No question about it, I am a Malcolm Gladwell fan and his new book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, sounds fascinating.

I can’t comment further, since I haven’t had a chance to read it, but two points from this interview stood out among many others.

First, I have always believed the road to Hell was paved with bad assumptions and Gladwell seems to see that also.

“We are misled by the narrowness of our assumptions about what constitutes an advantage in any given situation.”

Second, his comments regarding leaders and managers score a perfect bulls-eye, as do his thoughts on why hiring a good fit is so difficult.

I realize now that an effective leader or manager can come in a virtually infinite number of forms. I have way more respect for the heterogeneity of excellence. That took a long time because it is so tempting to try and paint a very specific picture of what you think effective leadership is or what an effective organization looks like. The older I get and the more I see, I realize high performers of one sort or another have certain things in common. But they are almost more distinguished by what they don’t have in common than what they do.

Understanding fit is a much more important issue than defining the characteristics of excellence — understanding the combination of individual and organization and why at different points in your life cycle you might want a very, very different kind of person. The purest example of this is in sports, where the notion of fit between the athletes that you have and the coach that you hire is only occasionally considered. You will read that they brought in a coach whose plotting style is ill-suited to the athletes that he has. And then you wonder: Why did they bring in that coach? Why do a plotting style if no one on your team wants to play the plotting style? It is interesting how hard that notion is. Maybe it’s because it renders the task of defining what you want a lot more complicated, and we would rather not deal with that.

Below is the video interview or, if you don’t have time to watch, you can read the edited transcript.

How does a company change part of its public face to attract a different/younger market, without alienating its current base?

Kmart, which is not exactly known for its cutting edge ads, did it by finding a way to the right kind of edgy using a great story with humor.

15 million-and-counting YouTube views says it worked.

Doubly impressive because it’s family-friendly—nothing for the modesty police to condemn; everyone is dressed and everything is covered—unlike women’s underwear ads.

Victoria’s Secret it’s not, but I’m willing to bet it sells a whole lot of boxers!

YouTube credit: Kmart

I’ve written many times about the importance of breaking down both horizontal and vertical silos (for more click the silo tag), but I don’t believe it can be done with an edict—even if that edict comes from Steve Ballmer.

This is especially true at a company like Microsoft, where the silos were intentionally built decades ago as part of the corporate structure.

Vertical silos, by nature, create, at the least, rivalry, but, more often, an “us against them” mentality within each silo.

For thousands of Microsofties, that’s the only cultural world they have known; many of them grew up in it, both in terms of years and promotions.

Changing culture is recognized as the most difficult organizational change any company, no matter the size, can undertake.

And one of the greatest error’s a CEO makes is thinking that all he needs on board is his senior staff the rest of people will fall in line.

For most companies, let alone one the size of Microsoft, terminating managers and workers that don’t fall in line isn’t even an option, since there is no way to replace them.

Yet having large numbers of your workforce on different cultural pages is a recipe for disaster.

The results of Ballmer’s changes will unfold over the next couple of years—in spite of Wall Street’s quarterly focus.

Changing culture is tremendously difficult; Charlie Brown didn’t pull it off at AT&T; Lou Gerstner said it was the most difficult part of turning around IBM.

Do you think Ballmer will succeed?

Flickr image credit: Tobyotter

When you want to create change, whether of culture, process or something else, there are seven steps you need to follow whether you are CEO or a first line supervisor,

1. Know who you are: This step is strictly between you and yourself, so you need to be brutally frank as to your attitudes, motivation, what’s important, what’s OK to do, etc., if you want to create authentic change.
2. Define your goals: Whatever change you want to effect needs to be well-defined and make sense to those affected.
3. Know what you have: Honestly assess (warts and all) whatever it is you want to change.
4. Be aware of the cost of change: Every/any action has a price and change is no different, so it is important to be sure the improvement/ROI is worth the cost.
5. Don’t assume: The human race functions to a great extent on various sets of unconscious assumptions. In the workplace people tend to assume that people with similar educations, experience levels, positions, etc., have similar mindsets, attitudes and philosophies. Predicating acceptance of change on the assumption of deep, unproven commonality is a recipe for disaster.
6. Don’t overwhelm the troops: Whatever the target and goal of the change recognize that you can’t just come in, make an announcement, and expect people to buy into the vision. Present it in small bite-size pieces and such a way that people feel they have input in the process, which creates a feeling of ownership.
7. Communicate and sell—don’t order and tell: No matter how positive the goal of the change you can’t just walk in on Monday and announce the new whatever and expect people to cooperate for understandable three reasons.
   1. It’s unlikely that anybody will believe you (talk’s cheap);
   2. if you’re new it’s unlikely they’ll trust you (no track record with them);
   3. whether you’re proposing a radical change or just tweaking something, generally speaking, people hate change and need a compelling reason to get on the bandwagon.

In the final analysis what you do carries far more weight than anything you say, so be sure you have the courage to walk your talk.

Flickr image credit: Jannes Pockele

I admit it; as anyone who is a frequent reader I am not a Facebook devotee; for that matter, I’m not a lover of social media in general, which includes MMOG sites such as World of Warcraft.

What people who know me don’t understand is that my dislike goes beyond my personal feelings.

Gently put, I am tired of and disgusted with number of intelligent, talented people who contact me for help balancing the demands on their time.

Don’t get me wrong, I like to help people and rarely charge for one-off questions, but it’s getting ridiculous.

For years I found that the problem wasn’t so much one of time management, but one of saying yes too often.

But, as the saying goes, that was then and this is now.

Now, after a week of time tracking exercises and analysis they come back and admit to two, five, eight or even more hours spent on various forms of social media.

Most are surprised; they had no realization that the number was so high.

I suggest they cut back and use the time where they feel pinched—the reason they contacted me in the first place.

Some are sheepish, others are defiant, but most are reluctant to reduce their time.

I didn’t need to read about “FOMO addiction” (the fear of missing out on something or someone more interesting, exciting or better than what we’re currently doing), I was hearing about it directly from the addicts.

So it was with great delight that I read that there is a growing rebellion.

The main reasons for their social media sabbaticals were not having enough time to dedicate to pruning their profiles, an overall decrease in their interest in the site, and the general sentiment that Facebook was a major waste of time.
About 4 percent cited privacy and security concerns as contributing to their departure. Although those users eventually resumed their regular activity, another 20 percent of Facebook users admitted to deleting their accounts.
(…)The report found that 42 percent of Facebook users from the ages of 18 to 29 said that the average time they spent on the site in a typical day had decreased in the last year. A much smaller portion, 23 percent, of older Facebook users, those over 50, reported a drop in Facebook usage over the same period.

Perhaps people are finally kicking their FOMO addiction, facing up to their time usage and figuring out that there is more to life than what’s online.

I find it most interesting that the decrease in Facebook usage is twice as high in the young (18-29) than in the over 50 crowd.

Who’d a thunk it?

Flickr image credit: birgerking

At the start of 2012 we considered the futility of New Year resolutions; this year I thought we’d look at change, since any resolution requires it.

According to Francis Bacon, “Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly.”

Arnold Bennett said, “Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts.”

Anatole France elaborated on that thought, “All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another.”

That said, it is still wise to heed the words of Ellen Glasgow, “All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward.”

Maya Angelou captured the idea of what to change in a nutshell when she said, “If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude.”

Wise words and very true, but as Leo Tolstoy points out, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

Change is a necessary part of growth, but I disagree with what Winston Churchill said, “To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” No matter how much or how often you change you will never be perfect.

One more very important point—share your changes; as Lillian Hellman reminds us, “People change and forget to tell each other.”

In ending, and since the New Year is almost upon us, let me propose a toast, “Here’s to positive change in 2013.

Flickr image credit: Hakee Chang

While looking for something in my old posts I came across this one and decided it was a good time to post it again.

Choose the Freedom to Change

“The past is the present, isn’t it? It’s the future, too.”
–Long Day’s Journey Into Night, Eugene O’Neill

I recently ran across this quote; it’s been years since I read the play, but that poignant line, with its message that what has been is and irrevocably will be has always left me feeling depressed and angry.

Depressed because it revokes hope.

Angry because it’s the antithesis of everything I believe.

It proclaims that we, whether individuals, organizations or countries, can’t change; that we are locked on our trajectory with no rudder and an endless supply of fuel.

That thought represents a type of MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) I’ve constantly rejected, while embracing the belief that anyone can change if they choose to make the effort.

Not that it’s simple or that it’s easy, but that it can be done.

I’ve done it and am in the process of doing it again.

You’ve done it and can choose to do it again.

Whether you choose an opportunity or pass it by, each one changes the present and alters the future, because your MAP changes with each decision.

Not necessarily large changes, but changes none the less and those changes will impact your next decision and so on throughout life.

You can avoid changes by embracing a rigid ideology that eliminates decisions by turning a blind eye of all divergent opportunities or by allowing someone else to decide for you in the name of followership.

What will you choose to do?

Flickr image credit: David Reece

Last year, when I had more time, I occasionally wrote for Technorati; this article was published there first.

Company vs. Societal Culture

There are many companies and other organizations that pride themselves on their diversity and the effective programs that opened opportunities for women, but are they effective in changing the way people actually think?

Not so much.

MIT is an excellent case study, especially since it was an MIT study 12 years ago that triggered many changes; not just in academia, but in the corporate world, too.

However, changing organizational culture is easy in comparison to changing societal attitudes.

Let me use a bit of personal history to illustrate.

In 1977 I joined MRI as a recruiter. Fortunately for me the manager with whom I interviewed left and it was his second in command who actually made the decision to hire me (his predecessor thought I was too pushy).

I was given a choice of two areas, insurance and telecom, and I chose telecom.

Telecom meant engineering and included military, e.g., microwave, RF, radar, etc. I worked telecom for 12 years, migrating from the military/industrial stuff to commercial voice and data. Another woman worked a biomedical desk.

Although we were both in the top producers circle all 12 years I can still remember other managers at the beginning asking my boss how he managed us and what he did if we cried. And the (usually) unstated assumption by male recruiters that we closed our deals by sleeping with the clients. (I found this hysterically funny considering the number of clients, most of mine on the East Coast, and the time required for the “visits.”)

Today the accusation is more general, that women are promoted because they are women, not because they are good at what they do.

“No one is getting tenure for diversity reasons, because the women themselves feel so strongly that the standards have to be maintained.” –Marc A. Kastner, Dean of the School of Science, MIT

When I am working with clients to change/shift their company’s culture I remind them that the most they can hope for is solid functional change. It is unlikely, if not impossible, that their efforts will actually change the way people think.

And I always remind them how far away we still are from Bella Abzug’s definition of success, although I must admit we are much closer to that reality in politics.

“Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel.”

Stock.Xchng image credit: asterisco

In our wired era being available 24/7 generates both bragging rights and work/life balance complaints and nowhere more so than the high-powered world of management consulting.

It was in this world, as represented by a small team at Boston Consulting Group, that HBS professor Leslie A. Perlow initiated an experiment four years ago on the extreme benefits of “predictable time off” (PTO).

She shares the story and documents her findings in a new book called Sleeping With Your Smartphone.

Supposedly, the unpredictability working across time zones requires constant availability, but is that true?

“What caught our attention was that the more people were on, the more unpredictable their work time seemed to become.”

The key to success was predictability.

Perlow’s research started with a small team and three basic steps.

“First, team members have to agree on a specific unit of time each week that everyone can turn off. Not at the same time, obviously, since team members have to cover for each other. In our first experiment, it was one night a week. But whatever the goal, it has to be valued by the team, as a group. It has to be small but doable. And it has to be concrete and measurable.”

“Second, the team needs to meet weekly to discuss the challenges and successes they’re facing as they try to achieve the goal. These meetings are crucial for PTO to work, but they offer much more. They’re a regular forum for productive conversations about work, conversations that empower people to speak up. In theory, people are speaking up about process, which allows the team to meet the time-off goal. But really they’re speaking about all aspects of the work experience.”

“Finally, the team’s leaders — bosses, managers — have to show support for the project and for team members’ efforts. That’s not just about allowing colleagues to speak up and to use their time off. It’s also about doing the same themselves.”

Four years later 86% of the consulting staff in Boston, New York, and Washington, DC are practicing PTO.

According to BCG’s CEO, Hans-Paul Bürkner, the process unleashed by these experiments “has proven not only to enhance work-life balance, making careers much more sustainable, but also to improve client value delivery, consultant development, business services team effectiveness, and overall case experience. It is becoming part of the culture—the future of BCG.”

Retention is up, job satisfaction is up, productivity is up, client satisfaction is up.

Given proven results and a reliable methodology to follow, PTO can be instituted by any manager at any level even where the over-arching culture is hostile.

Nor is there any need for HR approval.

Go ahead; reap all those rewards and be a hero to your team—all it takes is 20 bucks and synergistic MAP, both of which are in your direct control.

Image credit: Harvard Business School

A study by Bain & Company, published in 2001, showed that acquiring a new customer can cost six to seven times more than retaining an existing customer, and that increasing customer retention rates by 5% boosts profits by 25% to 95%.

Why is it that so many managers ignore the connection between happy employees and happy customers?

Why do they insist on putting the cart before the horse and only invest in their people after revenues increase?

In yet another study researchers again found that customer retention is a function of great customer service, in other words, happy employees result in more loyal customers who spend more.

Zappos may be the poster child of the happy workforce, but there are many ways of achieving the same happy results.

2006, American Express, the credit card issuer, started an internal program that involved training and incentivizing its staff to get customers more engaged. The company transformed its traditional service call by getting rid of scripts and taking customer service representatives off the clock — which allowed the representative to decide how long he or she wanted to spend on each call. It also changed its employee compensation structure, directly linking a big portion of incentive pay to customer feedback. The result: Customers increased their spending on Amex products by 8% to 10% and overall service margins widened, according to a case study by Joseph Handelman, a professor at Ross. In the most recent quarter, the company announced that card members spent a record amount on their Amex cards; total revenue was $7.74 billion, up 5% from a year ago.

Underlying Amex’s actions was recognition of the intelligence of their customer service workforce and a decision to trust their people to treat their customers well and the payoff for doing so was substantial.

Lack of trust in employees is the elephant in managerial corridors and while it sometimes stems from a manager’s own insecurity it’s more often the result of poor hiring.

Managers claim that careful hiring is time-consuming and takes too long, but that’s a cop-out to short-term thinking, as is gutting customer service when the economy slows.

“When sales and profits are down, customer service is easy to cut. It [poor customer service] doesn’t show up right away. Where it shows up is in long-term customer profitability.” –Ronald Hess, professor of marketing at William & Mary School of Business, who studies customer satisfaction and loyalty.

And while you can’t control the economy, you can focus on eliminating the elephant within your own organization.

Flickr image credit: Phillip Martyn