I have a pretty good memory. At least I used to think I did. They say that the second thing that you lose as you age is your memory. I forget what they said was first. Regardless of how good your memory is, I don’t think anyone can remember everything that they need to in today’s business environment. I remember learning this early on in my career, back when my memory was even better than it is now. It was taught to me by one of my first managers. He told me that one of the first things I needed to do if I was going to be successful in business was to get a notebook and take notes on everything.
Imagine coming out of graduate school as a newly minted scion of business and the first thing you are told is that you will have to do is resume a process that you had just spent the last several years learning to loathe. I am going to have to take notes at work? I took notes in school. I shouldn’t have to take notes anymore. I am done with school, right?
Wrong.
I was done with school, but I was not done learning. Learning means that you have to remember what you have done so that you can repeat the successes and avoid the same mistakes in the future. Since you are doing so many new and different things and no one can remember everything, and like in school you need a place to store this information. You need a notebook.
Unlike the notebooks in school where you spent most of your time trying to capture the gist of the professor’s lecture for late night reviews just before the exam, or to doodle in when you are really bored in the lecture and can no longer focus well enough to take lecture notes, a business notebook needs to be more. In school each class usually had its own notebook and since you normally had multiple classes, you kept multiple notebooks. In business you normally have only one job at a time so you probably need only one notebook at a time.
I found for my purposes that a bound (not loose leaf or spiral notebook) was the best notebook platform. The idea is to retain all noted information. Loose leaf and spiral notebooks have a tendency to wear and pages can and do fall out. You want the notebook to be your “permanent” historical record that you can go back to and consult as needed.
I also found that a business notebook is also a sort of activity log. I date every page. I try to note all calls and conversations with who called (or who I called), what the topic of discussion was and what the major points of the discussion were. I cannot tell you how many times I have gone back into my notebook and reviewed calls and discussions with those parties involved to help “remind” them of the topics and outcomes. It seems that there are many times when other people’s memories may not be as sharp as they may have thought or possibly wanted either. It’s always good to have your notes to refer to.
A business notebook is also more than just a place to note the topics of discussions or log phone calls and activities. It is also the place where you capture your ideas. I have learned that ideas are fleeting things. If you don’t learn (there’s that word again) to capture ideas immediately upon having them that they will quickly fade from memory (there’s that word again) and be lost.
I wish I could remember every idea that I have had. I know (or at least have to hope) that some of them were probably pretty good but if I had not noted them I would never be sure. On the other hand I do know that I have had a few ideas that qualify as real stinkers and that I would like to forget them, but don’t seem to be able to. It’s funny how the memory works.
The point is that since a notebook is a private repository for the things that you think are important and that you may want to revisit in the future, you need to use it to not only document the activities and topics of the day, but also the ideas and concepts that came to mind during the course of dealing with everything else during the day. This function has been particularly reinforced with me, all these years later as I have started writing.
I have not learned what internal mechanism causes topics to register within me as a good idea (there’s that word again) for a good business topic to write about, but I have learned that if I do not immediately grab the topic and write it down I will eventually lose it. I will then be forced to later try and sort through all of the topics and inputs of the day to see which one might have been the impetus for the next great article that I know I am sure to write, hopefully.
I don’t seem to remember having this problem in the past, but if my memory is indeed having issues, or perhaps it is finally reaching its manufacturers capacity, it could explain why I can no longer remember the things I used to be able to easily put in and access in my memory. I hope you followed that.
At the end of the day I use my notebook to not only look at the events of the day, I look at my ideas of the day. Those ideas that can be utilized in some way in the future I further note and start to develop. Over time a significant number of these ideas have found their ways into various sales, business and strategic plans. Having a notebook full of ideas won’t necessarily cause you to have better plans, but it will cause you to use those ideas and to think about those upcoming plans in different ways, and that is the first step toward improvement.
I significant amount of time has passed since my first manager told me about this business notebook idea. If memory serves me right I have actually forgotten just how much time has passed. Thank goodness. However I still utilize a notebook daily to annotate my day and to capture my ideas and thoughts for use in the future. It may be old school, possibly because I cannot type fast enough with two fingers to take notes on my computer and keep up with my conversations, or my ideas (if and when they occur), but it still serves me very well. I also think it is an under rated activity that continues to contribute to the success of the business.
I can now also cross notebooks off my topic list for articles that I keep in my notebook.
Category Archives: Strategy
Career Progression
When you look at a career in business you see that it is not a smooth line but a series of steps. Some are upwards, and some are not. The point is that there is movement, maybe not continual, but regular movement. There are always new roles, new responsibilities and new challenges to take on. There is not an exact science on when and where to make your moves and take your steps. There are however a few topics, traits and activities to be aware of when contemplating your career progression. When discussing career progression it isinteresting to note the number of seemingly opposing forces that will act on a career. The first of these dichotomies will be how long or how short each business assignment’s duration is. Many prospective employers or managers like to look at an individual’s past assignment durations to get an idea of how long they may stay in their new role. A history of short assignment durations can indicate a “job hopper”, or someone who is just hopping from role to role. This could be for any number of good or viable reasons, but in general can be seen as a negative. A history of long assignments can also be negatively looked at as someone who may be “too conservative” and either cannot or will not take on new or added responsibilities. There is always the search for the perfect balance between the two extremes. When a business unit or function is not performing to a desired level, it unfortunately seems that all members of that team whether it is justifiable or not will be associated with that poor performance. In most cases like this an organization will look external of that business unit or function for its next leader. These changes of leadership events can be opportunities for leaders outside of the poor performing business, but unless they are in a similar business function this again would seem to run contrary to the previous point I made earlier regarding the apparent single discipline verses multi-discipline experience preference in candidates.
As I have noted in many past articles, I am something of an old school throwback when it comes to business. There was a time where businesses wanted candidates and employees that had a broad background and experience set. This multi-discipline type of background was seen as an indication that the employee or candidate had the capability to be flexible in what they were asked or needed to do as well as were able to take on other and greater responsibilities. The idea here was that businesses were looking for the best overall business “athletes”.
Now it seems that this approach is no longer the case. The business world seems to have evolved to a level of specificity where the search is no longer for the best potential overall athlete, but the best within that specific discipline. This approach now brings into question whether or not it is good to search for or even accept new roles that require a change of discipline. If a business is looking for a marketer, they are now looking for the best marketer available, and more specifically the best marketer in their specific market for their specific product type, not the best athlete who has the capability to not only become the best marketer, but also has the capability to go on and assume roles with greater or broader responsibilities.
While this approach may provide a better short term or immediate return to that specific part of the business, it does tend to generate somewhat more one dimensional (single discipline) career paths and leaders. As leaders hit the senior level positions where they will be required to provide broader leadership, they will have a narrower experience set to draw on. I am not proposing that career discipline changes (Marketing to Finance, or Engineering to Sales, etc.) cannot or should not be made. What I am saying is that the current business climate does not encourage or reward these types of career changes in the same way that they were in the past. It is something to be aware of when contemplating potential changes and progression.
Another aspect of career progression will depend on the relative perception of the business aspect that you are currently in. What I mean here is that if you are associated with a business unit or function that is in relatively high regard, the opportunities for continued career progression in that specific business unit or function, or even other business units or functions can be stronger. As an example, look at Apple. They had been so successful under Steve Jobs leadership that they primarily looked to members of his team to assume the leadership role to assure continuity and continued success. They looked internal.
Either way, there will always be the question of the need for continuity playing against the need for new approaches in a leadership role. Both can be either opportunities for or detriments to career progression. Knowledge of both the business situation and perception of the business will be needed in order to ascertain what or where may be the next career progression opportunity.
Along a similar line here, I have always found that taking on a new approach change of leadership role has been beneficial to my career. I have taken to heart the advice of an executive that I received early in my career when I was pondering just such a move. The executive told me to never be afraid to take on a bad or underperforming business (he actually used the word “catastrophe”). He said that if something is truly in bad shape, that you can’t help but make it better. Across my experience in business, I have found this to be true far more times than not. These types of career moves can result in some of the most challenging of assignments, but in order to achieve the return of career advancement there will need to be the risk of taking on difficult performance objectives.
There are those that consider a proper career progression to be a series of upward movements and assignments with ever increasing responsibilities. This type of progression has not been my experience, nor has it been one that I have seen. There will inevitably be situations that evolve where there will simply be no opportunities for advancement. There may already be several high quality leaders in position and hence no new opportunities. On the opposite side of that equation, there may be several managers in place who may not be supporters of the leadership traits and characteristics that you want to employ. The business may be undergoing a contraction and along with that action there is a reduction in opportunities. For whatever reason there can be an opportunity logjam.
In situations like this it may be time to look for a lateral move instead of waiting to try and make a promotional one. In effect you can try and step around the business impediments to career progress. It may be possible to step outside of an underperforming business unit (where you may be associated with that underperformance) and get into a better performing business unit. Once outside of the poorly performing unit you may become eligible for consideration due to your past experience and knowledge if and when a leadership change is considered there.
Moving laterally in an organization can also provide monetary and earnings opportunities. Better performing business units can receive better bonus opportunities during annual reviews. Moving into sales or into different units within sales can provide better sales and commission opportunities. Some lateral motion for whatever reason should be expected in almost any career progression.
I will come to conclusion here without commenting on where a career progression may slow or even stop. You may be happy where you are and remain at that level of responsibility or you may not. Instead I’ll finish with a few quotes or axioms and let you decide.
Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, defined the Peter Principle as that the members of an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, “Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence.”
Robert Frost wrote: “By working faithfully eight hours a day you may eventually get to be boss, and work twelve hours a day.”
And finally Sloan Wilson said: “Success in almost any field depends more on energy and drive than it does on intelligence. This explains why we have so many stupid leaders.” I suspect and hope that he was writing about our political system, but I thought I would throw that one in as well.
Good luck on your career.
Reorganizations
Whenever a business enters the fourth quarter of the year, everyone’s attention inevitably turns to the topic that they had already been anticipating for the previous three quarters of the year – the possibility of, potential for, or pending business reorganization. Reorganizations are interesting events in a business. Leaders have a tendency to try and keep the structural changes a secret until they can be fully announced. This tends to be a futile effort on several levels. On the first level, when people are involved, as they must be for a reorganization, information regarding the potential changes is going to get out. When a number of people are involved, or are providing input, someone will talk. If people become aware of pending changes before the full structure is in place, it can cause them to behave in ways detrimental to the current organizational structure in anticipation of the future structure. On the other hand if the number of people involved in the reorganization is held to a minimum, and the information is tightly controlled, the reorganizational changes can be withheld from the business. While this may sound like the preferable situation, in reality the lack of knowledge can cause the organization several issues as well. Instead of focusing on the business and opportunities at hand, the team will have a tendency to become more internally focused on exactly how the reorganization will manifest itself. It can also cause team members to feel somewhat alienated by the fact that they were not involved or consulted regarding potential changes affecting their careers. The best statement that I have heard to describe this situation is: If during a reorganization you present your employees with a blank page regarding information on where they will work and what they will do, you will not like the story that they will write, and neither will they. A fine line must be walked when reorganizing. Enough team involvement to get commitment and assure an intelligent and logical structure is put in place to position the business for future growth. Not so many people involved that the situation becomes unwieldy and proprietary information is too readily available and becomes distracting to the business. Some information needs to be provided to the team in order to minimize the internal speculation and distraction to the organization, but not so much information about future organizations that it begins to affect current business structures and behaviors. The key to maintaining organizational focus during and through a reorganization is going to be the length of time that the reorganization takes to complete. In general, the shorter the amount of time involved the better. Like removing a Band-Aid that needs to be changed, doing it quickly minimizes the discomfort. There will be less time for information to prematurely filter out into the organization and less time for the distraction of the team associated with speculation on the new business structures. Some organizations have tried to break down the reorganizing process into shorter or smaller steps and announce each step as a way to minimize the distraction to the business. The example would be to reorganize one business group (vertically) or one management level (horizontally) and then announce the results in an effort to keep information flowing and minimize business distraction and disruption during an extended reorganization process. Again, time will be of the essence here. Until the final reorganization announcement has been made, and noted as the final announcement, the business team’s focus cannot be fully on the customer and conducting business with them. Speculation on the wisdom of the last step and the potential future structures and moves associated with the next step will continue until the reorganization process is over. Reorganizations are rarely an enjoyable experience for anyone. Those that are doing the reorganizing are making difficult decisions that will affect the careers of the people on the team and the success of the organization in the future, while trying to make sure that current performance objectives are met. Those that are being reorganized are concerned about their careers while at the same time continuing to try and perform their current jobs. The less time that these incremental stresses are applied to either group, the better it will be for the business. If the decision is made to reorganize, the optimal approach is to generate a reorganization plan and execute it as rapidly as possible. That is easy enough to say, but in reality experience has shown that it is difficult to do.
If it has been a good year there is always the possibility of a reorganization in order to move resources from underperforming business units to growing businesses to take advantage of the market conditions. If it has been a fair year for the business there is always the potential for a reorganization in the hopes of kick-starting the business for the next year. If it has been a year of underperformance, or worse another year of underperformance, chances are that a reorganization is not only a probability, it is probably pending.
Strategic Business
“Strategic” business is an interesting concept. It is normally used by sales teams to denote business that is believed to be so important as to be opportunities that are categorized as “Must Win” business regardless of the costs. This can be due to the size of the business, the desire to obtain market position or to keep a competitor from obtaining market position, or any number of other good, well meaning reasons. In my experience the one characteristic that all “Strategic” business has in common is that it is unprofitable. Strategic business is invariably the sales code phrase for “We want a lower price.” There may be competitive reasons for the desired lower price. There may be higher costs associated with the opportunity that customer doesn’t wish to absorb or pay for. There may in fact be increased competition. There may be expectations by the customer for greater savings. The list can go on and on. The point here is that none of these reasons are strategic. They are tactics, either by the sales team or the customer, to get a lower price.
The strategic business approach can also be seen when a large multi-product supplier is dealing with a large multi-product using customer. The idea posited here will be if a lower price is obtained for one product it will be to the benefit of all the other products that are being sold to the same customer.
Wait a minute, how does that go again?
I am of the opinion that all business is important and that all business should be profitable. It would seem in this scenario that some business is less important that other business. In this case it would appear that it is the Profitable business that is less important. After all, it’s not strategic. How do you decide which business is going to sacrifice its profitability for the sake of the other businesses? How do you prove the linkage between the unprofitable strategic business, and the profitable non-strategic business? Does the supplying company recognize that one (or more) of its businesses has been positioned and priced as a strategic business and measure its performance accordingly?
Strategic plans are those business plans where the growth and profitability for the business are mapped out over a longer horizon (usually 3 to 5 years). They provide directions and goals. They focus on the growth of both revenue and profitability of the business as well as the evolution of older products to newer ones. Strategic business, if there truly is such a thing, should also be focused on the long term growth of both the business revenues and profitability. It would seem that strategic business would only be associated with new products, new revenue sources and the new profitability associated with them.
Under these types of definitions for strategic business, it is very hard to justify any type of unprofitable business as strategic, particularly for existing products or services. I have said before that customers associate value with that which they pay for. If you provide goods and services to them at reduced prices then they will assume going forward that those goods and services have a reduced value. If strategic business is based on longer term future growth, do you really want to grow what has now been priced to the customer as an unprofitable business?
If there is value to your customer in the goods or services that you are providing them, then you should be entitled to a profit margin. It is the profit margin that enables you to pay your costs as well as look for new goods and services to supply your customers in the future. This is the basic tenet of business. Customers will continue to apply pressure for lower prices. Competition may also generate downward pressures on prices. As a provider of the goods or services you will continue to try and find new ways to reduce costs and to become more efficient. Downward price pressure and the ability to remove costs and increase efficiencies of the business will eventually hit the point of diminishing returns.
I have talked in the past about the need to prune products and services from the business portfolio when they have reached an end of useful life scenario. Part of that end of life decision is based on the time when either your customer will no longer pay you an appropriate price where you can generate a reasonable margin, or your costs are such that you can no longer reduce them to the point where you can generate a competitive price at a reasonable margin. As I said earlier, if there is value the customer will pay for it. If there is not enough value to the customer for them to pay for it, then the supplier should no longer provide it.
If you have an existing product, service or business where you are having problems generating the prices and margins that are needed for viability going forward, there may be a push to look at the “strategic” importance of the product, service or business for the “greater good” of the company. These types of discussions ring hollow. There is nothing strategic about unprofitable business for existing products and services. Each product, service and business needs to be able to stand on its own and justify its future viability based on its own revenues and profitability. Unprofitable “strategic” business is still unprofitable business.
One way to make sure that strategic business is in reality profitable business is to align the revenue objectives of the sales team with the profitability objectives of the business. Some business opportunities are more valuable (more profitable) than other business opportunities. If the sales team is rewarded for more profitable business, and is not rewarded for less profitable business, the focus will be placed on profitability and the more profitable business. Strategic business will either need to be profitable, or it will no longer be so strategic.
Disbelief
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.
Work Backwards
Process Reengineering and Process Transformation seem to be the new popular catch phrases for business these days. We continue to evolve and place more emphasis on the “process”. We like to define them, and map them, and engineer them, and reengineer them, and transform them. We even now have global “Process Owners”. The goal of all this additional and incremental work that is being applied to the process is to make the process more efficient. I understand the almost obsessive approach to processes that businesses are exhibiting these days. I am just not quite sure yet whether or not I agree with it. This approach seems to be consistent with the idea that the most efficient process to build a staircase is to gather a number of previously defined and constructed steps and start to assemble them until you reach your goal, whether it is the second floor of a house or the top floor of a high rise building. To me the simple definition of a process is a way to get something done. We used to want to standardize the way we got things done in order to be as efficient as possible. This was particularly effective when we were primarily a manufacturing / production oriented economy. We have continued to change from a production based economy to a product / services / knowledge based economy for quite some time as the production function has been moved to lower cost environments. We are now trying to standardize the process – the way we get things done – for this new service / knowledge based business environment in much the same way we did for the manufacturing and production based structure. The new catch phrase for standardizing Service and Knowledge based processes is to “Industrialize” them. Here is where I think we may start to run into trouble with this industrialization approach to processes. For quite a while we have strived for a diverse workforce. This diversity is a very good thing. Different people think differently. The diversity of thought and approach that results from having a diverse workforce helps prevent the group think phenomenon from happening, where similar people all see things the same way. If everyone saw and did things the same way there would never be any way to improve the process because everyone would see it the same way. So now we are looking at trying to industrialize a process in order to make it more efficient, which if we are fully successful at will make it difficult to ever modify or improve in the future because we will all be doing it the same way. To go back to our steps and staircase example, if you are going to standardize on only one set of steps, you will only be able to make one type of staircase. A further complication to the industrialization drive occurs when we look at the variations in service and knowledge that are to be applied either internally to the business, or externally to the customer. Manufacturing efficiency was driven based on a relatively few sets of variations to the end product. You used to be able to custom order your car with the specific sets of options that you wanted. Can you do that anymore? The last time I looked most car models came in approximately three option package variations: Standard, Enhanced and Luxury versions. Because the knowledge and service needs of each specific customer will be unique to that specific customer, it may be difficult to fully industrialize the process of satisfying their wants and needs. I have always been a goal driven individual, even when it comes to the processes that I must use. I have found that if I know the goal, I can begin the process of decomposing it into sub-goals or milestones and from there into logical tasks and steps. You can use this approach differently for different goals and that will result in a somewhat different process, and in different tasks. If we have a goal and know what we need to get done, then we can work backwards from it to break it down into the steps that need to be taken to achieve it. This method of work definition provides a general framework or process to work from, but also enables individuals to see and do things somewhat differently in the pursuit of the goal. As long as there are guidelines that are known (example: Bank robbery is not an acceptable solution to increasing the profitability of a customer engagement….) and responsibilities and ownerships (approval levels, etc.) are defined this generic process of working backwards from the end goal can provide a flexible framework that will enable the multiple variations of deliverables that customers require, while also enabling the business to efficiently and effectively adapt to each customer engagement. The current push to industrialize and define each step of a process can be very useful if all you are going to do is provide straight staircases. This approach will work very well if all every customer wanted was a straight staircase. It starts to have real problems when you try to apply it to circular, elliptical and spiral staircases. These types of customer engagements while having the potential to utilize some industializable aspects of the process normally need to be customized to each specific engagement. The final ingredient to a successful process is ultimately going to be the people using. We need to work at creating the ability within our people to recognize and adapt to each new engagement, to build the appropriate stairs and staircases that our customers want and our businesses need, instead of trying to industrialize a process to the point where all they can do is to try an assemble a predefined set of steps, in the hopes that it will more efficiently meet each new set of business and customer needs.
It’s Not “What”
We have all attended senior management “all hands” meetings. These are invariably the meetings where senior management fulfills its obligation to try and communicate with the rest of the business. These meetings have the potential to really inspire the team. The reality is that they usually do not.
All hands meetings are usually appreciated for the attempt by management to communicate to the team. It has been a while since any of us has been graded on effort alone. We get reviewed on results. They can also be easily interpreted as management fulfilling its obligation to meet its self measured object to “communicate” with the team.
Much of the issue lies in the content presented to the team in the all hands communication session. There is usually a review of the group’s performance. This is good. Everyone wants to know where the team stands with respect to its goals or targets, and how it is doing with respect to previous periods. This provides the team with an overall frame of reference for their performance and position.
What follows is normally a review of “what” is to be done next. What the next goal is. What is yet to be done. What needs to be improved. When I hear this sort of information I am reminded of the satires of war movies where the general addresses the soldiers preparing for battle and tells them.
”Here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to take that hill. When we’re done there, we’re going to take the next hill. After that we’re going to take the next hill. When we get up on top of that hill, we’re going to look around and see if there are any other hills we want to take….”
Objectives are great. Now everyone knows “What” the team is going to do. Everyone probably had a good idea of what they were going to do next before the meeting. The team now wants to hear How they are going to achieve the goal. Which resources are to be used. Who will have leadership responsibilities. In short, they want to hear a high level review of the “The Plan”.
An all hands meeting where you do not communicate the organizational strategy or plan is almost akin to telling your organization that you don’t have a plan, even if you do. I have stated in the past that if you provide your team a blank page (no information) chances are that you will not like the story that they will write on it. That is the case here.
The individual members of the team need to at least understand the high level aspects of the team strategy, so they can internalize them and create their own individual strategies and goals that support and contribute to the team goals. By providing more than just a “what” is needed, and including a little more of “why” its needed and “how” we propose to get it, you can turn an all hands meeting back into a much more useful management tool.
John McKay Was Right
John McKay was a very successful college football coach at the University Of Southern California (USC) in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. I am not aware of many unsuccessful football coaches there, but I guess there may have been one or two. Coach McKay was also the first head coach for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers professional football team when they came into the league in 1976.
As an expansion team the Buccaneers did not win a single game in their first season. Despite all the planning, preparation and strategies, they were not able to win. There was a question of the talent that was present on the team, but coach McKay never said that was the issue.
What coach McKay did say is best summed up in a comment he made in response to a question he was asked after one
“I am in favor of it.”
What he brought out, with a sense of humor, is that planning and strategy and talent and everything else is good, but it is the execution, the doing of the things that you are supposed to do, that is the key to winning, or losing.
Making sure you have a workable plan and that you have the best talent are keys to a successful business. Making sure that everyone is executing their responsibilities and achieving their objectives is the key to successful leadership. Your team’s“execution” will be the difference between winning and losing in the market place.
Secrets and Common Knowledge
I heard it once said that the difference between a business secret and common knowledge was that common knowledge was far more difficult to come by. I think to some extent this is probably the case.
Whether in sales or business management, as you progress up the ladder you become more of a “knowledge” worker and somewhat less of an implementation worker. By the nature of your expanded role you are entrusted with more information regarding the plans and strategies of the accounts or business (usually both).
This is pretty heady stuff. You are entrusted to know things that others are not. The urge is to show off and tell others the things you know. The requirement is to communicate strategies and directions so as to best align the resources to execute on the plans. The need is to do so without “broadcasting” in such a way as to reduce the value of the information by providing it to those who do not need, or should not have it.
I have stated in the past that the value of information is in sharing it. The art is being able to select what to share and who to share it with and how to share it in such a way as to be able to achieve your sales and business goals without your proprietary business information becoming “common knowledge”.
Dilbert Was Right About Strategic Plans
Strategic plans are essential to the continued well being of any business. We are all aware of this. I have been involved in organizations where the strategic plan was considered the most important document in the organization, and I have been places where it was considered a necessary (or unnecessary) evil. Wherever I have been, I have invariably found that the most successful strategic plans have adhered to what I call the Dilbert Rule for Strategic Plans.
When asked by his (pointy haired) boss for his suggestions for the strategic plan, Dilbert responded with
“Why don’t we find out what we make the most money at, and do more of that…”
Of course this was rejected out of hand as far too simple for a strategic plan. I would agree that for an entire strategic plan it probably is, but for a starting point I don’t think you could do much better. It requires a self analysis of profitability and competitive situations that will be the cornerstone of what the business is doing and will be doing going forward.
The key here is to identify your strengths and to build going forward from them. Too many times we tend to identify traits that we want to be strengths instead of those that are strengths, to build our future business on. It is by looking at both the current and desired capabilities that a good strategic plan can be created.
Next week I’ll be looking at the Jethro Bodine Clampett school of ciphering in your business. This topic covers the “goes into’s and goes out of’s” of your business. Its basic but it also works.