Posts

Trust on the Rocks

/1 Comment/in /by

You know those exercises where you fall back into a partner’s arms and trust that he or she will catch you?  What if that person is a family member, like a 16 year old daughter, or 18 year old son?

Do you trust them?  What if your relationship is on the rocks?  Literally!

Our family spent Thanksgiving rock climbing, outdoors, at a local quarry.   I like to think of it as complex cliff climbing; though for experts like my kids, the 50-75 foot climbs were mere child’s play.

There’s a lot to learn about trust when rock climbing.  For example, see this three part series in July, 2012 “Three Things You Need to Know about Trust” by Charlie Green.  Three distinct topics emerged:

Trust Fall? Try this!

  1. Trust is a Two-player Game
  2. Trust Requires Risk
  3. Trust is Reciprocal

As Charlie notes:  one party must do the trusting, and the other party must be trusted.  That is true in business and personal life, as well as in climbing.  And it’s risky.  All involved must trust each other in order to do well, be safe and have fun. 

Securing the Ropes 

In rock climbing, if the rope isn’t secure at the top of the cliff – well, I don’t want to go there.   So the climber must trust the one who secures the rope.  That person must be credible, one of the elements of the Trust Equation.

Climbers might be comfortable climbing on the ropes they set themselves.  I, for one, am not yet experienced enough to know what a secure top rope should even look like.  However, I do know my kids who secured the ropes.  They are careful, and take calculated risks.  They learn before they do, and they learn from people who know what they are doing.  So I simply trust that it will be done right.  And I don’t worry about it.  How often do we do that in business?  In life?

On Belay – Belay On; Climbing – Climb On

Top rope rock climbing is about more than trusting that the foundation is secure.  It’s trusting that the partner belaying (anchoring and holding the rope at the bottom) you will not let you fall.  And it’s reciprocal.  When there are only two of you, you have to belay the person who belays you.

Belay me downRemember the trust fall exercise?  Try this: imagine you are 50+ feet high on a rock wall with a 90 degree slope, and the only thing between you and a hospital bed is your 16 year-old daughter.

As I leaned back, I worried needlessly about whether the fact that I weighed a lot more than her would send her flying off the ground if I fell.  After all, she wasn’t secured to the ground.  At one point while I was descending, she wasn’t even watching – just feeling the tension on the rope and releasing it at just the right speed so I could safely descend the cliff until I reached the bottom.

I belayed for her climb next.  She didn’t worry about anything.  She tried something.  It did not work.  She fell and trusted that I would catch her.  And I did.  Several times.  Once when she dropped a little further than she would have liked, I got the “how did that happen?” look from her.  But she trusted it wouldn’t happen again.  And it did not.

By trusting her, and her trusting me, we strengthened our bond.  We knew we wouldn’t let the other get hurt, and we got to prove it a few times.  It kind of made us reliable.  This was repeated with each of my other kids as well.  Among all of us, I was the least trusting – and they knew it.

Trust Yourself Too

I had difficulty with one of the climbs – all right, all of the climbs.  But on one of them, my kids gave me sage advice.  “Just trust that you can do it.”  “It will be ok.”  “Take a risk.”  “Try it – we don’t know what will work either until we do it.”  “Commit.”  “The worst that will happen is you will fall and I will catch you.“

They had me on the last one.  And each of them was very reliable.  After all, I got home safely and could write this.

Next time, I will practice trusting even more.  Because the more I can let go of fear and just trust that it will work out, the better I will do, the more I will be able to do, and the more I will enjoy it.  And with rock climbing, with my kids, the more I trust them, the more we connect, bond, and appreciate each other.

Funny thing.  Doesn’t that apply to most everything in life and in business?

 

 

Blow Up Your Budgeting Process

/0 Comments/in , , /by

If you work in a large organization – This Blog’s for You.

You know what season is coming soon – you dread it. ‘Tis the season of Planning & Budgeting; the annual ritual of much time, many iterations, and little meaning – full of sound and fury, signifying not much.

What if you could radically revolutionize that process? Almost blow it up? All in a socially and politically acceptable manner, of course.

Resource Allocation is So Last Millennium

Planning and budgeting processes are about resource allocation. Partly that’s to coordinate plans. But partly it’s about predicting the future – of markets, the economy, technology – so we can intelligently place resource bets. So that we can plan on having umbrellas in case it rains.

We have built processes to worry about the future so that we can place resource bets in advance. But what if we didn’t have to place those bets in advance? Who cares about predicting rain for tomorrow if I know there will be an umbrella within arm’s reach when I need it?

What if you always had access to an umbrella? What if you did not have to make capital investments, hire and train people, develop new products – until the day before you needed to? And you were then able to do so with the snap of a finger?

You wouldn’t waste time predicting the future – you’d just deal with it on arrival. And increasingly, that’s what the world looks like.

The umbrellas, it turns out, are right within our grasp, right when we need them – if we just know to look for them. And there are three places to look.

The Three Sources of Umbrellas When You Want Them

Old style planning and budgeting assumes scarcity of resources – few umbrellas. We need to re-think; to recognize the umbrellas are already there, and we’re just facing a sourcing or distribution problem.

The three keys to changing that problem definition are speed, collaboration, and transparency.

Speed. You probably budget for headcount. If so, you assume a certain elapsed time for a category of employee – let’s say, a three-month cycle.

What if you could cut that to three weeks? To three days?  Think contracting, outsourcing, working virtually, across time zones, modularizing work. It’s the way software and movies and consulting and projects get done now, why not extend it to “core” hiring?

Speed attacks the need to plan for umbrellas, because it reduces your exposure to time-spent-without-umbrella.

Collaboration. You probably budget for facilities and equipment – because you assume you must own or have first call on assets. But what if you could get all the access you need just by sharing with others? And save tons of money at the same time?

After all, you rent a room at the Marriott in Chicago instead of owning a condo there. Push that thinking further; it’s like doubling your proven resource reserves without spending a penny on exploration.

Why own a car when you can use Zipcar? Why are you paying Microsoft for software to sit on your PC getting old when you can access cloud software, always updated, for less? Why are you buying books instead of renting them? Why are you spending money on dedicated office space when you could share it out with other tenants? Why are you driving alone?

Collaboration attacks the need to plan for umbrellas, because it changes a resource scarcity problem to a capacity utilization problem, while expanding perceived capacity.

Transparency. You probably budget for knowledge management and IP development – because you think your organization must carefully nurture its precious wisdom. But what if you could generate more knowledge, and more know-how, by openly sharing what you have with everyone else?

This is the logic behind meet-ups, networks, communities of interest, affiliate marketing, tribes, wikis, webinars, curating, mash-ups, and Spindows.

Transparency attacks the need to plan for umbrellas, because it sensitizes everyone to the presence of more umbrellas, to the availability of umbrella substitutes, and to rain-control initiatives.  

——-

Help free your organization from the tyranny of old-think resource-constrained planning and budgeting processes. Ask yourself how to get your group’s work done faster, more collaboratively, and more transparently.

This is how to be a socially and politically acceptable business revolutionary.

(Props to my mastermind group of @StewartMHirsch, Scott Parker and John Malitoris for this post) 

Making Collaboration Work

/13 Comments/in /by

I’ve got a problem. Once or twice a week, someone approaches me and says:

I really like what you do. I do something very similar. We should talk and figure out ways to do things together.

The problem: this almost never works.  Let’s figure out why.

Intent is Necessary but Not Sufficient

I’m glad people want to collaborate with me. I increasingly have little patience for those who won’t.  And when I’m the one who won’t, I know I should hit the reset button and start the day over. After all, collaboration is the new competition.

But intent alone doesn’t cut it. I can feel it in my schedule. I hate to be rude, but I just can’t take any more meetings based on goodwill and karmic synchronicity. Millions are in sync with me; I’m in danger of feeling boring, not lonely.

A Clear Vision is Necessary but Not Sufficient

If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there. From a false assumption, any conclusion logically follows. So clearly you’ve got to be clear.

But clarity alone is worth not much. 20 years in strategy consulting taught me that a brilliant strategy and four quarters is worth a dollar. Despite what the Hegelians and the authors of The Secret will tell you, thought alone will not move matter.

Action Steps are Necessary but Not Sufficient

Before nearly every keynote address I give, someone says, “What our people really want are tangible action steps they can begin using the very next day.”

Okay, here you go. Tell the truth. Tell your spouse you love them. Make lists with five bullets. Fix your attitude. Meditate. Exercise. Be kind to dogs. Read your client’s industry newsletter. Listen better. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

Yes, that’s what people want. But try just giving action steps, and see if you get paid.

The Three Pathologies of Collaboration

If you’ve only got one of these three factors working, you’ve got bupkus.

More frequently, you’ve got two factors working.  But if you’ve only got two, you’ve got a pathology.  There are three pathologies:

  • Spinning Wheels. You’ve got Intent and Vision, but no Action Steps. You get no traction. You keep on talking, but it’s always to the same people, and you’ve already convinced each other. You need some action steps.
  • Grinding It Out. You’ve got Intent and Next Steps, but no Vision. You’re all processes and metrics and execution and best practices, but you never get anywhere, because you never figured out how to aim, align, coalesce, define a purpose, set a goal, do the vision thing. You’re only running a ground game, and it’s wearing down your offense.
  • Passive Aggression. You’ve got Vision and Next Steps, but no Intent. Your team is talking the talk, but blame-throwing behind the scenes. You’re all brains and no heart. You’re stuck in a 70s military strategy game, all Machiavelli and no truth-telling. You need some positive Intent.

Those people who call me up and offer to work together?  Wheel spinning. The solution, I’m finding, is to say, “Fabulous; you come up with one great Action Step, and I’ll buy lunch. Until then, let’s not “do lunch.”

Do you work in a grind-it-out organization? Swallow your subject-matter-expert pride and hire a motivational speaker. It’ll do you good.

Do you work in a passive aggressive organization? You’re far, far from alone. Go sit in on a 12-Step program and realize that you do not have to be co-dependent.

 

What do you think? What does it take to make collaboration work?

Note: if Anne Evans or Howard Schwartz are reading this, big props to you for an earlier version of the pathologies. And if you’re not reading it, write me and explain why.

How Measurement Destroys Trust

/5 Comments/in /by

Speaking with a marketing firm today, it struck me again how deeply embedded within the business culture has become the notion of measurement.

The obsession goes well beyond the mantra “if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it” (which is nonsense on the face of it). It has become a knee-jerk reaction to a new idea, concept, or perspective. In particular, ideas having to do with people.

Remember these workplace slogans?

  • The war for talent
  • People are our most important assets
  • Customer loyalty
  • Customer relationship management
  • People development
  • Human capital
  • Employee engagement

Every one of these ostensibly business buzzwords has been subjected by the business world to death by measurement. The prevailing wisdom asserts that if you can’t figure out a metric for something, it isn’t worthwhile; for all practical purposes, it doesn’t exist.

(For those amused by analogies, there was a school of philosophy in the ‘20s centered around the “verifiability criterion of meaningfulness,” which said if you couldn’t verify it, it sort of didn’t even exist. Which certainly ruled out god and poetry, probably trees falling in an un-peopled forest, and quite possibly any interesting sex life.)

The average view in management today is that none of those “humanistic” terms have any utility—or even any meaning—if they can’t be quantitatively linked to economic performance. Of the firm. This quarter.

Hence “measurement” becomes the handmaiden of a means and ends argument. The end is the strategic/financial performance of the corporate entity to which you swear fealty. The means are—well, any of those human-type things.

Hence you hear the most deeply human virtues “justified” by the numbers—as if they weren’t justified as ends in themselves.

Loyalty gets judged as valuable only to the extent it makes money. Employee engagement? Good because it benefits the firm. Attraction and? Cuts human capital costs to the firm.

Like Pavlovian dogs, we have come to substitute “measurement” as a proxy for “shareholder value.” Ring the “metric” bell and we salivate for sustainable competitive advantage. Because after all—how can you argue against measurement? If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it—and so on, and so on.

Unlike P.T. Barnum, I am constantly amazed at the ability of business in the past few decades to subordinate the most advanced, human, even spiritual concepts, to a “greater good”—the enhanced economic value of a non-human entity called a corporation.

I first heard it when someone said, “Trusted advisor—that sounds like a good idea; anything that’ll increase share of wallet, I’m all for it.”

I heard it when I saw "loyalty" debased as simply repeated, and harnessed to price-driven frequent-buyer programs.

I hear it again in the oxymoron "human capital."

I see it in lenders and borrowers alike walking away from loans because “it no longer adds up.”

Trust happens to be a fabulous economic strategy—the strategy for our times— don’t get me wrong. But if your only reason for being trusted is to make money, then nobody’s going to trust you. It’s that paradox thing.

"Love! Cool!

Well, sounds good, but—you know—how you gonna measure it?

Come back to me when you can make that love thing work on the Street, in a business process, or in a marketing campaign. Show me the love levers, the love success factors (LSFs). 

Have you got some love diagnostics so we can do a love gap analysis and a love needs assessment?  You need to break it down with some behavioral metrics; what are best practices love behaviors?  

Have you got something that really makes the business case for love?  Who out there is a success story, really doing the love thing and making a ton of money at it?  How can we be sure love isn’t just another fad? 

How fast can you roll out the love campaign? 

What’s the payback?"

I saw a new book out the other day called "Spiritual Capitalism." I haven’t yet read a word of it; I’m a little afraid to do so. I can conceive of how it might be a good book, but I’m suspicious it’s going to justify spirituality on the grounds that it makes money. Which spirituality does, but if making money becomes the end, then you end up not just spiritually bankrupt but not so good in your checking account either.

There’s nothing wrong with measurement per se. In the long run, measures work and are meaningful. A great idea will measurably win out in the long run. But what results from repetitive microscopic measurement tends to be just the belief that people exist for the company—not the other way ‘round.