified manufacturing executive.  Those experiences have been exemplar of the sort of yin and yang learnings that my own life trajectory has offered; and that frankly inform the bulk of this blog.

Insight from all of that brings me to this:

Larger company leaders can learn from entrepreneurs how to occupy the “pinnacle” of strategy.  That pinnacle is the moment of decision.  It’s the decision seat.

Entrepreneurs do this well because, in essence, it may be all they have.

Large company executives do this poorly because they have the luxury of resources and time.

But they (perhaps, you?) can get better at it.

The Pinnacle of Strategy

What’s the pinnacle of strategy, and why the mountainous metaphor?  In short, it’s the decision seat that stands atop the mountain or molehill of data, insights, analysis, and synthesis of a point of view.

As a McKinsey alumnus, I have been well steeped in (and am a proponent of) Barbara Minto’s “Pyramid Principle” method of thinking and communicating.  The top of the “Pyramid” in action-oriented logic is a synthesis of a point of view. Only far too often, a point of view at the top of a pyramid lacks a pinnacle. That pinnacle is occupied by a decision maker, steeped in the rest of the pyramid, but willing to drive a decision.

Often–particularly in large company bureaucracies–the seat is vacant.  That reality is what gives so many consulting reports their negative dust-collecting reputation.

The difference between entrepreneurs and executives

When it comes to occupying the pinnacle, entrepreneurs have no choice.

During my time at E-Loan and around numerous other start-up businesses, one thing became clear:  Somebody was going to make a decision.  E-Loan was in the business of underwriting mortgage loans in California when it started up.  It, like many dot com businesses of that era, had no real automation when it came to processing the actual deluge of loan applications that came through its website.  We were processing loans on paper.  The popularity of the web being what it was, and the peculiarity of discount mortgages offered online being what it was, the company was quickly overwhelmed.

So, what happened?  Did the founders ponder the data?  Think about talent strategy?  Run endless spreadsheets?  Set meetings in order to plan?  Call a board meeting?

Nope.

They made decisions.

Hire 5 people. Set pricing at x. Weed out bad applications by doing y.  It was all heady, seat of your pants decision making that was grounded in a strong appreciation for what had to be done and for the business model they thought would win.  There was no “stop and study it.”  It was “study it as we go.”

The greatest entrepreneurs, therefore, occupy the pinnacle of the pyramid even as the pyramid is being constructed.  They sit on the scaffold, not on the bricks.  They are hypothesis driven.  They are (and I apologize in advance for going here) fundamentally inductive in their reasoning.

In short, they are action-oriented.

Contrast that with today’s executive management culture.  Executives across industries lock into linear thought processes.  They go from data, to facts, to insights, to risks, to options, to strategies, and ultimately to a hypothesis.  And, then, they may or may not occupy the pinnacle.   They are fundamentally deductive.  

They have that luxury.

In short, they are, on average, ponderous and cautious.

What do big companies get wrong in their leadership cultures that entrepreneurs get right? 

This is a story of incentives and how we respond to them.

Most of this difference comes down to the old adage about “messing up a good thing.”

For the entrepreneur, the “good thing” is still out there in the primordial soup of opportunity.  She has to act in order to realize opportunity.

For the executive, the “good thing” is the here and now.  It’s far too often the salary and bonus that accrue from just nudging the controls this way or that.  The upside of taking a risk is minute in comparison to the downside of losing power, position, or prestige.

And, that is what large companies ultimately get wrong.  They provide incentives for executives to protect their position, to manage risk vs. capturing opportunity, and ultimately to guard the status quo.  Big, strategic decisions come with millions of dollars of study and sign off not because it’s necessary for large companies, but rather because no one really wants to sit on the pinnacle.

Entrepreneurs know that they get paid when they act.

Executives often get paid not to act. Often, they get paid very well, in fact.

This simple fact is evidenced by the bloated cash positions on some companies’ balance sheets (coupled with latent debt capacity) these days. Corporate executives, faced with decisions whether to invest or wait, have the luxury of waiting.

In the worst of cases, corporate executives earn rents based on time.  “The longer I’m in the seat, the more money I’ll make.”

In almost every case, entrepreneurs create value based on action. “I’d better hire/build/sell or I’m out of cash.”

Would that a little bit of the latter mindset could seep into the former.

So What?  

We are all strategists.  Given that, we should all beware the “study further” cul de sac and focus on a healthy approach to action orientation.

Taking some tips from entrepreneurs, a few things come to mind that might bridge the gap between endless study and deductive processing of strategic problems and efficient, inductive decision making.  These are applicable for you as an individual professional and for the highest level executive leading the most complex multi-national.

  • Know what you (or your business lines) are about – I never met an entrepreneur who didn’t have a strong view of what his business is.  I have met, dare I say, thousands of corporate employees who couldn’t tell you the financials of their company and, worse, how their job connected to them. I’ve also, sadly, met numerous executives whose point of view on what they or their company is about amounts to meeting a budget connected to a bonus structure even when they know it is destroying value (again, rents vs. value).

 

  • Size up your pyramid – Study is a good thing.  Finely considered decisions can be fantastically successful.  The dirty little secret is that a healthy proportion of momentarily considered action is also successful in creating value.  Know when enough study and analysis is enough.  If you are building a pyramid, know whether you really need one made of bricks that will last 10,000 years or one made of Legos.  This matters.

 

  • Match pace of decision making with pace of business – If you and your competitors are slow moving, perhaps you have more time.  Or, perhaps, you have an opportunity to outrun them.  During the dot com era, the frenetic pace of decisions was matched to the land grab that was the growth of the Internet.

 

  • Occupy the pinnacle – Every strategic act worthy of study is worthy of a decision.  This is true whether you are thinking about your personal career or thinking about how to steer your business.  Be willing to occupy the pinnacle of the pyramid; and remember, in the immortal lyrics of Rush‘s “Freewill,” if you choose not to decide…You still have made a choice.

 

  • Know what incentives you are giving people– My final shot is at incentive structures.  Do your company’s or your personal incentives (and by that, I don’t mean bonuses, I mean the holistic set of incentives a given person has) drive you toward action or inaction.  Do people get rewarded for taking action, or for avoiding it? Do you?  Whether you are an HR executive or a Board member, build a healthy appreciation for opportunity costs into your incentive system.  Some incentive structures, if shareholders knew the behaviors they engender, would embarrass the board members and executives who enact them.

 

By bridging the gap between the “corporate risk manager’s” strategic approach and the entrepreneur’s approach, we can learn a lot about how to inject a little more action into our approach.

Occupy the pinnacle of strategy.

#TheDress And Leadership Values

/0 Comments/in , /by

People see the same thing in different ways.  It’s important that we never assume our view of the world is the only one…Even when we are “right.”

Last week, a photo of a dress wasted a fantastic amount of time across the Internet.  A simple black and blue striped dress (yes, that’s the color) appears in the photo.

However, people the world over, when viewing the picture, process its colors differently; a significant number see the dress for the colors that it has; and a significant number see the dress as being a combination of white and gold.

Here’s the picture:

What colors do you see?

Here’s a link to a Wired Magazine discussion of why people see it differently.

The dress, or #TheDress, or #whatcoloristhisdress has created quite the sensation.

In my own household, my wife and I see the dress differently.  She is a member of the gold and white group, and I see blue and black.

We had a fun argument about it, culminating in my saying “I’m just glad I see it the right way.”

Her retort?  “The right way, hmmm?”

To which I replied:  “Well, not the right way, but the way it is.”  

That was worth a chuckle, but it sparked a thought; and that brings me to the point of this post:  While “The Dress” sensation is a sort of embarrassment to the collective consciousness, it comes with a lesson…

The lesson

We all see things through our own eyes and hear things through our own ears.

More importantly, we interpret the world through our own interpretive framework…We apply our own values.  They may be values we hold in common with those around us, but they have been nudged and polished by our own, individual experiences.

And, just as the dress shows that something as “objective” as color can be interpreted in highly divergent ways by people who otherwise see the world in the same way, the same is the case with values.

One person believes that a course of action is ethical and right; while another can look at the same situation and see something highly questionable.

Case in point…

In a recent case involving a proposal from one senior executive to another, I had a ringside seat to the abject implosion of a set of previously high performing professional relationships.  Those relationships were sacrificed to a highly inartful handling of  competing interpretations just like the colors in #TheDress.

In this case, one person saw the proposal as an opportunity; the other saw it as a big risk.  Mix in a third person who had a vested interest in the deal getting done (indeed, a personal one), and you had a very odd interaction.

When the “risk” side delineated what the risks were, he disclosed his interpretive framework.  He explained why the deal wouldn’t happen on his watch; and he essentially said the dress is blue and black…

But, the other side’s answer wasn’t to say “tell me more” or “let’s explore how to fix it or to mitigate the risks,” or even to acknowledge the legitimacy of a different framework.

It was to say “that’s wrong.”

The dress is white and gold…

…end of story.

There was no indication that an honest investigation of the risks to the deal was a possibility.

There wasn’t even a chuckle and an admission that people can see things differently.

So, what happened?

Eventually, the sides hardened to the point that there was no way for either side to move forward. Add in a touch of ego, a dose of stubbornness, some need to look tough and perhaps a pinch of bullying, and you have the demolition of personal relationships that spanned years in the making.

All because two people couldn’t come together and discuss interpretive differences.

When I shared this shockingly poorly handled situation in broad strokes with my 72 year old father, his response was pretty simple and cogent:

“The risk guy just thought that the other folks had the same values as him…that’s all.”

I think that boils it down.

And that’s the lesson that The Dress teaches us…

There are great perils to assuming that all people see the world through the lens of your values.  They can not only look at the same dress and see different colors, but can also interpret the very same actions in very different ways.

When you have a case like the one delineated above, such differences in interpretation can lead to the destruction of value, relationships, and organizational stability.

It is in how we handle our differences of interpretation that we live out a humane leadership ethic.

On one hand (the dress is white and gold) we can stick to our interpretation, and drill it into others.

On the other hand (the dress is blue and black) we can take the position that we might be wrong, and we can listen, think, and engage on our differences…Not as a posturing move, but honestly.

The measure of our leadership ethic is in how often we do the latter when we hold all the power.

The leadership lesson brought to mind by #TheDress is this:  Unless and until people entrenched in interpretive conflict can listen, reflect, understand, and test reality;  they will never realize full effectiveness.

The Dress tells us that even in seeing and believing, we should be open to testing our beliefs…Even if we think we are seeing the world as it is.