Seth Godin (known for his knack at getting to the heart of the matter) just sent out a two line post called Your Dent. He asks “Are you making a dent in the universe?” and then hints: “lots of random pokes in many different spots are unlikely to leave much of an impact”. And for a final kick, he adds “hiding out is surely not going to work at all”.
In business development coaching, a few of the partners I coach initially prefer to hide out and magically think enough business will keep coming. It might. Or it might not. A few fall into the random poking category. They can at least say they have activity. They will likely generate some modest results. Finally there are a few partners who strategize, focus and approach business development with discipline and an attitude of generosity and authenticity. They are the ones that make the dent. And because they approach their entire life this way, you can bet their dent is much bigger than the business bottom-line.
This is a great little post from Guru Marketer Seth Godin on how you can avoid the “better-than-them pitch” and make it easy for prospects to make a new decision (to retain you!).
The portion of the population that haven't bought from you or your competition yet is not waiting for a better mousetrap.
They're not busy considering a, b and c and then waiting for d.
No, they're not in the market. They don't believe that they have a problem that's worth the time and money they think it's going to take to solve it.
As a result, smart marketers don't market to this audience by saying, "hey, ours is better than theirs!"
If this group thought that they had a solvable problem, the would have solved it already.
No, they won't respond to a better-than-them pitch. Instead, they're much more likely to respond to a new statement of their problem and a new statement of the solution. Don't ask them to announce that they were wrong when they decided that they didn't need a tablet, a survival kit or an anti-impotence drug. Instead, make it easy for them to make a new decision based on new information.
It's not just the number of hours we're working, but also the fact that we spend too many continuous hours juggling too many things at the same time.
What we've lost, above all, are stopping points, finish lines and boundaries. Technology has blurred them beyond recognition. Wherever we go, our work follows us, on our digital devices, ever insistent and intrusive. It's like an itch we can't resist scratching, even though scratching invariably makes it worse.
Tell the truth: Do you answer email during conference calls (and sometimes even during calls with one other person)? Do you bring your laptop to meetings and then pretend you're taking notes while you surf the net? Do you eat lunch at your desk? Do you make calls while you're driving, and even send the occasional text, even though you know you shouldn't?
The biggest cost — assuming you don't crash — is to your productivity. In part, that's a simple consequence of splitting your attention, so that you're partially engaged in multiple activities but rarely fully engaged in any one. In part, it's because when you switch away from a primary task to do something else, you're increasing the time it takes to finish that task by an average of 25 per cent.
But most insidiously, it's because if you're always doing something, you're relentlessly burning down your available reservoir of energy over the course of every day, so you have less available with every passing hour.
I know this from my own experience. I get two to three times as much writing accomplished when I focus without interruption for a designated period of time and then take a real break, away from my desk. The best way for an organization to fuel higher productivity and more innovative thinking is to strongly encourage finite periods of absorbed focus, as well as shorter periods of real renewal.
If you're a manager, here are three policies worth promoting:
1. Maintain meeting discipline. Schedule meetings for 45 minutes, rather than an hour or longer, so participants can stay focused, take time afterward to reflect on what's been discussed, and recover before the next obligation. Start all meetings at a precise time, end at a precise time, and insist that all digital devices be turned off throughout the meeting.
2. Stop demanding or expecting instant responsiveness at every moment of the day. It forces your people into reactive mode, fractures their attention, and makes it difficult for them to sustain attention on their priorities. Let them turn off their email at certain times. If it's urgent, you can call them — but that won't happen very often.
3. Encourage renewal. Create at least one time during the day when you encourage your people to stop working and take a break. Offer a midafternoon class in yoga, or meditation, organize a group walk or workout, or consider creating a renewal room where people can relax, or take a nap.
It's also up to individuals to set their own boundaries. Consider these three behaviors for yourself:
1. Do the most important thing first in the morning, preferably without interruption, for 60 to 90 minutes, with a clear start and stop time. If possible, work in a private space during this period, or with sound-reducing earphones. Finally, resist every impulse to distraction, knowing that you have a designated stopping point. The more absorbed you can get, the more productive you'll be. When you're done, take at least a few minutes to renew.
2. Establish regular, scheduled times to think more long term, creatively, or strategically. If you don't, you'll constantly succumb to the tyranny of the urgent. Also, find a different environment in which to do this activity — preferably one that's relaxed and conducive to open-ended thinking.
3. Take real and regular vacations. Real means that when you're off, you're truly disconnecting from work. Regular means several times a year if possible, even if some are only two or three days added to a weekend. The research strongly suggests that you'll be far healthier if you take all of your vacation time, and more productive overall.
A single principle lies at the heart of all these suggestions. When you're engaged at work, fully engage, for defined periods of time. When you're renewing, truly renew. Make waves. Stop living your life in the gray zone.
TONY SCHWARTZ
Tony Schwartz is the president and CEO of The Energy Project and the author of Be Excellent at Anything.
Simon Sinek has codified how the world’s most inspiring leaders think, act and communicate. And he concludes that they do exactly the opposite of everyone else. In his 2010 TED Talk, Sinek draws his Golden Circle to emphasize how inspiring leaders/ companies communicate from the inside out. First why, then how, then what. “People don’t buy what you do. They buy why you do it”.
As we collectively mourn the loss of Steve Jobs, Sinek illustrates his code with Apple. Apple believes in challenging the status quo (why they do it); they do it thru beautiful design and easy to use technology (how they do it); they happen to make great computers (what they do).
Just this morning I was informally coaching a small business owner friend. She was rushing to write a proposal for a very large Canadian company. Winning this business would be by far, their biggest account to date. As I listened to her talk about how her partner rushed to create a demo product and crunched the numbers so they could offer a great price ...(what they do), I was struck by how, in rushing to explain what we do and how we do it better than everyone else, we really miss the heart of the matter.
The alternative Sinek offers is to get really grounded in why we do what we do. I would add that gaining a deep understanding of why our prospective client does what he does can be profound. What beliefs do we have in common? This is the sweet spot where magic can happen.
I believe that we all need strong champions and challengers in order to live our best life. This is why I coach leaders.
Why do you do what you do? Things will get a whole lot more compelling for you and everyone else if you would take the time to figure it out.
Step one is to make sure we aren’t choking the meaning that is already there. This sounds simple yet it takes a concerted effort. Watch how experiments with adults building Lego provides insight into compensation, motivation and meaning in work.
The “company man” is back according to Towers Watson. People are now more interested in staying with their employers for life. I can’t believe I am saying this but I think this is a really good thing.
If people start to commit to an organization, there will be a lot less complaining and a lot more satisfaction at work. It is a bit like a marriage, if you think you can easily leave, then why would you work hard to stay?
Lately, I have spoken to a lot of unhappy people. I usually try to get them to recommit to their organizations and find a way to work out their problems. Why? Problems with work are universal. Rarely is the grass greener in a new organization. Trading one organization for another does not result in a perfect work situation just different problems.
Everyone would be a lot happier if they focused on fixing problems and not on looking for a perfect workplace. Loyalty is a good thing.
This blog is a diversion from my usual thoughts on leadership. I am thinking more and more about how to treat customers. First and foremost keep it simple. I am sitting on a plane with 8 upgrades that should put me in business class. I am in economy. My upgrades were blue not red. The red ones are better. Who knew?
The result for me as a customer? I sit looking at the open seats in business class. I look at my useless business class upgrade certificates. what I once saw as a pleasant thank-you for my business with this airline now is a source of annoyance.
Everytime I look at the these offending blue upgrades I remember that they come with conditions. I remember the 5 hour flight in economy with open seats in business class. "Thanks for your business but only in certain circumstances that suit our airline. Please read the fine print."
Conditional thank-yous are worse than no thank-you at all. If you are going to offer a thank-you offer it unconditionally.
When I reached out, not everyone liked what I was proposing for compensation. Open systems are scary. Agreeing on salaries could take forever particularly with “some” people. I am not going to defend my suggestions because, truth be known, I’m not sure I’ve nailed it yet. But I will re-enforce a few things that I don’t think should be lost in the debate.
Remember my first blog? Performance management really doesn’t work very well. Everyone (almost) agreed with that. There was a feeling of “finally, someone said this” to your comments. Well, since performance management doesn’t work very well, we can’t link it tightly to other things. We should not link it to salaries.
What should we link salaries to? Salaries should be linked to the market and possibly (gulp!) seniority (since it is a pretty good, albeit imperfect, proxy for experience). Oh the comments I will get on that! Yes, you will have to be very good at hiring and coaching to make that work.
Finally some closing comments on salary systems. Salary systems:
Are never perfect. We should acknowledge and honour that. We must stop assuming it is based on some irrefutable data or process.
Should never be built to manage “some people”. Building systems in that way usually de-motivates your star performers.
Should be the intersection between what the person thinks they are worth and what the organization thinks they are worth. That often needs to be negotiated. “Worth” is defined in both the internal market (in the organization) and the external market for most jobs.
I am feeling courageous so I’ll now weigh into the area of variable compensation (or bonuses). I think this is where you get to “play”. The first thing every organization should consider is profit sharing.
Profit sharing works. There have been lots of studies that have proven this. It is a very effective tool to drive loyalty and connectedness to an organization. Employees who get profit sharing will feel more loyal and try harder to be contributing members to your organization. This is particularly important if large numbers of your employees touch the customer. Ever fly Westjet? Did you notice how nice everyone is? “Westjetters (Westjet employees) are owners.” It is in their best interest to do things to preserve and build profit in the organization. They do this by building customer loyalty through all of their interactions with the customer. More profits = more profit sharing. It is a formula for growth.
I think profit sharing is underutilized in favour of organization wide bonuses. Which you’ll see can be less effective.
Bonuses should absolutely be tailored to your organization or group. You should think of bonuses as your rifle not your shotgun. Bonuses should be bases upon two things.
First, what the organization wants to reward in that particular group of employees (sales growth, customer loyalty, zero defects).
Second, what the employee or group of employees can actually control.
Organization wide bonus systems rarely work well. Organization wide goals usually do not meet the second criteria above. Very few employees can do much to impact the organization’s strategic objectives in large organizations. Consequently, organization wide bonus systems function more like a very expensive “Christmas turkey” than a true driver of behaviours. Profit sharing is better for driving organizational commitment and loyalty.
Bonuses should be different for different groups within an organization. Sales people should get bonuses based upon their sales results. Plant managers should get bonuses based upon quality and efficiency measures. Some groups should get profit sharing only and no bonuses (when their outputs are not easily measured). In many cases (or most cases), bonuses should go to the whole team and not to individuals. Organizations are complex. There are few instances today where someone meets a goal completely on their own steam.
Sound complex? It is. Wouldn’t it be easier to have an organization wide bonus system that covers all the bases? It is, but you very well might be wasting your money.
Once you come to terms with the fact that compensation is always a trade-off and never perfect, you are released from trying to justify compensation decisions. Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have to justify? I have coached many people on how to handle tough compensation discussions. It is rarely rewarding for either party.
In my last blog, "Performance Management is so Yesterday", I talked about how current performance management systems sap motivation and are often "widely inaccurate". I suggested changing to a true "coaching and development model". In this model conversations are frequent and focused on support and problem solving and not on assessment and ratings.
This blog resulted in lots of comments -- the vast majority of comments were supportive. Here's a sample.
"People are tired of the way we do performance management. It is cumbersome and the conversations are difficult." "It is unheard-of for the hockey coach to play his team for half the season and then sit down and spend an hour telling each player what he or she did right and what needs to be improved. He needs to be talking to his whole team and each of his players continuously."
I share this hockey analogy comment because it highlights how ludicrous our current approach is. I'll continue with this analogy as I move into the next question to be answered-- "if we can't rate them, how do we pay them?"
Back to what I opened with, compensation strategy is always a trade-off. Once we come to terms with this fact, we are released from trying to be perfect in our design and in our explanations of pay.
Compensation is simply the intersection of three factors. what the market will pay for the person and their skills, what the person wishes to be paid, what the organization can afford to or is willing to pay the person for their package of skills.-
Here's how it would work. Each person in an organization would present to their manager what they think their pay should be with supporting documentation (their view of the market, what others are paid within the organization). This would be real documentation and not hearsay. Each manager in the organization would be required to do their own legwork in determining fair pay for each of their employees. (Compensation people could be very helpful in supporting this process once they are freed up from managing cumbersome systems.) The manager and employee would meet, review all documentation, and arrive at an agreed salary level based upon the homework each of them completed. Voila-- no justification needed -- you don't close the conversations until you agree on a fair salary number that meets both of your needs.
This process would be relatively quick for more junior level jobs where you have many people doing the same job (salaries would have to be similar) and more difficult for very unique or very high level jobs. In truth, unique and/or high level jobs are essentially already handled this way.
Now to get even more radical - how about publishing salaries <>internally <>like Richard Semler did at Semco? We now publish the top 5 director's salaries in every public company. The door is open for this level of transparency. (Truth be known, people talk anyway and the grapevine provides very inaccurate salary information and this is just hurtful). Open salary systems create more information to inform the compensation discussion. You can agree to disagree but you no longer need to argue the facts.
Sound a bit like hockey? You spend the most time deciding compensation for your biggest contributors and you don't close talks until both parties agree. The best players are able to argue for the highest salaries and everyone knows what everyone gets paid which drives accountability and accuracy over the long run.
Ok, we've taken care of salary. What about bonuses? How should they work? Look for that in my next blog.
Think about it. Even the words "performance management" are kind of off putting. Begging the question "Who are you to manage my performance?". I have always disliked the performance management process. I say this, even though as an HR professional early in my career, I helped put in place many performance management systems.
For a great discussion on what is wrong with performance management, click on this article from the Wall Street Journal by Culbert. He says performance management today not only does not increase accountability, it saps motivation. Accountability works best when it comes from within. The vast majority of people want to succeed at what they do. Performance discussions should help people do just that.
Since Culbert has done such a good job of explaining what is wrong with performance management, I will focus instead on what to replace it with. Here are my suggestions:
First let's change the name. How about Coaching and Development Discussions?
Second, eliminate all regularly scheduled reviews (mid year, year end) and replace them with Coaching and Development Discussions. These discussions should happen every two to four weeks depending on the situation. A new staff member or new job usually drives more frequency, for example. A very qualified senior professional should still have a coaching and development discussion once per month (even if it is short).
Third, make coaching and development discussions joint problem solving events. You do this by suspending all judgement and asking lots of questions. Each party is equal in the discussion and the objective of the discussion is to help each person continually improve while moving the organization's (or team's) objectives forward. My coaching experience has taught me that people are rarely the sole cause of any difficulties or successes that they have.
Fourth, drop the level of the conversation to a peer-to-peer discussion. Each party in the discussion is equal even if one is the "boss". Both should feel powerful. Both should be able to be open and be free to challenge.
Fifth, eliminate cumbersome forms and documentation. Phewww... I am sure everyone will miss this part of "performance management". Trust people to manage their own performance discussions and make all documentation "discussion notes". Discussion notes are there to be helpful to both parties and to keep track of discussions and ensure understanding. Put discussion notes on-line and make them accessible to both parties.
Finally, eliminate all rating systems. It is just wrong to give an adult a grade. At best, it is demotivating for the majority of people (all those people who get the middle - "you are good but average grade" and certainly those who "need improvement") and at worst it is wildly inaccurate.
I know the next big question on this "Then how do I know what to pay people?". Well I have several thoughts on that that I will put in my next blog.- - - - -
The company "Threadless" churns out dozens of new items a month -- with no advertising, no professional designers, no sales force and no retail distribution. And it's never produced a flop.
How do they do it?
By turning their backs on internal product research, marketing and sales, and relying on their customers.
I have two stories to tell, one from my personal experience and one from a client meeting I had yesterday. Both stories are about staying grounded and staying connected to what really matters at work. Both stories are about maintaining energy and confidence. This is tough to do sometimes particularly when we are busy and working on issues we don't love. I'll start with my story.
When I first started working, I worked in labor relations for an aircraft manufacturer. Relations with the union were terrible. Our department spent most of each day researching how to say "no" to the various grievances filed on a daily basis. We spent two days a week in grievance meetings with union representatives arguing the most pressing grievances. We had file cabinets full of grievances that we never even got to. I'm sure you are thinking, "How discouraging!" and indeed it was. I didn't work there long but while I was there, I got some good advice from a colleague. I still think about and take this advice regularly. He said,
"When you really need to remember why you are doing this and what really matters, do what I do and walk the plant floor."
The plant floor was huge. There were many skilled employees and their managers making airplanes. It was fascinating to watch. Most people had great pride in what they were doing and loved to talk about it. Whenever I returned from "walking the plant floor", I had a renewed sense of purpose and clarity around what really mattered -- the people making the airplanes.
Here's story number two. One of my clients has been "walking the plant floor" (figuratively) and she told me about it yesterday. She is a member of a Professional Service Firm. She has had a particularly difficult year. Business in her area of the country is off. There are all the staff issues and political challenges that come with tougher times. Her focus has been internal and been on issues that at times can be quite discouraging (underperforming staff, political infighting,etc.)
She needed to "walk the plant floor" again. Walking the plant floor for her is spending time with her clients and meeting new clients. This women is great with clients, she loves to be out in the market and she loves to help clients solve their issues. She has spent the past month doing that. How has it helped? Here's what she said to me,
"I have some new work. It is a start. I feel more confident and more energy around my work. The staff issues that were weighing me down seem less difficult. I can handle them."
Next time you need a shot of energy and confidence, think about "walking the plant floor." Get out from behind your computer and meet people who are most important to what you do. You'll be surprised at how refreshed you feel from that simple act.
,
