I think it is a pretty obvious fact that our preconceptions give rise to “blind spots” in the way we look at and manage our businesses. If we believe that we are looking for one type of solution to a problem, it makes it more difficult for us to recognize new or different potential solutions to the same problem. Since we already “know” what the solution is going to be, we have a tendency to discount or disbelieve any facts that may be contrary to our chosen direction and solution. Our disbelief in our fallibility slows us down. It allows us to cling to outdated or outmoded programs and projects long after their usefulness is gone. It causes us to ignore facts and input that need to be recognized and acted upon quickly. Since we already know what we are looking for and where to find it, we won’t look elsewhere, because the answer can’t be there. Believing in one solution set does not mean we must disbelieve in all other solution sets. We need to learn that accepting that other solutions may exist to the identified issue. They may not be better than the solution set that has been chosen. On the other hand, then may in fact be better. The idea is not to reject them out of hand. Remember, it was not too long ago that the earth was believed to be the center of the universe. At one time the earth was also believed to be flat. New information and new technologies have continued to change our beliefs. It has also changed what we disbelieve.
The things we don’t believe are as important to the way we work and run our businesses as the things we do believe in.
I don’t want confuse skepticism with disbelief. A skeptic wants the data verified and looks for corroborating evidence and information before accepting a change to a situation. A disbeliever refuses to accept that the data indicates that a change or shift has occurred that requires a modification to an existing practice. I think a healthy dose of skepticism is a requirement for a good manager. An unwillingness to believe the facts or the analysis they engender when they do not align with what we want or expect can kill a business or opportunity quickly in today’s environment.
There is a fine line between caution and disbelief. When does the data indicate a change or a trend as opposed to an anomaly? If you move too quickly you can move away from current opportunities and practices before their value is fully recognized. This can subject your team and business to what amounts to a whipsawing of changes and reduce both effectiveness and profitability. If you move too slowly you run the risk of staying with a declining situation and then having to chase after the new market imperative.
The business case for every solution needs to be continuously reviewed to make sure that it remains the best solution as time passes and new information is gathered. The data is always the data. It is what you do with the data that demonstrates business acuity. If the data indicates that a change is needed, skepticism and caution may be called for, but disbelief in that data can put the business in jeopardy.
Category Archives: Self Analysis
Survey Says…..
I got another survey today. That’s not too unusual. We all seem to be getting them more frequently. We get them from various political entities, consumer product manufacturers, software application manufactures and just about anybody that you have bought something from that requires some sort of product registration. We get them at the office from our various suppliers and vendors, other groups from within our own organization that provide us support or a service and even our own companies will periodically survey the employees for their opinions. In short, we seem to be asking each other a lot of questions. We need to remember this the next time we have the urge to send out a survey to anybody. If we want to survey our customers, understand that they are also customers of other companies who also want to send out surveys. If we want to send out a survey, we need to have a very clear set of goals for both the survey itself and the use of the information we are to gather. Like anything else in the organization, we need to have a very clear set of objectives for a survey for it to be of any use. We also need to demonstrate to the surveyed entity that we will do something with the information we gather that will be beneficial to them. What is it that we want to know (that we don’t already know). Why do we want to know it. What are we going to do with it after we know it. Too many times I have been surveyed, and then never heard another word from the surveyor. I answered the questions but in return got no value for my time. My information went somewhere, but no outward manifestation of a response was provided. Eventually I have gotten to the point where I respond to fewer and fewer surveys. Maybe that is why I seem to be getting more and more of them. Too many times surveys become isolated onetime events where a great deal of attention seems to be showered on the entity being surveyed, and then just as quickly disappears with no specific results communicated or acted upon. If the surveyed entity recognizes that characteristic, then the survey becomes just another time consuming event for them, with no recognized or expected value. Surveys will only have value if the surveyed entity believes that there will in fact be action taken that is hopefully beneficial to them as a result of the survey. If you are going to survey the employees of your business (again), explain to them what the results were of the last employee survey, and what actions were taken as a result of their previous input. If you are going to survey your customers, explain what actions were taken as a result of the last survey, or if it is the first time the customer is being surveyed, explain what you have found from other customers surveys and what actions you took as a result of that information. Without this closure of the feedback loop before each new survey, and the demonstration of a response to the input, all the survey becomes is an academic fact finding activity that provided the respondent no value. Surveys need to quantifiably provide some sort of meaningful value to those people who respond to them. That may be why we now see so many market survey requests accompanied by some sort of product discount or payment offer. If the surveying entity isn’t going to somehow remunerate me for both my time and opinions associated with their survey, I am not going to waste my time by answering it. I think the same is true for both employee and customer surveys. If you are not, or cannot demonstrate to the surveyed entity that you place a high enough value on their opinion to act upon it by changing your business or method of interaction with them, then it will be very difficult to get them to respond in any meaningful way, if at all. Business relationships with customers and employees are the result of ongoing dialogs and activities. It seems that too often we take this daily interaction and feedback for granted and want to rely on the survey for our management answers. It also appears that all too often our customers and employees provide us daily feedback and opinions that we do not act upon in a timely manner. We then survey them for information, but neglect to close the loop back with them to verify what we “heard” and then explain what we did as a result of this information, even if we did take measurable action. When no feedback is provided or visible action is taken as a result of a survey, each successive survey increasingly loses its value. The willingness of the surveyed entity, be it a customer or an employee, to respond goes down and eventually all value associated with the survey is lost. You then become just another survey amongst the numerous surveys that we all seem to get, and don’t bother to respond to.
Clock Your Time
I recently read “The Sales Messenger” by Mary Anne (Wihbey) Davis. I don’t normally read books like this and I am a bit out of the habit. I guess I will have to get back in the habit.
The Sales Messenger touched on a topic (one of many actually) that had aspects of both the concept of “the difference between activity and work” and “the choice of what to do and what not to do”. I found this very interesting in our current times where we are all asked to do more with less. The key here was choosing work that resulted in progress, and then performing it, instead of activities that kept us busy.
This is probably pretty simple, right? Surely everything that we are doing is associated with generating progress toward our professional objectives and goals. After all, we are all so busy at the office. The point was that we are all so busy, but when we really get down to examining what we are doing, I think that we will find out like those individuals profiled in “The Sales Messenger” that we are probably doing a lot of activities that don’t necessarily result in progress.
The idea that was proposed was that we should all create a tracking log of our time. We should note how many minutes (or hours) of each day or week are spent on which specific tasks we have been given, or chosen to do. Then we need to go through, or better yet, have someone help us go through the professional value that we derive from each task. This is the key. We have to be honest in the value assessmants.
If what we are doing is not directly helping us achieve our goals, or is not efficiently achieving that purpose, it is a candidate for an activity that should either be discontinued or changed. A prime example of this was provided in the form of “Networking”. We have all networked. We are all familiar with its concept. The example provided was in using networking to generate sales leads.
If you are spending time networking to generate sales leads, you need to quantify both the time you spend networking (time card) and the number of sales leads you have developed in each networking period, and assess if this is the most efficient use of your time. If it is, obviously you should keep at it. If it is not, you then need to decide to either stop doing that activity and free up the time to do something more productive, or change how you network.
Either way it comes down to clocking your time on the tasks you are performing, and then measuring the value that you get from each task. I think we will all find that there are things that we are doing at our jobs that have little to no relationship to the work we need to accomplish. Sometimes it is hard for us to sort this out on our own.
I thought the simple idea of specifically clocking our time spent on each function, and then basically doing a micro – cost / benefit analysis on how that time was spent, was one of the best and most effective ways I have seen to help identify how we can devote more time to making progress and reduce our time spent on activities that are clogging up our already too busy days.
Play to Your Strength
Management hires people to fill specific roles. If you need a sales person, you look for the best sales person you can find who will be compatible with the other personalities on the team and the overall company culture. You are usually not looking for a combination Marketing, Operations, Service, and Software Developing Sales person. Finding a sales person with these additional traits may be nice, but that does not make them the best Sales person. You are normally looking for depth of capability, not breadth of capability.
Each role will require a leader with a specific strength, be it Sales, Marketing, Finance, etc. Understand what your strength is and play to it. That does not mean to ignore the other disciplines. To the contrary, they are important and you should try to increase your capabilities in those areas. You should build your capabilities in your non-core disciplines by trying to surround yourself with people whose strengths lie in disciplines outside of your core strengths.
We all like to think that we have few if any weaknesses. This may be true. The point is that not everything we have is a strength. A little honest self analysis can help each of us pinpoint our strengths. We all tend to gravitate toward people who have similar personalities and interests. This can cause trouble for an organization. Once we are aware of our own capabilities, we should consciously try to look for people with different capabilities and strengths in an effort to “fill in the gaps” in the organization.
President Ronald Reagan was a leader who recognized as a great “communicator”. He filled out his cabinet with people who were also recognized as some of the most talented individuals in their specific disciplines (Defense, Treasury, Economy, etc) around. President Reagan was a leader who played to his strength – communicating, but hired to his weakness – the mechanics and specifics of running the most diverse and complex country and economy on the planet. Looking back, it worked pretty well. We enjoyed some of the most prosperous times in recent memory. We would do well to learn from that example.