The Sandbox: Working Well Together for the Client

There are three characters in this article. The enterprise company, sometimes referred to as the client. The vendor, representing large suppliers and the SME, representing the vendors that provide specialized skills, learning and expertise needed by enterprise companies.

This year saw the launch of the UK Public Sector’s G-Cloud, a platform designed to improve economies of scale and innovation in government by allowing better access to a wider landscape of technologies and services from vendors (suppliers) often referred to as SMEs. The objective is to level the playing field and allow UK Government departments the opportunity to work with the growing populace of specialized vendors that will in turn help them deliver the change needed to ultimately serve the public in a more effective and efficient manner.

This year has also been one of growing skepticism by large enterprise companies about the sustainability and viability of looking to only a handful of large vendors to meet the needs of introducing new thinking and/or more specialized skills. The economic roller coaster in the EU, for example, has caused many large financial services companies to re-evaluate their investment in expensive strategy initiatives where millions were paid out but little innovation was achieved in transforming the business and IT to compete.

The trend towards leveraging frameworks, models and methodologies that introduce higher degrees of agility and lean thinking are growing and both enterprises and large vendors are looking to understand how they can make this work for them. What does all this mean in a time when large companies want to spend in order to innovate but are hesitant due to a lack of seeing how change will happen?

I regularly go back to one thing a client has said to me over and over; “I want everyone (my vendors) doing what is right for me”. This really says it all and makes the point simple to digest. Enterprise companies want their vendors to work together so that the objective is about serving the client needs and not the vendor’s P&L goals. It’s a bit unorthodox, I know, but as vendors isn’t that the reason we’re in business – to serve the client and to provide them with skills, competencies and learning that will help them achieve their goals?

The Sandbox is something I discuss with enterprise companies and colleagues often. It’s not a framework or a model, it’s a belief, an approach, an initiative and really a mindset of how we can improve our relationships and results as clients and vendors. The Sandbox is an analogy most people understand. The idea of children playing in a sandbox is accepted and expected. Yes, sometimes there are children in the sandbox at the playground that don’t play nice and tend to throw sand at the other children in order to do a land grab and take it over but for the most part everyone plays well or rather in their own area of the sandbox.

For enterprises, the Sandbox represents an opportunity to assess their vendors and their respective needs as an organization looking to cut costs, deliver better and faster, introduce new platforms, technologies and thinking and advance as best as possible; all by being more deliberate about shaping a Sandbox strategy that brings their vendors together and gets them leveraging each other’s strengths on behalf of the client to accelerate results.

A colleague of mine recently made the observation that the two main levers pulling at the client-vendor relationship are often price and sales. Clients want the best price, vendors want to make the best sale. Clients also want access to specialized skills and expertise and many of their large vendors don’t have these since it would be a detour from their existing business models, therefore clients often introduce new players in order to access this expertise. The more vendors on the field, the more challenges between them and it often translates into a negative impact for the client both financially and from a productivity perspective.

This “commercial strain”,while common, is often the catalyst for relationships that are challenged and not as productive as they can be. It is also the reason why vendors become territorial and protective about what they do with the client and for the client. The client ends up having to play vendor chess instead of having “everyone doing what is right for them”. Vendor management should be about building collaborative, strategic and leveraged relationships between vendors on the client’s behalf not only about processing contracts and resource management.

The Sandbox gives us some ideas and talking points that we can use to shape a better working relationship between all parties.

What the Sandbox means:

For the Enterprise:

• Access to the best thinking and skills available in the market
• Ability to gain expertise for their own people
• Getting their vendors to work alongside the SME and even introduce them into the equation
• Open and direct dialogue not influenced by the wrong behavior or objectives
• Remove the “serve two (or more) master” mindset that sometimes prevails

For the Vendor:

• Access to new thinking and skills without investing into a long-term approach that might not yield good results
• Help the client by introducing the SME through their commercial channel to ease the process and respond to the need
• Improved “trusted advisor” status by demonstrating the willingness to collaborate more on the client’s behalf
• Greater success of longer, more valuable engagements
• Faster achievement of marketable results to strengthen the brand

For the SME:

• Deliver faster, more valuable and tangible results for enterprises that need to respond more effectively to the market
• Ability to serve a larger enterprise audience
• Align with vendors that desire to innovate and grow their brand equity
• Demonstrate the value of the available expertise and learning that an SME can offer
• Build long-term, sustainable relationships and engagements with enterprises and vendors together

So how do we get there? It starts with a conversation and an evaluation. Maybe it begins with looking at the one project that “needs to be successful” and understanding how an approach that incorporates the right mix of experience and expertise just might bring a radical result. This could then become the blueprint for the next project and eventually a program of work.

I believe in the Sandbox approach because our team lives by it and has been involved in several examples of where it has worked very well. More importantly, the clients we serve want it as well and the desire for more of it is steadily growing into a need to have it.

See you in the Sandbox

4 Ways to an Agile Operating Model

“We’ve done agile”. That was a quote from an IT executive in a large global company who was explaining how agile has been tried and tested successfully within IT software projects but something more was needed to bring this thinking to a larger audience within IT and over to the business.

What they were really saying is that they’ve done Scrum. In fact, we should expect that a very large percentage of enterprise companies around the globe who say they’ve done agile are really implying that they’ve used Scrum as an agile approach to deliver software projects. I’m tempted to say this is a generalization but it seems to be where most companies are in their agile journey and that isn’t a bad thing if you consider that agile, and for that matter Scrum, have essentially gone mainstream in the last few years.

But we have a new challenge, one that is underway in a small percentage of companies but is now growing in terms of awareness and interest. It’s this idea that agile practices and principles, and not just Scrum, can and should be applied in larger ways and even adapted into a framework or operating model that can improve a company’s current way of working.

In just the last two weeks I’ve had a handful of well-known global brands tell me that getting to an Agile Operating Model is now a major initiative within their organizations. These companies have dabbled, somewhat successfully with Scrum, and now have the courage and conviction to see where else this can work.

The truth is that this topic is not new and has been written about for sometime. I remember speaking on “Enterprise Agile” as early as 2007 and getting blank stares from audiences who wanted to believe it but were skeptical that using agile techniques to shape portfolio management or a company’s PMO could even be considered not to mention even possible.

But here we are, it’s 2012 and there is change in the air. Getting to an Agile Operating Model is very much about the removal of boundaries in traditional process and improvement of performance and outcomes, both as a company and as a group of people. The road to get there, however, is not going to be the same for everyone. I want to point out the four ways we’re seeing companies take this journey. I want to emphasize that none of the four ways are better than each other, just different. I’m sure many people will have opinions about the four ways and whether one is better than another, that is completely okay and expected.

That said, regardless of our opinions, we need to recognize that each of the four ways are real and where several companies are today. All four ways relate to the organizational structure and acceptance of new thinking in a company. It’s about HOW they see change and WHAT they do to take it forward.

All four ways have to do with what we would call an “entry point” – meaning, that is the place in the organization where agile has been introduced, understood and tested. It also means that the understanding of it will be different in each of the four ways simply because the people involved will all have differing charters, mission statements, objectives, goals, etc.

Before we discuss these four ways let me also say that we should not get tripped up by the use of the word “Agile” in the context of discussing or describing an Agile Operating Model. An Agile Operating Model is more about agility, efficiency, effectiveness and all those buzzwords MORE than just about agile, or even Scrum. Dare I say it, Scrum is not the answer. It’s a strand, a spoke in a wheel that houses many spokes. A great and useful Agile Operating Model will represent thinking from the world of Lean, Design Thinking, Systems Thinking, value equations and formulas and even core Project Management and Business Analyst competencies. In other words and as has been repeated often, it’s your way of working as a company.

The diagram below represents the four ways to an Agile Operating Model based on the organizational dimension it stems from. You’ll see that each way has differing motivators as expected.

Some of the  very important  and “not so obvious” takeaways when considering any of the four ways would include:

• The “Time-to-Adapt” will vary greatly due largely to the support, level of funding required and perhaps more importantly the cultural and mindset shift that will need to happen. With the right level of support, enterprise companies should expect to see really good change within 12-18 months of starting the AoM
• Typically, companies have used their IT suppliers for introducing agile. While this is the right approach for two of the four ways described, it is often limited to just IT thinking and may not represent the expertise required for leadership, change and process transformation involving non-IT personnel
• An AoM is not a replacement of what the company is doing today – it is an enhancement, an improvement and an advancement that is significant enough to look at seriously and leverage
• While patience is a virtue, profitability is a purpose and companies can’t afford disruption if it means delays, therefore once you have formed the AoM team, select a program or project that can bring quick wins and demonstrate success
• Get help and get smart – understand what your options are for leveraging expertise from organizations that have done this for other companies and get the learning you need to stay ahead. Traditional consultancies won’t have all the thinking and today there are several good resources for advancing learning.

The Shocking Truth about SMEs

Why would anything about an SME be shocking? Mainly because there are two distinct definitions of what an SME is that are used interchangeably by many business professionals. Even more important is the shocking truth that many people don’t know the two definitions and how they are linked.

For some people when someone refers to an SME they are talking about the Small-to-Medium Enterprise. They use the term to distinguish between large service providers and suppliers and smaller, boutique organisations that deliver a similar service. While this definition is suitable there is more to the story.

For others, the term SME typically refers to a Subject Matter Expert and is used to identify a person or group of people that are viewed as highly skilled and specializing in a particular area or topic. The Subject Matter Expert, unlike the Small-to-Medium Enterprise, can thrive within a small, medium or large business and is not necessarily constrained by the size of the company. I would argue this definition carries more weight. After all, don’t we really want the most knowledgable people working on our projects?

When organisations like the UK Government, for example, state that they want to develop a more competitive landscape for SMEs vs. dependence on large suppliers, what are they really saying?  Is it that they recognize that the Small-to-Medium Enterprise companies also offer something more unique, specialization in something specific that larger suppliers may not be focused on; in other words, subject matter expertise? Or is it mainly that they want to make it fair and equitable for other companies to compete regardless of specialization? Perhaps the safe answer is yes to both but I have heard differing views and maybe you have also.

This is where the link comes in between the two types of SME definitions. When companies seek to leverage an SME they must first define why this makes sense. In almost every case the one thing that companies want more than anything else from an SME is their expertise and not necessarily the bragging rights of saying they used a smaller company to provide a service for them.

In the world of professional services and consultancy, the SME, in terms of size of company, is often the SME, the subject matter expert, in a chosen field. They have a core set of working principles and topical focus and recognize that to be generic or even ubiquitous dilutes their value proposition and their ability to compete with larger, more established players.

The SME thrives on doing a few things really well vs. lots of things good just to compete for a share of the business. Both types of SMEs are inextricably linked and to view them separately really misses the point of why they are valuable and relevant. Large suppliers do have subject matter experts in certain areas for sure but they are also inclined to be spread thin over time, attempting to be a one size fits all answer.

What are the things we should look for in both types of SMEs?

• Dedicated focus to a specific field, topic, segment
• Investment in their clients and in their own people
• Focused on learning and education and not just utilisation and revenue
• Thought leadership that is relevant and makes a difference
• Proven results in delivering their service (happy clients)
• Capable of serving the client needs – SMEs come in many shapes and sizes and they must be able to scale and service well

SMEs are often the catalyst for entrepreneurship, innovation and needed change to how we work or have learned to work. We must not miss the invaluable link between the two definitions especially as we consider who will serve our needs best.

Innovation is not the issue with Blackberry and RIM

This is solely an article of opinion stemming from a desire to see companies excel. One of my favorite family films in the past couple of years had a great one-liner in it which was “your focus needs more focus”. While funny, very few statements are more profound especially when applied to business.

When I think about things like continuous improvement or continuous delivery, I think about the whole idea of focus. To have or do something that is continuous implies that there was a focused approach in making it that way and an even more focused approach in ensuring it continues, thus making it continuous.

When I read about companies like RIM that have struggled to compete in a market saturated with new thinking and innovation, I question why the company didn’t focus on what it has always done really well, serving the corporate market. I question why it was necessary to make a tablet or a touch screen phone. Why was it so important to portray a “me too” model to the market vs. a focus on staying true to what made them enormously useful and successful as a global brand.

Almost every business person I know around the globe still uses a Blackberry because they see value in the product. They rely on the network and platform to deliver email instantly. They like the idea of feeling the keyboard when they type. They use the functionality of the software well to find information and communicate effectively with colleagues and peers. The product, in it’s original form and intent, works and has never become irrelevant. So why did we confuse the strategy?

I would not dare suggest that RIM didn’t do it’s homework in learning what their customers really wanted but with such a vast footprint of loyal corporate users wasn’t there a way to design a faster and more stable platform instead of just new devices? Wasn’t there value in designing and executing a global effort to sell into the enterprise and gain greater loyalty through aggressive pricing models, improved features and more focus on what would make their core better?

The pressure to compete in business is in effect a grown up version of the peer pressure we’ve all experienced during childhood. We constantly deal with the temptation to change our thinking, our values and the things that have worked well.

Innovation is not the issue with RIM, it’s simply the loss of focus. It’s the difference between doing one thing great instead of several things good. In the media this week, the company has intimated that it will focus on its core corporate market in an effort to turn the ship in the right direction. While this is commendable, today it serves as a case study in why so many really good companies often lose their way.

If I then tie this back to focus, this is where I’d emphasize the need to define what we mean by this term and terms like continuous, value, outcome and other buzzwords we use loosely to describe our approach.

I’d love to see less PowerPoint at the board level and more Post-It’s and index cards on the wall that clearly articulate not only what we are going to and why we are going to do it but also how we will get there all the while maintaining our focus.

We need agility not just agile

When I decided to update my home theatre and add some innovation to it I immediately assumed that I needed to invest in a specific configuration and brand of equipment in order to achieve my desired result.

I did the research, read some articles and then decided what I thought I should spend. When I actually got to the store to make the purchase I was surprised to find that the salesperson was more interested in understanding what my desired result was rather than just taking my money for the list of items I was ready to buy.

Shocking isn’t it! This individual stopped me in my tracks and began with a series of questions that ranged from solving a particular problem I had with my existing system to what I wanted out of the new home theatre regarding long term ROI. I thought this was odd but I discovered in the end that what I actually needed was an upgrade of only a few components and more importantly, someone to come and reconfigure my existing system to improve the overall output and quality.

This experience is not too dissimilar from what has transpired with agile over the last few years and still seems to be prevalent today. Many organizations that have either seen or heard about agile are making decisions to “get agile” or to “do agile” and have taken a label or brand approach to introducing it.

It would be unfair to say that all companies that have invested in agile have done so in this way but there is no doubt that we are all very good at buying a brand or a label and viewing it as something that will solve our problems and challenges.

The thing that is most interesting about agile is that it represents a way of thinking and working that has so many useful applications across a company and not just where it has traditionally stayed in IT, more specifically in application development.

Perhaps the most popular flavor of agile is Scrum. In an effort to produce better software sooner, Scrum has become a de facto approach for many IT organizations yet the real value is looming elsewhere.

Before a company assumes it needs agile, it needs to answer more questions starting with why it believes agile is needed. Often what a company is seeking is agility in the business and when we say “the business” we really mean the lifecycle by which the business makes decisions and brings ideas to market.

Agility is an outcome but also a competitive advantage. If I believe that agile practices will help me get my software to market faster and better then why wouldn’t I naturally look at applying the same thinking further upstream in my lifecycle process?

I suppose the answer is that we would look to apply it further upstream and now that several companies have experienced success with using agile in the application development realm there is a growing interest to see how it works elsewhere.

We need to point out, however, that agile alone won’t solve the problem. This is where organizations really need to understand what is available to them and how they can apply different approaches to develop their own. Lean, for example, can add tremendous value in the business also and when we understand what we are trying to solve and achieve then we can leverage the practices from industry that make the most sense for us.

So what is most important? I would suggest that there are three things we need to simultaneously focus on when we are looking to significantly improve our organizations. These three things are leadership, change and process transformation.

All three involve both IT and business and all three need to be joined up so that whatever practices are introduced and used, the continuity gets embedded throughout the whole lifecycle.

Specifically, when we are seeking to get agility into our organizations we want to improve a number of existing areas such as:

• Vetting ideas and projects quickly with smarter criteria
• Removing the bloated processes and steps that contribute to waste and slow us down
• Funding what is most valuable to the business and knowing what isn’t
• Providing an agile and/or lean governance model that emphasizes continuous improvement with minimum bureaucracy
• Embedding change incrementally so the company’s ability to consume it makes sense and is accompanied by wins not blanket policy
• Leverage what exists and avoid “boil the ocean” approaches that just add more confusion and waste
• Deliver our products and services well all the time

These are not just a list of goals and objectives that we would put on a slide to socialize our intent. They are actual outcomes we would expect from successfully applying agile (and other) practices into our organization.

The call to action is to assess how we introduce and achieve agility not just agile.

Leadership stereotypes

It’s been said that stereotypes are devices for saving a biased person the trouble of learning. The word stereotype denotes a belief about a certain type of individual, a group of individuals or roles that people fit into. Whether we admit it or even realize it, we have stereotypes for all types of people and roles.

• In our minds, we put people and roles into silos and categories.
• We have expectations of people and roles that are often based on our views rather than who the person might be or what the role is actually designed to do.
• We maintain preconceived notions about such people and roles.
• We feel exonerated when people act the way we said they would and surprised when they don’t.

Even if we agree that stereotypes can be limiting or even hurtful, they exist. What do you think about when I mention the used car salesman or the politician? What about a specific C level executive?

It seems that even when someone hasn’t had a direct experience with a particular stereotype they inherently understand it or can relate somehow. Stereotypes seem to permeate our lives and the difficulty with stereotypes is that they frequently create barriers and impediments for us and for the possible relationships we might actually want to have and can benefit greatly from.

While stereotypes can seem negative they can also have value if we choose to take action. If we know that they exist then we can prepare for how we might manage them. We can consider how we might improve them or help do away with them altogether in our sphere of influence. In other words, the fact that stereotypes exist means that we can use that knowledge to introduce change and to find ways to make a difference.

In business, leaders and managers are not exempt from stereotypes. In companies there are distinct types of leaders and managers that we can all relate to. Perhaps we’ve not considered how we might categorize them but if we were to discuss certain people we know we would likely find ourselves agreeing about their behaviors, characteristics and work styles as compared to others.

The challenge and risk with describing any stereotype is that there will be common themes across some or all. The objective here is not to endorse stereotypes but rather to point out that at least these four do exist in organizations and are ones that I’ve experienced and have had colleagues describe often.

The Doer

• Pros
  • Hands-on, gets stuff done and wants to see tangible results
  • Tends to lead by example, isn’t afraid to dig deep and get involved
  • Strong work ethic, rarely thinks or says “it’s not my job”
• Cons
  • Sometimes too hands-on, gets in the way of others who should be leading
  • Can lean towards micromanagement, not trusting of the group or organization
  • Typically has too much on their plate, believes they should have a hand in everything

The Fixer

• Pros
  • Go to person when problem resolution is needed, usually has a good answer
  • Leverages their network well – seems to know everybody – “I know a guy”
  • Known as being handy, providing creative answers to most problems and challenges
• Cons
  • Can be over-confident in their ability to “fix” things, getting stretched thin
  • Doesn’t easily admit they might not have the answer in fear of losing the respect and trust of peers and direct reports
  • Exaggeration sometimes makes up for insecurity – it isn’t uncommon for them to always have a story or share a related experience that makes them look good

The Maker

• Pros
  • Oozes with experience and credibility, proven in their respective field
  • Typically well liked and respected, charismatic and trusted by colleagues
  • Good manager of people, knows how to hold teams together and build something
• Cons
  • Can believe their own press clippings, making them ineffective and arrogant
  • Past success can lead to losing focus in the here and now, in other words forgetting that you can’t live off of yesterday’s breakfast
  • There is a risk of losing the mental toughness needed to keep things moving in the right direction

The Suit

• Pros
  • Can be a good figurehead for the given role based on their past success and history
  • Possesses credibility even if they don’t have the specific industry experience
  • Tends to be a good networker and social butterfly
• Cons
  • Seems to take credit for most good things no matter how small
  • Looks out for themselves more than others, a bit self-serving
  • Sometimes a bit sterile in the way they work – not really looking to get their hands dirty, delegation often serves as a substitute for simply not wanting to get involved

In the end, our aim regardless of what role we play should be to avoid the trap of stereotypes and focus more on how we can leverage what the people in our organizations do best so that we’re all fit for purpose.

In the words of Colin Powell, “Fit no stereotypes. Don’t chase the latest management fads. The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the team’s mission”.

What does great look like?

If  you were asked this question today by someone regarding your management team, your business, your clients, your products or services… how would you answer?

I’ve heard this question asked time and time again over the last few years specifically in corporate IT environments where the discussion was centered around product development. I don’t know the origin of this question, whether it stems from the world of IT or from one of the many process methodologies we use today in our world, i.e. agile, lean, etc.

I do know that it is quite a useful question. In fact, its simplicity is what strikes me most. Considering all the questions we ask when trying to perform our work, run our projects, manage our people and strive for excellence; there are just some questions we forget to ask and take the time to ponder. This is one of those questions.

The value of this question is that it can applied to nearly every area of our work and professional development. We often hear about reverse engineering and how we need to understand what we are trying to get to and then backtrack into what it will take to get us there. While this is a very good way to engage on any given activity, it still doesn’t answer the question we are asking here; What does great look like?

Having a vision or perceived view of an outcome isn’t necessarily the same as knowing whether it is great or good enough. In other words, a finished project or product may not necessarily be exactly what the customer or company desired even thought it may be good, it simply may not be good enough or even great. While this is not a profound explanation, I’d like to suggest that asking this question with a slightly different mindset is something we need to consider.

Putting the effort into answering the question forces a level of detail that sometimes gets missed in translation. Let’s take business development as an example.

The traditional path to business development is to go through a number of planning exercises. These include developing a target account list which might be sorted by geography, industry segment, company size and so on. Other activities include forecasting revenue, maybe forecasting bookings, agreeing on pipeline criteria such as number of opportunities and their total revenue vs. given quota. There will be others, all meant for us to have something to measure against at a future point in time.

If we take business development and look at it through the lens of the question we’re asking then it will force us to consider more detail. It is in fact that extra level of detail that we are seeking in asking the question.

One of the Innovation Games used to help teams think more clearly of where they need to get to is called Remember the Future. The main point of this working session is to get people thinking about what they will have accomplished at some point in the future vs. what they will have done. So, for business development it would mean asking “What was done to get those results?” vs. “What must we do to get those results?”

The difference being that we typically work off of the mindset of what we need to do; prepare a target account list, develop a forecast, build a pipeline, etc. Looking at it from the perspective of what we would have accomplished if all had gone the way we wanted gets us to look at it as something that has already occurred. This now helps us to consider how we got there and what would have changed from our traditional approach.

We are not predicting the future by using this technique, we are simply getting ourselves to look at the situation differently. We want to better understand our thinking around the topic and it’s success and how we got there. Taking all this into consideration let’s try this once more.

EXAMPLE: Business Development: What does great look like?

Maybe our first answer is whether we are aiming for business development or business excellence – a play on words? Perhaps, but does it strike a different note and cause us to consider the difference?

Because we are now looking at this as what we would have done, let’s take this calendar year as our example and state what would have happened

At the end of this calendar year, we reached the next stage of growth as an organization, this happened because we accomplished:

• An overall revenue increase of 30%
  • 20% resulted from 6 target companies in the Healthcare industry; 4 in London, 2 in Frankfurt
  • 10% resulted from 3 target companies in the Utilities industry: 2 in Toronto, 1 in New Jersey

We did this through:

• Active Business Development
  • We followed our timeline so that we understood how many meetings were required  and when in order to reach the target goal by end of year
  • We paired on major opportunities and went solo on secondary opportunities to increase efficiency
  • We completed 6 sales calls and 2 customer workshop sessions per month
• A well-defined pipeline
  • All major clients and the respective activities and data are accurate
  • We understood why we’ve won, lost and dropped opportunities
  • Pursuing the wrong opportunities was reduced by 75% by employing more rigor to our sales process
• Specific events and campaigns
  • 1 email campaign monthly on a specific industry topic with thought leadership and commentary
  • 1 executive forum quarterly focused on 25 attendees across three specific roles with a peer speaker
  • 1 white paper quarterly published and distributed to a targeted list

We will continue into next year through:

• Identifying opportunities in the existing customer base
  • We have identified 1 new opportunity in each existing customer to discuss in Q1
  • We have developed a pipeline of other possible opportunities in each customer
• An accurate list of 50 Target Accounts
  • Representing the 4 main industry segments we’ve invested in targeting: domain knowledge, experience
  • We know the top three stakeholders in each company that we must meet
  • We have a communications plan completed and ready to launch to schedule Q1 meetings of the following year

While all of the above is hypothetical, it represents what a more detailed business development (excellence) could look like if we were to ask the question from the onset and approach it with the mindset described.

Blanket statements

Maybe you know this person. You have worked with them and they also may be someone you know outside of work. When you talk to them they seem to insert sentences about other people you both know or events going on with the words “always” and “never” in the conversation. Perhaps you haven’t given this much thought but if the relationship is business related then maybe you’ve considered how those types of statements make you think different things instead of thinking something specific.

A core principle I’m learning and re-learning to employ in my personal and professional life is to “say what I mean and to mean what I say”. I emphasize “learning” since it is very easy to be vague and ambiguous about statements I make. It seems to come natural at times for all of us to omit details about a conversation or facts about another person’s actions or performance.

A key aspect of relationship management in business is this principle of being specific in what one says. It certainly relates to being truthful and to having the courage to say exactly what needs to be said but in the context of this article I want to emphasize the equally important part of being specific about the detail of the statements we make to our colleagues, our clients and to those we interact with in industry.

Blanket statements are never useful. They are nebulous and often send the wrong message. They seed doubt and mistrust and are usually intended to make a grand point about how right the person making the statement might be. They tend to be self-serving even when outwardly it doesn’t appear that way. In other words, we make blanket statements because we want to make a point that makes us look right and therefore look good in the position we are taking.

We have a rule in our home that says no one can use the words “always” and “never” when discussing or debating a topic where opinions and views are prevalent. This probably sounds a bit harsh but think about it for a moment. How often do we argue or debate with someone on a topic and say that they never do this or they always do that. Is that really true? You’re thinking, “absolutely”!

The reason we have this rule is because it forces a conversation to happen. It forces people to think about what they are going to say, how they are going to say it and why. Perhaps simplistic, we have found that is has changed the way we talk with each other and it has introduced a level of integrity into the conversation that doesn’t exist when we make blanket statements.

In business, blanket statements have an even greater danger of really messing things up. If we desire integrity in the business then it goes deeper than just maintaing accurate data and records. Integrity in the business starts with the communication and conversation that takes place between people.

Blanket statements create unnecessary questions. The benefit of having accurate financial information is minimized if senior managers then say things in meetings like “the salespeople always forget to update the pipeline” or “our delivery teams never capture accurate project information or produce the right content”.

These blanket statements make other senior managers wonder how we can then have accurate financial information. It also sends a message that we doubt the commitment and integrity of our salespeople. Are they trying to hurt the business? Do we need to hire new salespeople? Is the manager of the delivery organisation lazy and not bothered with ensuring we have the information we need?

How could these statements have been said differently? Perhaps a better way would have been to say “most of the pipeline information is complete enough for us to produce an accurate forecast but the field for required resources is not complete in the following opportunities so we need to check with the appropriate salesperson to get this information”.  On the other statement it could be stated as “We need to understand more about the projects we’re involved with. The information we have is helpful but we need to assess what else we might specifically need as a team so we are better informed”.

Maybe you’d make these statements differently than the example I provided but hopefully the point is clear. Integrity in the business means we have integrity in the conversation. It requires that as team members we are not lacking a spine. It means we care enough to get the facts right, communicate what is working well and not present our views as a slight on someone else or the company when in fact it might only relate to one piece of data missing or misrepresented.

Being factual, truthful and specific is hugely important to how we start, maintain and keep relationships in business and in life. People want to work with people they trust and the people they trust are those that present information with specificity and integrity especially when it involves others. It is a good practice to examine how we are communicating and whether we are prone to omit details in exchange for trying to make a point.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Luxury cars at the drive-thru

What I’m about to say in no way means that I’ve done extensive research on the subject nor that I have conclusive evidence. It is only an observation I’ve made many times that I’ve wanted to write about. I often notice that there are some really nice luxury cars sitting in the queue at the McDonalds drive-thru. Although I’ve been in the queue on occasion (for the grilled chicken sandwich, really), I tend to notice that some of the more expensive cars on the road are sitting there waiting to order.

The question is why is this even relevant. Don’t people with really nice cars have the same tastes as the rest of us? Are not people with an above average income allowed to eat fast food instead of always having to eat at finer establishments? The answers are of course “yes” to both questions but the truth is we do tend to notice when two things don’t immediately appear to go together.

The reason we do this is because we have a preconceived mindset and a set of expectations about how people should behave under certain circumstances and specific envinronments. Even though these may be unspoken or not even at the forefront of our minds, certain events trigger them. For me, and some others I’ve spoken to, it seems when we see a 7 series or an S class in a drive-thru queue we immediately wonder why this person needs to eat there, apart from loving that particular food, which is reason enough in itself.

I’ve heard several times that “you can take the man out of <insert country name here> but you can’t take <insert country name here> out of the man”. This is of course meant to say that people do experience change but very few, if any, to the extent where the core influences, culture, social impact and values they were raised with entirely disappear. In other words, we each have things we hold on to and never really expect to get rid of or even see any reason in doing so. It also raises many other questions on the topic of change and how change relates to expectations and perceptions we have about ourselves and others. The guy in the queue at the drive-thru in the 7 series may have grown up with that food as a staple part of his diet and may completely love it, therefore no matter how much he makes nor what he drives has any bearing on his desire to continue going there when he has a craving. Again, nothing wrong with that but some people do form opinions about how we live and what we do.

In business, I dare say that most of the major initiatives that organisations undertake have their success or failure directly tied to the extent of change that people will go through or are willing to go through. There is much emphasis on IT, business process, organisational design and this thing we call change management. The emphasis on these things often supersedes the reality of just how large the task is for people to have a different mindset about the work altogether. We spend an enormous amount of time drawing charts and diagrams, building project plans and creating lots of slide-ware; all to further the cause of the initiative. We spend less time asking the people involved important questions about their views, perceptions, expectations and even feelings.

We fail to completely understand the environment and it’s deep seeded impact on how people work and why they do the things they do. We make assumptions such as people will view things the way we do or since we went through this change in the past and have had similar experiences then others must come along the same way or even at the same speed of change. This can be seen in several types of organisations such as public sector or financial services or manufacturing. Each brings with it a unique set of cultural and operational values that are not often visible to outsiders, especially those tasked with helping introduce change and transformational type initiatives.

I pulled out some questions we’ve asked of people in the past in organisations where change programs were being introduced. Understanding those “unspoken” views of the people were critical to the success of the program. Some of the questions and answers we received included:

• Why are you not outwardly supportive and cooperative regarding this new policy the company has introduced?
  • I care so much about the company’s welfare that I am challenging the true benefit this policy brings.
  • I don’t need one more thing to do or to interrupt my routine, therefore even though the company needs to do this, it’s not working for me.
  • The policy is needed but I believe it can be improved and want to ensure my voice is heard so I and others who are mostly impacted by this policy can work with the company to shape it correctly for all of us.
• You were making progress with this new program but you seem to be defaulting back to what you were doing previously, what is the reason?
  • I’m struggling to learn and the path of least resistance is just easier but I’m afraid to admit that and ask for help.
  • I really don’t see the reason to change, my job is not at risk and I’m providing enough of what is needed doing what I’ve always done.
  • I never agreed with this new program and figured I’d go along until it became too much work.
• As a key stakeholder you are sending mixed messages to others on the team, is there a misunderstanding or blocker that you need to talk about?
  • My perception is that this type of company can’t really adapt to this type of change, they don’t really go together (drive-thru perception).
  • I want this to work since it is important for me personally but I really don’t care about the detail, I leave that to others
  • I have not invested the time to truly understand the full impact, risk and benefits so I need help doing that so I can be clear about messages I send.

To some extent, these and other questions do get asked but the frequency with which they are asked and how they are revisited is what can increase or decrease both the risk and speed of change. People have perceptions and expectations about what works, what goes together and what doesn’t. When we work with people to help them go on a journey where change will be uncomfortable, unnerving and somewhat onerous, we need to ensure that we are not placing our perceptions and expectations on them, assuming they need to come along the same way we would. Sometimes change programs are initiated with a group level mentality, meaning that we expect groups of people to come through the funnel and all come out the same way. People learn at the rate they are capable of and it is our role to help the people in organisations come along at the right pace, which will be unique to each person.

See you at the drive-thru.

Being professional…

The common dictionary defines professional as following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain. It also says it relates to a person who is an expert in their chosen field or vocation. I imagine each of us has a mental picture of what we believe a professional might be. In business the idea of a professional takes on many different shapes but I’d like to cover some of the basics.

When I say “the basics”, I’m referring to our appearance, conduct and behavior as people working in business environments where we interact with others each day, especially customers and those external to our own organization.

Someone once said that 80% of success is just showing up. I would add that how we show up makes more of a difference. I recently did an interview for a senior role in the company that is intended to be primarily customer facing. Upon review of this person’s resume (CV) it made sense to schedule a meeting. It was at this point that my views of a professional were challenged. While this person had good experience, a seemingly successful track record and knew a fair amount about the topics we were discussing, I was constantly distracted by their shirt. This person’s shirt had never been ironed, the collar was turning up, the stitching on the sleeve was coming apart and I kept trying to reconcile in my mind how this was something they didn’t realize might be troublesome in an interview, especially for a role that would be dealing directly with customers at senior levels.

Maybe his dry cleaning got lost or his iron stopped working that morning or perhaps he just didn’t see it as important. The person didn’t have the complete set of experience and skills we needed and if he had, then I would have definitely addressed this in the interview. Part of me wishes that I raised it with him regardless just to make him aware and see if he was even conscious of this fact. This experience emphasized all the more how important “being professional” really is. This again goes back to what our definition or expectation might be, but if we take the simple dictionary definition, then being viewed as an expert and following an occupation somehow implies that we need to know where we fit into the equation and then look the part accordingly. I say accordingly because there isn’t one look or one way to be professional but it takes awareness and initiative on our part to know the what’s, why’s, when’s and how’s.

Answering the question: Would people buy from me? Will others follow me and accept my leadership? Am I credible?….

You might ask a different question. As business people, being professional means that we use a mirror and a lens. We use a mirror to honestly evaluate ourselves and ensure that our appearance, conduct and behavior meets the requirements for the environments we’re in. We use a lens to consider how others see us and whether we need to change something; be on time for meetings more often, talk less, listen more or even iron our shirt. Perhaps it is a bit personal, but I’ve had to tell others that they could use a mint or even take a shower.

If you work in a company where you are involved in the buying process, think about the people and companies you like to buy from. Maybe you’ve taken for granted that they show up dressed for the occasion at hand or that their company exemplifies core values and a presence that says “professional”. The truth is, it takes work to understand what professional really means for the given area or field we’re in but also for the customers we serve and the company we work in.

One organization held semi annual company meetings to discuss this very topic. They used the time to dig deep into the culture of their company and continuously redefine their definition or being professionals in their field. Everything from dress code, materials used, communication style and many other areas were addressed. They dusted off the employee manuals and kept a fresh perspective that if the markets and customers were changing then they needed to as well. This takes commitment and a level of effort that many will struggle to achieve but in the words of Alistair Cooke “A professional is someone who can do his best work when he doesn’t feel like it”