Today is all about innovation, so grab your coffee and settle in. Only one to read and the rest you can listen to or watch. Enjoy!
First, check out how Mark King, CEO of TaylorMade drives “relentless innovation” that has doubled revenue since 2003.
Now listen to Always On CEO Tony Perkins, Tim Draper, Founder and Managing Director of venture capital company Draper Fisher Jurvetson and founding partner of ThinkEquity and author of Finding the Next Starbucks talk about What is the Next Big Thing?
Then click over and explore the bonanza of innovation inspiration in the form of podcasts and videos at the Stanford University Entrepreneurial Corner. I think you’ll find it worth bookmarking.
I was delighted when I was sent a free copy of Barack, Inc.: Winning Business Lessons of the Obama Campaign to review. Not just because I voted for him, but because this is a book about how to sell change, major change, to strangers and in doing so turn them into a community of supporters.
That’s what Apple did with the iPod and that’s what every CEO recognizes as being of paramount importance.
But it’s not just about managing change; it’s about creating a desire for it. It’s about creating an environment where changes are being driven by your workers, not just by you and your execs.”
That’s what Obama and his team did brilliantly and that’s why you should read the book.
Forget politics, think about the challenges your company faces. Survival isn’t enough.
The business world and consumer landscapes are changing—industries that downplay or ignore innovation to focus on survival and the status quo out of fear of upsetting their current business model are likely to be swept away by the transformation rocking the global economy.
To thrive, you need to engage your current stakeholders (investors, employees, vendors, current customers)—just as Obama did.
His success turned on three main points, he
kept his cool under all provocations,
applied social technologies, including blogs, texting, and viral videos, and
made himself synonymous with what he was selling—change.
Obama allowed nothing to be set in stone and moved swiftly when the landscape changed.
One of my favorite examples was his choice to reject funding limitations, although he had previously said he would accept them. Why?
Because he realized that the amount of money he would raise via the Net more than compensated for McCain’s bashing him for the switch.
Now substitute ‘innovation’ for money and ‘quarterly results’ for bashing and give it some hard thought.
Read the book; adopt/tweak/adjust its lessons and tools for your company’s situation and then execute, because all the theory and examples won’t help unless you have the courage to use them.
Can you imagine telling your boss that you deserve a raise because you come to work on time every day?
Or that she shouldn’t fire you for poor performance because you tried really, really hard?
Last week on Leadership’s Future a young man named Andrew started a conversation. During it he gave me a link to an article in the NY Times about student expectations.
Expectations based on that sense of entitlement which makes me nuts.
It seems that today’s students expect an A if they attend class and turn in assignments.
And it’s wrong for the professors to consider the quality of work, since a lower grade will affect their job opportunities and that’s not fair.
“A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that a third of students surveyed said that they expected B’s just for attending lectures, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the required reading. … Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.”
It’s not surprising, since K-12 inflates grades, passes everyone in order to keep their funding, and fires teachers who cling to the out-moded idea that school is a place to actually learn.
Here are two student quotes that seem to sum up a majority viewpoint…
“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade. What else is there really than the effort that you put in? If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point? If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.” –Jason Greenwood, senior, University of Maryland
“I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B.” –Sarah Kinn, junior, University of Vermont
As hiring managers and potential colleagues I’m sure this attitude thrills you no end.
Do you find it terrifying that at some point in the future these same students may be your doctor or lawyer and that, reality forbid, these are the people who will teach the next generation? I do.
The story drew 131 comments; I didn’t read them all, but here are three that struck me.
“I think the disputes about grading also stem from students approaching education as consumers. Because they pay to attend school, they have an attitude of, “the customer is always right” and feel they should have their grades their way.” –Tiffany Mills, Detroit, MI
“Having been for a time peripherally associated with a Junior Year Abroad program in Paris, I was shocked to learn that certain parents of students whose grades were mediocre would actually telephone the program director and threaten her with various forms of retribution if the grades were not inflated. Apparently students are not the only ones with a sense of entitlement!!” — Jill Bourdais, Paris, France
I appreciated this one, since it sums up what should happen when grades are down…
“I received a D+ on my first paper for a history course in my freshman year of college. After the initial shock and indignation wore off… That course was a turning point in my education. I wasn’t just regurgitating facts, but thinking about the source materials from the perspective of those who wrote it and really analyzing the content. It showed me a new way to read into materials in other courses and helped me earn better grades. I earned a B in the class and was delighted with the grade, considering how far I come. A bad grade isn’t always a bad thing. It can be an opportunity to improve.” — Maggi S, Chicago, IL
And finally, a comment that probably reflects what many of you are currently thinking.
“Students who think that just attending class and doing the reading is enough are in for a huge shock when (or if) they enter the world of work. I’m a writer. If I spend hours on a piece, but it doesn’t do what my client wants it to do, I’ve failed. I don’t get paid. Merely “doing the work” ain’t enough; it’s the QUALITY of the work that counts.” — JoMo, Minneapolis MN
On a practical note, hiring managers might find it of more value to look at grades a bit differently as I explain here.
“The percentage of girls who say they believe that today both men and women have an equal chance of getting a leadership position has declined from 35 percent to 24 percent between 2007 and 2008.”
And the guys still seem to have problems if women “get tough” (like them), especially in male-dominated fields.
“Speak lowly and slowly, but smile frequently…This advice…was based on my observation that women must adhere to a narrow band of behavior in order to be effective in mostly male settings.”
WSJ Online republished an article from 2005 looking at the difference between how most women relate to numbers vs. most men and its effect on earnings. Sadly, it hasn’t really changed.
“Female M.B.A.s have a bias to nurturing and team building and male M.B.A.s to a more analytically driven focus on success and independence. My advice is that both should develop more well-rounded skills.”
“Studies show that in almost all measures of executive performance women are equal to or outperform men, with one exception: vision. Ibarra’s review of the 360 degree reviews of nearly 3,000 women revealed that, in general, they were seen as less visionary.”
McKinsey, however, presents a trenchant case (requires free registration) on why women are important, not in terms of political correctness, but to the bottom line.
“The gender gap isn’t just an image problem: our research suggests that it can have real implications for company performance. Some companies have taken effective steps to achieve greater parity.”
But the world turns and times change. When the ruling class screws up big time, people often embrace the opposition.
“Icelandic women, however, are more likely to be studying the financial news than the recipes – and more likely to be thinking about how to put right the mess their men have made of the banking system than about cooking them comfort food. … But for a generation of fortysomething women, the havoc is translating into an opportunity to step into the positions vacated by the men blamed for the crisis, and to play a leading role in creating a more balanced economy, which, they argue, should incorporate overtly feminine values.”
“John Coates, a researcher at Cambridge University concluded that traders made the highest profits when they had the highest levels of testosterone in their spit. The downside, he said, was that elevated testosterone also led to riskier behavior, a formula for disaster as well as profit.”
What do you think? Would the bankers have played derivative Russian roulette if there had been more women in the in the halls of Wall Street power?
The list of basic cultural IBBs prompted a phone call from a reader asking for more information on the dual career ladder. When we were done, he suggested that I put that information on the blog this week. Who am I to argue with a reader?
I’m not an historian, but I think that the need for the ladder was seen first in the technical world at least 40 years ago and although they may not have been the first, IBM and the original Bell Labs were two of the highest profile early adopters.
People work to improve their situation, but companies need only so many managers and only so many people want to manage. This is especially true in tech companies where many people are ill-suited to management roles, yet that was the only road to a raise.
So the two driving facts behind the dual ladder were
a limited number of management positions—the number is still shrinking as corporate structures keep flattening; and
recognition that not everyone is suited to management.
Enter the Dual Career Ladder; it’s simple, logical and most easily explained with this graphic
IBM Called their highest level Sr. Fellow, Bell Labs used Principal Engineer. Both positions were more than just an honor for which people strove, since they carried with them the same compensation and status as a director or vice president.
My caller asked why the model wasn’t in wider use if it was so effective.
That’s easy, ego and culture.
Accepting, for example, that a software architect is of equal value to the company as a vice president and should be compensated accordingly is hard to swallow. Few executives are comfortable with the idea that people who do hands-on work are as valuable to the organization as they are. This plays out at every level of management from team leader up.
And it’s not just in tech that this happens. I still remember when the top salesman in a certain industry had his commissioned cut because he had sold so much product that his earnings were more than the company president’s salary. That was deemed “unseemly” and so the decision to cut his commission. His reaction was what you would expect and he gave his notice less than a week later.
Because of that ego, the ladder needs to be deeply embedded in the company’s culture so it can be implemented fairly and evenly throughout the organization.
There’s been a lot said (and ranted) over the last couple of decades about the dumbing down of America. Not just kids, but adults, too.
I’m not referring to the expertise each of us has that allows us to do our jobs and generally function, but of the general knowledge of the world in which we live—literature, geography, art, etc.—call it liberal arts, if you will.
Few Americans are multi-lingual, as opposed to Europeans, East Europeans, Russians, Asians, etc., and our knowledge of geography is laughable.
I remember a survey during the Bosnia war and more than half of the respondents didn’t know where Bosnia was or that it, along with the republics of Slovenia, Croatia, and Herzegovina, were part of the old Yugoslavia, with Serbia and Montenegro forming the rest—nor did they seem to care.
For centuries, fighting of one kind or another has gone on almost constantly in the Middle East and, to put it mildly, is still going on and having a major impact on us today.
But most people have only a vague idea where these countries are.
How much do you know? Click the MAP below and see how well you do on arranging the listed countries.
On a general level I had them on the right continent, but don’t think much of my knowledge beyond that.
Does it matter? Does knowledge in liberal arts areas foster more than interesting, late night discussions over a bottle of wine?
What does it mean to be educated in the Twenty-first Century?
If I had spent the entire year scouring for business quotes to fit this title I probably wouldn’t find as perfect a selection as the ten offered up by Business Week in the Worst Predictions About 2008.
Here are my favorites, which do you like?
The Bad
“I’m not an economist, but I do believe that we’re growing.” —President George W. Bush, July 15, 2008 Nope. GDP shrank at a 0.5% annual rate in the July-September quarter. On Dec. 1, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession had begun in December 2007. (I thought that’s why presidents have advisers, so they didn’t have to be an expert in everything.)
The Worse
“A very powerful and durable rally is in the works. But it may need another couple of days to lift off. Hold the fort and keep the faith!” —Richard Band, editor, Profitable Investing Letter, Mar. 27, 2008 (This is not the guy you want editing your investment advice.)
“I think Bob Steel’s the one guy I trust to turn this bank around, which is why I’ve told you on weakness to buy Wachovia.” —Jim Cramer, CNBC commentator, Sept. 15, 2008 Two weeks later, Wachovia shares lost half their value from Sept. 15 to Dec. 29. nearly failed as depositors fled. CEO Steel eventually agreed to a takeover by Wells Fargo. (Can you imagine who he distrusts?)
The Ugly
“I expect there will be some failures…. I don’t anticipate any serious problems of that sort among the large internationally active banks.” —Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, Feb. 28, 2008 In September, Washington Mutual became the largest financial institution in U.S. history to fail. Citigroup needed an even bigger rescue in November. (Come on. If you’re gonna head the Fed you need to prognosticate at least as well as you obfuscate!)
“In today’s regulatory environment, it’s virtually impossible to violate rules.”—Bernard Madoff, money manager, Oct. 20, 2007 On Dec. 11, Madoff was arrested for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme that may have cost investors $50 billion. (Unless your name is Bernie and you’ve been doing it for a decade.)
OK, your turn now. Click the link and choose your favorites or supply your own in comments.
I love it! I just read a great article calledLeadership Malpractice. Not by the media or some external pundit, but by Harvard Public Leadership Lecturer Barbara Kellerman, author of Bad Leadership and Followership.
What a terrific idea. Kellerman says that since “leadership is increasingly considered a profession,”so leaders should be subject to the same punishments as other professionals, such as doctors and lawyers.
Doesn’t that sound like an idea whose time has come?
Kellerman points out that business leaders are appointed; “in the first nine months of this year a record 1,132 CEOs quit or were shown the door” due to poor corporate performance, a few are behind bars, but even truly rotten performance carried no serious consequences, in fact, “most left with their financial futures handsomely secured.”
“No insignificant number of top executives have been culpable of negligence, failures that caused injury to others. To take only a few glaring examples, top executives at A.I.G., Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, or for that matter at General Motors, all failed abysmally to protect employees and stockholders alike.”
Leadership has become a profession in and of itself.
“It is taught in professional schools, in schools of government and public administration, and in nearly all business schools. There are countless books on how to exercise good leadership, and countless courses and seminars, both in and out of the academy, in which leadership is taught. It’s time then to apply to leadership the same standard that we apply to other professions. Similarly, when this standard is not met, even minimally, it’s time to hold leaders accountable by suing them for malpractice.”
Once someone is on the ‘leadership track’ they move forward with amazing speed—and less and less scrutiny the higher they go. When they foul up, they are often eased out, rather than being fired—an action that would make the person who hired/promoted them look bad.
By the time they’re appointed to the corner office they are practically untouchable; with few exceptions this applies to the entire C suite. Oh, they can be fired, and they often are, but that rarely impacts their career.
There is much talk of accountability, but most is empty.
Perhaps leadership malpractice would finally bring some serious accountability to the guys out front—the same guys whose monster egos and Teflon finishes keep them walking away unscathed.
Sadly, this is Wes’ last post; his heavy schedule and several new projects preclude him from continuing to write for Leadership Turn. Wes sends this message, “Thank you all for visiting and reading my posts each Tuesday for the past several months. I hope that you were challenged to think differently about leadership and business management. My best wishes go to Miki and the entire B5 team.” I want to thank Wes for his insights on creating a leader-of-the-pack company; if they’ve proved useful to you please take a moment and say so. Finally, you can find more of Wes’ insights, as well as contact him, at the Ball Group.
Are you shooting yourself in the foot by giving away more and more in an effort to grow/maintain your business during bad times?
A proven secret to getting more [for you] is offering less [to them].
When the San Diego Padres moved to their new stadium in 2004, they had one-third fewer seats to sell, yet they sold a million more tickets at 32% higher prices that first year.
Subway franchisees have learned the best way to boost total sales is to reduce seating.
Many retailers have discovered that a smaller parking lot increases store traffic.
When you want to boost demand for almost anything, just tell people that availability is limited. Likewise, if you want more people to take you seriously and aspire to own what you sell, raise your prices.
Since all of the above are proven to work, why is it that as soon as the economy looks a little shaky, otherwise smart business owners and managers start trying to provide more for less?
There is an irrational fear that overtakes even the toughest and savviest business owners as soon as they start to project less demand ahead.
Instead of working on how to increase demand among the 85+% of those customers who still have needs on which they will spend, they focus on the 10-15% of customers who are willing to risk failure and loss rather than spend money and doing that undermines the value of their products/services to all customers.
Businesses start discounting. They work on giving away more for less. They make even well-heeled customers believe that their product or service is worth less.
Anyone, who has read my writing for more than a few weeks or who has seen any of the research I have conducted on what creates sustainable success, knows that I get really annoyed with marketers who needlessly give things away.
It harms them. It harms their competitors. It harms the category in which they sell. And it harms the economy.
It also works to prolong economic downturns, because it not only undermines the financial well-being of many companies, but also makes customers believe that prices should stay that low, extending the pain for months longer than necessary.
Take a clue from the Padres. If you have something worth selling, look for ways to give away less and grow your demand.
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you will do better and gain more long-term. You will also help the market in general.
Is your company reacting to the economy by doing more for less or less for more?
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
Today is all about innovation, so grab your coffee and settle in. Only one to read and the rest you can listen to or watch. Enjoy!
Can you imagine telling your boss that you deserve a raise because you come to work on time every day?
Last year I wrote about the 
The list of 
If I had spent the entire year scouring for business quotes to fit this title I probably wouldn’t find as perfect a selection as the ten offered up by Business Week in the 
I love it! I just read a great article called 
Are you shooting yourself in the foot by giving away more and more in an effort to grow/maintain your business during bad times?
