Character, Problem Solving, Risk

Phishing Victim…..Me?

Leave a comment

I enjoy writing my blog. I really enjoy getting comments. That means that someone has read my Blog, and thought enough about it to take the time and write a comment. I put an effort into thinking about topics to write on and for the most part it appeared that the people that wrote comments did also. That was until recently.

In the last few months I started to get a significant number of comments. At first I thought this was pretty neat. We all like a little recognition and this increase in comments seemed to indicate that I might be getting some.

Not…

Upon closer inspection of this newfound number of comments I noticed that they all seemed to be based from “Russian” servers. This is only an assumption, but it is based on the URL nomenclature of the site that generating the comment. Russian? Really? Could I really be generating a following in Russia?

Still something about this seemed “Phishy”. So I decided that I would Google one of the more reasonable sounding sights to see if they truly existed. It generated another Blog site. I then decided to go to one of this more reputable sounding site. I went, I saw, and I read. No big deal.

That’s when it started. The next day I got notification from my site hosting service that they had complied with my wish to have my domain changed. My domain changed? Who requested that?

I then went to my site to see what this all meant. What is meant was my site was no longer where I had bookmarked it. My site had been hijacked.

I then called (not emailed, not IM’ed, called) my hosting provider and asked what was going on. They said that they had complied with my email request to relocate my site to another domain/server. This was obviously news to me.

After verifying (via security questions and the like) that I was in fact who I said I was, and that the site in question was indeed mine, we started down the road to reclaiming my site. After the appropriate programming magic was accomplished, we started back-tracking what had happened.

It appears that by even going to the supposedly acceptable site of one of my commenter’s I had somehow enabled them to get into my hosting account through the information I had left (like they leave at my site) at their site. They then hacked my account and hijacked my site.

This was again, and interesting and somewhat unsettling experience. But the greater question to me is: Why would someone want my site? There is not a significant amount of traffic there (from internet standards), nor are there any secrets. I guess I will have to be vigilant and watch for any issues that may arrive at a later date. In the mean time, I would ask and suggest that all who receive any of these strange / anomalous emails or comments to beware.

Decision Making, Leadership, Performance

Information…or Punishment

Leave a comment

Business and project reviews are good opportunities for leaders to get a view into the business on how it is performing. They need to be scheduled often enough so that topics and trends can be identified before they become issues, and not so often that they become onerous and drain time and resources away from the business in preparing for them.




How often should you have them? Monthly? Every two Months? Quarterly? I think that it depends on the actual cycle time of the business. By cycle time I mean the amount of time that must pass before the results of an action can be recognized in the business’s financial reports. Hi-tech business cycle times are normally on the order of months.




However, we have all been in organizations where managers have uttered the immortal phrase “We will have weekly reviews on this issue until it is resolved…” It is good to let the team know which topic is a high priority and what is not, but a leader should not take this approach for several reasons.




If you are truly committed to this approach you have to be prepared to attend every one of these reviews. As soon as you fail to attend, or send a delegate, you are communicating to the team that the issue is no longer as high a priority to you. The team will also take that into account as they set and work their own priorities.




The other aspect of this action is, what are you trying to achieve? If you understand your business’s cycle time, and you know it is longer than the periodicity of the reviews, what do you hope to gain, or learn from the more frequent reviews?  It is in this area that information transfer becomes perceived as a punishment. You are in effect telling your team that you did not like the information that they provided you, and that you will hold repeated reviews until they provide you the information that you do like.




A better approach is to take and assign action items at the initial review. The action items can and should be specific and should have response and delivery objectives that are well in advance of the next regularly scheduled review. That way changes and actions can be taken quickly, feedback can be obtained in advance of the next review, and enough time can be provided to recognize the financial impact of the changes. In this way you can communicate the priority of a topic, the actions that you feel need to be taken, assign time lines and monitor progress, without turning what should be a useful communication session into a perceived ordeal and punishment.




Remember, if you are perceived as punishing people for bringing you what you feel is bad news, they will stop bringing you the issues. By taking the action item approach you can encourage the early discussion of potential issues and help work to avoid them. The team will appreciate the leadership.

Challenge, Change Management, Leadership

Significance

Are you significant? Are you relevant? I don’t mean these questions in some sort of cosmic, or existential sort of way. I am sure that to yourself, your family and friends, you are. At least I hope you are. I mean are you significant and / or relevant on the professional level to you individually, and also on the greater level to the business you create or lead.


 


Let’s say you lead an organization that is responsible for $25 Million in revenue. If the entire revenue of the business is $25 Million, then you are obviously extremely significant. If the entire revenue of the business is $1 Billion, then potentially, at only 2.5% of total revenues, you may not be very significant.


 


On the other hand, if the total earnings for the 1$ Billion business is only $10 Million, and your $25 Million revenue organization is responsible for $10 Million in earnings, you could be very significant, depending on the earnings and losses of the other organizations within the business. As you can see, there may be no hard and fast rules regarding significance and relevance for a business.


 


There may however be some indications about an organization’s significance and relevance to the business. What is the revenue trend? Is it up, down or flat? Upward revenue trending businesses are naturally more relevant as business growth is always a focus. What is the earnings trend in both real dollars and as a percentage of revenue? Of the two, real dollars are usually more important, but businesses like to see both earnings dollars and percentage of revenue on an upward trend.


 


As you can see, significance and relevance in business is usually measured with a number, and the number usually has a “$” sign in front of it.


 


Now there are some “significant” businesses that may not meet this acid test. These are organizations that are usually deemed either “strategic” or “investment” organizations. That means that the business is putting resources into these organizations with the expectation that they will become significant and relevant quickly. Usually very quickly.


 


With the increased demand for and the decreased supply of resources (money, time, people) in the business, strategic and investment organizations are becoming rarer, and those that do exist are having greater demands for more significant performance faster. As the owners of the business (Stockholders, either private or public) demand better performance, so must this be translated into increased demands on each of the business’s organizations for increased and faster improvements in their performance.


 


Now with all this in place, what do you do when you find yourself in an organization that seems to be neither Relevant nor Strategic to the business?


There are several paths that can be taken in this instance. The choice can depend on personal preference and personality, assessment of the overall business, and the willingness of the individual and organization to accept change. I won’t go into great detail here. I will leave that to the next Blog article, but the basic responses to being in an irrelevant or non-strategic organization are:



  • Move to a new organization that meets the requirements of either a Relevant or Strategic organization.

  • Accept the organizations status within the business and work to make it successful within the bounds and expectations associated with that status.

  • Make the changes required to make the existing organization relevant. This can include changes to products, people and processes. This would include making the required changes needed to make the organization relevant on either the Revenue or Earnings level, or moving it into a strategic role.


I have always tried to be a change agent within the organizations that I have been associated with, so you can suspect what choices I have made in the past. I will look at those options, and others in the next article.

consensus building, Leadership, Responsibility

Another Conference Call?

3 Comments

Is it just me, or have conference calls become so pervasive that they are beginning to hamper a team’s ability to get things done? Perhaps I am dating myself, but I do recall when conferencing circuits and services were expensive and were reserved for important topics and meetings. With the increase in the availability of conferencing capabilities, it seems that both the number of conference calls and the number of attendees in the conference calls have skyrocketed.

Conference calls are useful leadership tools. They provide the opportunity for a great deal of information to be exchanged in a short period of time. They provide a forum where issues and concerns can be identified and dealt with quickly. They also seem to provide the opportunity for the dreaded “group think”.

With everybody on the call, and with everybody expounding opinions, eventually a group solution can evolve, unless the call is well managed and led. It is natural to try and take all opinions into account. However too many diverse ideas and inputs can have a tendency to conflict and weaken a direction instead of strengthening it. A leader must remember his responsibility to lead on a conference call, instead of allowing the call to take on a direction of its own.

Conference calls can also have the affect of distributing risk associated with decisions and responsibility. The idea here is that if everyone on the conference call agreed, then everyone shares the responsibility for the outcome. If the outcome is good, this is fine. If the outcome does not produce the desired results, then having everyone share the responsibility for the decision is the same as having no one having responsibility for the decision.

I am a proponent of the association of responsibility and authority when it comes to decision making. That means that the leader is vested with authority to make the requisite decisions, and is held responsible for the results their decisions create. It seems the trend in conference calls is for the decision to be moved from the leader to the conference call attendees. This may result in a decision eventually being made, but it also results in no one having responsibility for the results that are created.

Conference calls can be excellent tools for leaders to use in order to make intelligent decisions. It seems that instead of being a means to an end that they have in fact become the end themselves. Instead of being a tool to enable a decision to be made, that they have become the decision forum itself.

As long as the leader understands their responsibilities, a conference call can be a good tool. However it seems that the trend today may not be in that direction, and every time I get another meeting notice I can’t help but think – another conference call?

Achievement, Compensation, Goals, Incentives

No Corporate Goals

3 Comments

With the beginning of the year comes the phrase that
while maybe not striking fear in the heart of a leader, will definitely elicit
a wince, or two. It’s time for annual reviews for the previous year, and the
setting of individual objectives for the New Year. This event normally ranks
right up there with root canal on the fun scale for a leader.

Despite my poking a little fun at how the process mat
be perceived, it is a very important process for the successful business. Set
the goals too low and you bog the business down because goals are achieved to
easily or to early. Set the goals too high and you run the risk of the team not
giving a full effort for a goal that is seen as impossible to achieve.

Another aspect of goal setting that is often
overlooked is that of materiality. We have all been recipients of the dreaded
“corporate” objective. That is the overall corporate Revenue, or Profitability
goal. While this may be a suitable goal for a division or business leader, at some
point in the hierarchy it does become meaningless.

Goals are only useful if the individual that the goal
is set for as the ability to achieve or affect the achievement of that goal.
Many will argue that everyone in the corporation has the ability to affect the
achievement of the corporate goal. This is where the idea of materiality comes
in. The entry level specialists may be able to contribute to the corporate goal
achievement, but their “rating” on this objective will be largely dependent on
the work and decisions of those managers and leaders above them.

“Corporate” goals bring down the performance of your
highest performers and mask and bring up the performance of those on the lower
end of the scale. An example would be if the performance of the leader (and
team) of a higher performing smaller division, would fail to get a bonus or an
appropriate review based on not achieving a corporate “objective” because a
larger, poorer performing division brought the overall corporate performance
down.

It seems to have long been held that if the entire
corporation did not achieve their goals then no one in the corporation could be
said to have full achieved their goals. In reality in this situation there are
always those that have achieved or exceeded their goals. It is just that their
performance has been masked by another group that has not. In this case the
higher performers have been lumped in with the lower performers, with little
opportunity for financial differentiation between them.

So, as the Novocain from the
root canal wears off, and the inevitability of having to set the individual
goals for the members of the team looms large, remember; Try not to set the
goals too low or too high, and make sure that the individual can in fact
achieve, or affect the achievement of the goal. In many instances this will
mean No Corporate Goals.

Competition, Customer Management, Customer Relationship

Sun Tzu, Competition and Customers

Leave a comment

Sun Tzu was a Chinese military general in approximately the 5th century, B.C. He is renowned for never losing a battle. He wrote a treatise on conducting campaigns called “The Art of War”. It is an excellent book and I highly recommend it.




Most people apply what Sun Tzu wrote to the on going battles with competitors, and this may in fact be a very good application of some of his axioms. Most people apply Sun Tzu’s writings from the point of “winning” that battle, when in fact he wrote about “not losing” the battle. He was renowned for never losing a battle. He didn’t win them all. Many times he chose not to engage the competition because he felt he did not have a sufficient enough advantage to assure his victory.




Sun Tzu wrote;


“If you do not know your own capabilities, and you don’t not know your adversaries capabilities, you can not win.


If you do know your own capabilities, and you don’t not know your adversaries capabilities, you can lose half the time.


If you do not know your own capabilities, and you do know your adversaries capabilities, you can lose half the time.


If you do know your own capabilities, and you do know your adversaries capabilities, you can not lose.”




This is very interesting stuff, and I have written about it before. The question I would like to address here is how this relates to Customers, not competition.




Once the engagement with the competition has been won, a new engagement begins with the customer. Once the customer has been won, they are not guaranteed to be your customer for life. The idea here is to follow the idea of “not losing” the customer. If you know your own capabilities (and you probably do because you won against the competition) you must now learn the customer’s capabilities in order to be assured that “you can not lose”.




Over time (either short or long term) your corporate / business / group focus can change. These changes may not be perceived as congruent with the directions and desires of your customer. Over time the people and requirements of your customer will also change. These changes may change their perception of the value of having the current business relationship with you. The key is to be aware of and adapt to these changes in both your and the customers “capabilities”.




Research shows that it is 5 times easier to sell a new product or capability to an existing customer than it is to sell to a new customer. Every customer that is lost out of your customer base takes 5 times the effort to replace. What this shows is that winning customers is great. Not losing the customers you have is 5 times better.




Once the competitors are beaten and the customer is engaged, it stands to reason that you can modify Sun Tzu a little to read;



“If you do know your own capabilities, and you do know your Customer’s capabilities, you can not lose.”

Challenge, Change, Change Management, Culture

Don’t Produce…..Create

4 Comments

Happy New year to all. Here is to working toward a great 2011.

We have all heard the statements regarding the need to “produce” results. In these days of ever tighter budgets and greater demands for profits and performance, the phrase “produce, or perish” might never be more accurate. It is possible that after so much time trying to improve and refine our production that it might be time for a new approach.

“Producing” results had normally come from finding a way to do an existing job or process incrementally better than it had been done in the past. This incremental approach to producing and improving results has a tendency to run out of momentum due to the law of decreasing returns. It eventually requires more and more incremental process refinements to produce less and less incremental results improvements. After several years in the current economic environment, it may be possible to say that we are in fact in the region of decreasing returns when it comes to incrementally improving, and producing results.

What is required today in the business environment is a quality that seems to be in short supply during tough economic times: Creativity. In down economic times the “Risk / Return” relationship in business seems to invert. That is to say that the “Risk” part of the equation takes on a greater and greater importance vs. the potential for the improvement of the return. In down times it assumed that the “Return” will be more and more difficult to attain, so the process focuses more and more on reducing the risk and in many instance the cost of the change. This process plays more and more into the “Incremental” approach to improving and producing results.

The time has come for businesses at all levels to start looking at the data differently; to rethink the processes and to “Create” new business and new ways of doing things, not incrementally producing and improving the current results. This is obviously much more easily said than done. You cannot command the team to just create new ways of doing things, but as the leader of the team you can become adept at recognizing what is incremental improvement and what is the creation of new ways of doing business.

Again it is usually easier to accept the incremental improvement proposals. Some may be valuable and can be implemented; however as they say “Necessity is the mother of invention”. If you can show the unwillingness to increment, and the willingness to implement and reward the creation of the new, you can start to change the way business gets done. The responsibility to recognize and foster the creation of new processes and business needs to be vested with those that have the authority to accept and make those changes.

The time has come for businesses and business leaders to stop producing results, and start creating them.

Execution, Follow up

Familiarity…….

I have been Blogging for a couple of years now. It may have taken me a little while to become comfortable with the creation, format and process associated with creating a posting, but I thought I had it down. I was familiar with how to do it…I thought.


 


The old saying is “Familiarity breeds contempt”. I don’t think that is the case. For me familiarity seemed to breed a confidence in my capabilities that resulted in a lack of attention to detail.


 


I wrote my last article (“It’s Not “What””) and did all of the appropriate and required steps in the process to make sure it was posted. I then went out to all of the various and assorted sites where I announce a new article and updated them. I thought I had done everything. Why wouldn’t I? It’s what I have been doing for the last 2 years.


 


The only difference was that I normally go out to my site to make sure the article is posted and that it is accessible. For some reason, I didn’t do that last time. I must have gotten distracted, or something else came up. In any event, I didn’t go look. I didn’t double check the end result / finished product.


 


If I had, I would have seen that I had not in fact posted my article. I had left it in the “Pending” file. I did a great job of notifying everyone that there was a new article posted for them to read, but didn’t close the loop of actually putting a new article out there for them to read.


 


In the process of becoming so comfortable, so familiar with the Blogging process I created both my own problem and a topic for my next article.


 


It is hard not to put things on “autopilot” when we are doing something that we have done many times in the past. When we are doing something we are familiar with, we have a tendency to not give it our entire attention. The end result is that eventually a mistake gets made in an area where it should not normally occur.


 


I would not have thought to talk about a continued focus on the basics and standard processes, but then I would have thought that I would not have made such a basic mistake as not making sure that I had in fact posted my last article.


 


I will check to make sure that this one does in fact get appropriately posted.

Communication, Leadership, Strategy

It’s Not “What”

2 Comments

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.

Change Management, Competition, Customer Relationship, Decision Making, Sales

Equipment is Becoming a Commodity

Leave a comment

It used to be that if you made the best products, you had a distinct competitive advantage. However, today it appears that things have changed. If you are not making the best products, you are not at a competitive disadvantage, you are out of business.

Off-shoring, and its new euphemism “Right-Shoring”, have reduced the costs of everyone’s products. Moore’s Law (the doubling of technology’s capabilities approximately every 18 months) is well understood, and in some quarters is thought to be close to having run its course. With so many open standards, products are no longer comparable, they are virtually interchangeable.

As China emerges on the technology scene as an economic super power, it is using its competitive labor advantage (most technology based companies have their products manufactured in China by various Contract Manufacturers), and its technical parity to try and make every customer’s buying decision a price based one. In trying to make every buying decision solely a priced based one, it is in effect “commoditizing” the equipment.

If there is no ability to differentiate equipment, other than price, what can be done? The obvious choice is to start focusing on the non-equipment differentiators: the level of relationship and trust between the customer and vendor, ease of equipment installation, ease of product maintenance, warranty length and breadth of coverage, etc. In short Service.

As products become more technically capable, they can have a tendency to become more complex to operate. Their installation and implementation have become more specialized. Their maintenance and the ability to trouble shoot their problems require much more training and specialized support.

Customers do not seem to buy technology for technology’s sake. They are buying a “use” or application to fulfill their specific need. The ability to simplify and reduce the customer’s perceived risk associated with the implementation and operation of their equipment in the delivery of its functional usage can be significant equipment decision differentiators.

With it becoming so difficult to differentiate commoditized equipment, it will pay to try and differentiate the ease and simplicity of product usage, the depth and breadth of support, and the comprehensive level of service that will accompany the equipment. When the competition is trying to make the customer’s buying decision a price based one, you will need to try and make it a service based one to change the decision criteria back in your favor.