I came across an old article I’d saved and thought it would be of great value during these trying times.

Thinking about and understanding risk is important whether you consider yourself a risk-taker or not.

Last year, Bill Buxton, researcher, professor, and author wrote a great column on risk in Business Week.

“Entrepreneurs, like ice climbers, are often said to risk their necks. But there are ways to cut danger to sane levels—and some very good reasons to try.”

People often comment that both groups are, politely speaking, nuts.

After offering up a detailed explanation of ice climbing Buxton says, “…the four considerations employed by the ice climber are exactly the same as those used by the serial entrepreneur or the effective business person…”

They are training, tools, fitness and partners.

But to me, the most important thought is found in the final four sentences.

“The most dangerous way of all to play it is so-called safe. Safe leads to atrophy and certain death—of spirit, culture, and enterprise. There is not a single institution of merit or worthy of respect in our society that was not created out of risk. Risk is not only not to be avoided, it is to be embraced—for survival.”

It is risk without evaluation that helped get us where we are today.

Evaluating risk requires not the best case analysis of which Wall Street is so fond, but also worst case analysis wherein you think about the absolute worst results if the risk is taken.

Then think through whether and how you would deal with the results. If they can be handled go forward; if not revise the action.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Are you looking for a good way to make your company or group more innovative? To move it from where it is to where you want it to be?

A good place to start is by encouraging your people to question the fundamentals (QF) of the company.

QF is one of the best ways to overcome the “…but we’ve always done it that way” school of thought and foes a long way to overturning “not invented here” syndrome; both are major stumbling blocks to innovation, productivity, retention and a host of other positives moves.

QF also goes a long way to attracting Millennials and other creative types, because there are no sacred cows—everything is open to improvement and change.

However, making an announcement isn’t going to do it.

Start by identifying your company’s fundamentals, not so much the official ones (although they can also be problematic) as the unwritten/unspoken ones your employees deal with every day.

It’s easy to find them, just ask—but ask knowing that you may not like the answers. (One client found that, contrary to its stated policy, their people believed that quality wasn’t as important as shoving the product out the door.)

Depending on your current culture the identification process can be anything from a public brainstorming session with a whiteboard to some kind of “suggestion box” that’s truly anonymous.

You may be very surprised at some of the perceptions that turn up.

Once you start on a list of fundamentals you want to open them up to debate—the more passionate the better—using a combination of technology (forum, wiki, etc.) and in person discussions. The object being to decide whether to modify/jettison/keep each one, as well as what to add.

Unless your MAP dictates a company that functions in Dilbertland, this is an ongoing, proactive management task to encourage employees to question, rethink, revamp or even dump the company’s fundamentals.

Even when QF is deeply embedded in your culture you can’t assume your people will keep doing it and new people coming from other cultures will need assurance that QF is indeed part of your company’s DNA.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

I had (what to me) was amazing news this weekend.

Leadership Turn is listed as one of Strategic Strategist’s 2009 Top Business Blogs. It not only made the list, but is number 16, just two places behind Guy Kawasaki.

I’m unfamiliar with Strategic Strategist and have no idea what, if anything, this means, but still! So I told some friends and my b5 cohorts and received some very nice congratulatory emails telling me that I deserved it, etc. Fun!

But it got me to thinking once again that I just don’t have the ego for the networked, self-promoted, memememe world I live in.

It’s not that I don’t believe I have a lot to offer.

I think I’m a hell of a writer and that what I say has value, whether it’s of direct use or stimulates new thought paths.

To be honest, I’m often blown away when I read old posts here or at MAPping Company Success and realize I wrote them. The same goes for my book, The Swamp & the Alligators: a slightly irreverent guide to career planning and the search process. It’s 16 years old now and it’s still on Amazon.

I know my coaching is valuable and that it’s unique; it takes a different approach from much of the other coaching available.

But I’m always a bit amazed when others see its value.

Believe me, it’s not humility or any of those supposedly noble feelings. It’s just that it surprises me when the outside world agrees with me.

As my readers know, I’m very opinionated, but that doesn’t mean I assume or expect anyone else to agree—in spite of the law of averages saying that some will.

I’m lousy at “working the room,” whether in the real or cyber world.

Back when I attended parties I would hang out helping in the kitchen and over the course of the evening most of the interesting people would wander in and end up staying for the kind of conversation you can sink your teeth into (I’ve always been lousy at small talk).

I seem to do cyberspace the same way.

And, I’m grateful to say, the interesting people keep wandering in and staying to talk.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Daniel F. Pigatto on flickr

Steady readers of Leadership’s Future know that I am thoroughly alarmed and dismayed by the Millennial MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) regarding such mundane stuff as accountability, honesty and entitlement along with the No Child Left Behind fiasco and its focus on grades-for-funding.

Two articles caught my eye this week, both on a very positive note.

Education

The first is an overview discussing what Arne Duncan, the new education secretary, did in Chicago and wants to do nationally. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot more than we’ve seen in years. Not only that, but the price tag per school isn’t that outrageous considering what I’ve seen previously and he doesn’t seem to expect states to pull the funding out of thin air as NCLB did.

It won’t be a silver bullet (what is), but maybe we’re finally moving (glacially) in a positive direction.

Parenting

The second article is even more encouraging, since it looks at parents—who are at the heart of this mess.

Like most other things, parenting styles change—call it parenting-by-fad.

But I see this new fad as a move in the right direction. It’s about letting kids play, doing less and (maybe) realizing that your kids are not the center of the universe or even your primary purpose in life.

How’s that for revolutionary?

Can you imagine? Instead of having every minute of every week packed with scheduled functions, parents would expend some of that energy making sure that their kids used the free time to run around, play using their imaginations, read, think and dream, as opposed to texting, keyboarding or watching TV.

They could use some of the extra time and energy that went into keeping their offspring on schedule to staying involved with their spouse and some more on feeding their own soul.

They might even have enough energy to learn to say ‘no’ and stop indulging their kids to the point of entitlement.

Sounds like a trip to Fantasy Island, but who knows, it might be part of the recession’s silver lining.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Bill A on flickr

See why Twitter = TMI

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: yonolatengo on flickr

I had a thought this morning and asked Jim Gordon, who draws mY generation, the Sunday comic on my other blog, to draw my thoughts for today.

He did a great job; I only wish I believed that it would happen sooner.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: MAPpingCompanySuccess.com

It’s a holiday weekend and I assume (hope) that you have better things to do than sit around reading a bunch of stuff on the Net.

So the links I’ve found for you are made to bookmark; they’re ongoing resources for you to explore as the mood and time moves you.

First is a cool site from Stanford Graduate School of Business with videos, such as the one on Jeff Raikes, head of the Gates Foundation, and a large selection of other topics.

Next is a favorite from Business Week’ Innovation and Design. It comes out weekly with great stories; for example, did you know that McDonald’s Chicago HQ is the greenest building on the planet?

Finally, also from BW is the new Business Exchange, an online community “to access the most
relevant content for you, filtered by like-minded business professionals.”

Have a terrific holiday and stay safe; I don’t know what I’d do without you.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: nono farahshila on flickr

Last week I described way to use an innovation wiki to juice creativity and garner ideas from all parts of the company. In the comments Jennifer Brown said, “…[is a] platform across the entire enterprise wherein the innovation “conversation” occurs – not just team by team/vertical by vertical, but across verticals that typically don’t talk to each other (hence leading to silos) or collaborate. …harness the power of the workforce, break the silo’d thinking of functional structures, and revolutionize business models.”

I agree, but done with a small innovative twist an innovation wiki will break down not only departmental silos, but also the insidious horizontal silos that are based on position and education.

Personally, I loathe horizontal silos and consider them second only to politics on the corporate stupidity index.

More times than I can count I’ve seen the ideas of an engineer 1 or 2 discounted or ignored by the 3s and senior engineers—of course, that’s better than stealing them, although that happens, too.

The attitude seems to be one of ‘your brain is incapable of any creative thinking until you are at least at my pay grade’, which is idiotic.

People’s brains work differently; some see what is, others see possible improvements and a few see around corners, but that sight has little to do with position. Steve Jobs saw around the corner of the personal computer market before there was a personal computer market and certainly before he had any credibility what so ever.

Nor is it always about training and education. 20 odd years ago I redesigned two street intersection where I lived in San Francisco, but I didn’t suggest the solutions to the traffic engineers—I knew they wouldn’t listen because I have no training. Instead, I sneaked both ideas in through someone I know who was ‘accepted’ and both are still in effect today.

Silos are built of egos, which is why, vertical or horizontal, they’re so difficult to break down.

The best solution is for the CEO to build a culture that values everybody’s ideas equally, but technology offers a leg up on this.

When building your innovation wiki assign a random ID to each suggestion—sort of like match.com. They must be completely random so that level, grade and even department are totally obscured. Each idea has a different ID, so that when a person’s idea is used the next one is still anonymous; limit access of the actual name to a few top executives.

That anonymity truly levels the playing field and means that each idea is considered strictly on its merits, not on the merits of the person who thought of it. It also encourages people to way outside-the-box thinking and to post ideas without worrying about appearing silly, pushy or arrogant for offering ideas outside of their personal expertise.

Just be sure that the contributors of ideas that are used, whether all, in part or as a springboard to something else, receive plenty of public acknowledgement, kudos and anything else you’re in a position to do.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

I have four great lessons for you today.

1. arrogance doesn’t burnish your image;
2. don’t hesitate to tell a client they’re wrong when you know they are;
3. don’t just focus on what you’re doing for customers now, but what you’ll do for them in the future; and
4. culture sells.

They’re all wrapped up in a story about Intel’s new advertising plan and Venables Bell & Partners, the agency that’s doing it.

Lesson 1: In a nutshell, Intel’s concept of the branding effort was “we’re so important to your everyday life. Imagine a world without Intel. Your lights would go out. The world would stop revolving.” That’s arrogance.

Lesson 2: In a second nutshell, “Venables Bell said, ‘You got that wrong.’” Telling an account the size of Intel they’re on the wrong track takes guts.

In Silicon Valley Intel is a cultural icon renowned for its technical brilliance, innovative R&D and decidedly quirky culture.

Lesson 3 & 4: VB did an in-depth study of the company and hung out with its engineers; you’ll be seeing the results starting next week.  The campaign’s tagline is “Sponsors of Tomorrow,” and the ads highlight achievements of Intel engineers in a humorous way.”

Share the ideas with your team; then work together and tweak them to sell your company, department or team to those for whom you perform, whether your customers are external or internal.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: YouTube

That’s right, guys, you are obsolescent whether you realize it or not.

At least, that’s the conclusion that seems to be offered on a post at Bizzy Women, based in part on job loss stats from Peter Coy’s 2008 Business Week article and also quotes heavily from Harvard psychologist Dan Kindlon’s Alpha Girls. (Klindon also wrote Raising Cain and Too Much of a Good Thing.)

Granted that women gained 300,000 jobs between November, 2007 and April, 2008 while men lost nearly 700,000, but the stats aren’t straight across.

“Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care. … Manufacturing is over 70% male and construction is about 88% male. Meanwhile the growing education and health services sector is 77% female. The government sector, which has remained strong, is 57% female. The securities business, which is filled with high-paying jobs, is likely to be the next sector to get whacked—and more than 60% of its workers are men.”

Securities was more than whacked, it was decimated.

The problem I have with the idea that “The new economy is largely dominated by young women who have unique skills, not by men who have been taught to follow the rules.”

Unfortunately, the jobs being created are mostly in health and education areas—not the most lucrative positions. And as Coy points out, “the “female” economy can’t stay strong for long if the “male” economy weakens too much.”

The great majority of families need both incomes to thrive and, in many cases, it takes both to just survive.

Yes, more women than men are attending college, but perhaps that’s because more resources have been poured into developing women; that isn’t bad, but it does screw the numbers. (This is especially obvious when you look at the differences between black girls and boys.)

These predictions also assume that men can’t/won’t change, current and future generations of males will be the same and experience will play no role over the next 20 or so years, which I find ridiculous.

But the biggest problem I have with the idea that women will rule is the same problem I’ve had for decades as minority groups, whether designated by gender, race, sexual orientation or whatever, have improved their situation.

Not the improvement, I’m all for that, but the desire to dominate.

When I was living in San Francisco I knew from personal experience that the most disenfranchised group in terms of political power, social services, educational help or general assistance were middle age, white, single, straight females.

Sadly, I find that equality isn’t the driving force—”do unto others as they did unto us” is.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: fakhar on sxc.hu