SHE’LL SAY (Sr. VP spoken to her “coach”):
We had a number of discussions within the senior team about whether or not to bring supporting functions into a shared services framework. It was a really good exercise and we were able to clarify some important strategic issues.
For example, although we have been trying to do more work in Canada (with a recent focus on competing more effectively on public sector contracts), the bulk of our business comes from U.S. customers. One of our director’s is very quick to wax on about “selling the value” and that “objections on price are a cover something else.” That is all well and good, but when you largest customers dollar is in a pretty steady slide, it might be worth looking at price. This latter point was pushed by our CFO, who is not used to having to explain himself, but to his credit, he took us through the thinking, and even apologized for making it so basic.
The key measure for this project is profitability, and if it is implemented correctly, we will see a significant increase in profits even with steady or even slightly lower rates to our U.S. customers.
In the mean time, this gives us some budget room to build up some resources and make some very strategic hires that will help us compete for upcoming public tenders here and out West. The joke on our last bid was that we were in danger of being the dog that actually caught the car… Needless to say, we didn’t catch it, but we’ll be in a better position to in about 8 months.
HE’LL SAY (Department Manager, overheard at the water cooler):
First of all, if you are going to make a bad decision, why not get on with it. The hype around this “new direction” was unbelievable. Do you really have to have three “offsite strategy sessions” to figure out how to bury accountability for me and for my team? It would have been faster to say:
“Folks, a lot of people have been whining about how unfair it is to celebrate success openly, so we are going to put you all on the same team… and by the way, we are going to get into bed with some governments because they have the same view that we do.”
I have been running this division for 8 years, and for the last 7 we have put up the best numbers in the worst market. It took me a few years to get the team that I wanted, but right now we are a well-oiled machine, and we all love competition. For Pete’s sake, we are most competitive with ourselves. I am supposed to be happy reporting into a “shared services” lead that supports all markets. I can tell you right now who the weak links are, but this model is guaranteed to give the weak links better air cover.
I’LL SAY (to you in this post):
A common literary device is the split perspective. More than half a century ago, the movie Rashomon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042876/) tells the story of a rape and murder (or was it?) from different perspectives, all of which appear to be truthful.
In the above (very general) example, and constantly in very specific situations, the same thing happens. Such truths as “we will focus on public sector contracts” and “we are making changes to reduce expenses and help profitability” will be explained and recounted in different ways.
As alluded to earlier, no one perspective can know all the implications, so picking the actions is an important exercise that involved understanding strategic issues and opportunities. It is also safest to place these actions within a simple strategic storyline: “Our run-rate business is diminishing; we have to look for new sources of revenue.” At every opportunity, make obvious the connection between strategic story and the actions. Without a context, just like “HE SAYS,” people will fill in their own… and it may be very detrimental to your overall goals.
Earlier here, I introduced AUTHORITY, EXPERTISE and INFORMATION as dimensions to consider in determining if and why to collaborate with different parties. Importantly, this decision is driven by what you need from other parties and not whether or not you like them. For context, let’s say we are addressing complex supply chain relations that directly affect the sustainability—economic, environmental and societal—of today’s business models.
The net/net of the earlier column was, if you have all three of these elements, collaboration is optional.
THE “2 out of 3” SCENARIOS
#1 – No AUTHORITY – Sell the idea
The extent of simultaneously moving parts in most business functions creates a situation where those managing the work cannot be familiar with all the intricacies. Having information and expertise usually means that you can see the consequences of a decision (e.g. “No, we can’t just ship in larger quantities to make sure we meet demand; the expense and risk of housing inventory in that particular location is prohibitive.”).
The approach here is to “sell” the right idea. If you have fostered a degree of “benefit of the doubt” with the “authority” figure, this can be very easy. If the relationship is not there yet, this will demand a thorough understanding of that person’s interests, and a savvy ability to tell them what they need to hear. This is the realm of persuasion and communication skills. In my view, it is the responsibility of our informed experts to get these ideas through.
#2 – No INFORMATION – Help me help you
The final scene in the Cohen Brother’s movie “Burn After Reading” illustrates this situation perfectly (and hilariously), but in real life these interactions can horribly frustrating. Picture a situation whereby you are a competent cook and you have the authority to make whatever you want for dinner. Yet your question “what do we have in the house?” is met with either:
1 – “Well, there is a lot of stuff in the house,” OR,
2 – A detailed list of “everything” in the house.
The fog created by the audience’s lack of expertise can thicken if they are at all intimidated by the degree of authority. These situations are quick to break down completely (e.g. “we’ll eat out tonight!” or “just let me in the kitchen to see for myself!”) The overriding “help me help you” desire can—time and patience permitting—also take the form of tolerating the lengthy list and taking what is useful.
#3 – No EXPERTISE – Hand over the authority
This is the flip side of “No AUTHORITY” and demands a large degree of comfort with the lack of expertise. But, no, this doesn’t mean abdicating completely! Those in authority are tasked with taking a wider look at things, so, to use our first example, they understand the trade-offs involved with running short on supply (e.g. disappointed customers), as well as the trade-offs involved with keeping more inventory (e.g. higher costs and risks). Taking all into account, they can arrive that the decision that does the “best” for the organization.
The interesting part here is the word “best,” which should come down to strategic priorities for sustaining business success, rather than “best” for specific segments of the company (short-term profitability) or individuals (least headache potential). With the necessary separation of expertise and authority, such strategic priorities need to be very clear. A colleague of mine and I consult with organizations to align such strategic priorities with elements of the triple bottomline (profit, planet and people) and to leverage those in engaging with various stakeholder groups. The ensuing conversations, though tough, are well worth having in preparation for evaluating such trade-offs.
If there was any danger of your supply chain getting dull, this can certainly spice things up nicely.
What kind of person are you: Competitive? Big-picture thinker? Assertive? Conciliator? Other?
Such tags tend to promise clarity, but bring in a bundle of behaviours and attitudes that may or may not relate. When these words find themselves describing quadrants or supporting wider groupings on a personality test, you almost need a glossary to explain the context (and the particular bundle).
I run into this with my working descriptions for negotiation strategies.
A couple of semantic challenges are:
- Even if you are not “a competitive person,” you can still pick a strategy of “competing” in a certain situation;
- It can make strategic business sense to “accommodate” the needs of others and you don’t have to be weak-kneed to do it;
- Collaborating with a party does not mean agreeing with them all the time, and you don’t have to be “nice” to do it.
I will suggest that collaboration is a default for supply chain initiatives, given that the relationships (internal and external) have to be maintained over a period of time and that, in today’s competitive (semantics again!) environment, there is no room for compromising the returns on time and dollars spent.
So do you have to collaborate all the time on everything? Not at all.
Before giving you the model, let me give you this:
Glossary of Terms
Information: Results, data, examples and findings that may help in determining a superior course of action.
Expertise: Orientation, experience and training that enable one to see relevant implications of a decision prior to its implementation.
Authority: Structural or informal power to direct the actions of others, coupled with accountability for the consequences of a decision.
If you have all three, there is no need to collaborate. Why would you? You have all the information you need, you know what is important for the decision, and your sphere of responsibility allows you to “make the call.”
This doesn’t mean that you have to be obvious about “going it alone,” but engaging others would be strictly for relationship-building. You will decide if this is worth the effort.
Tune in next month for an elaboration on what to do when you have “two out of three” (which “ain’t bad,” according to Meatloaf).
THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE AUGUST NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL.
You will see that I have started using Twitter (look to the right side of the top page). In the era of fighting for attention (a stubbornly scarce resource), hitting the window of opportunity with valuable insight can seem like bullseyeing that ventilation shaft on the Death Star (”use the force, Luke.”). This is where I think Twitter fits.
My plan is to restrict my twits (?) to comments on customer service with, as advertised, a wide definition of “customer.” Some interactions create an opportunity to move the relationship needle in your favour, or hold it steady against a negative pull. I plan to call out excellence and shortcomings. Follow if you like; we will both see where it goes.
Longer discussions and stories (conceivably for those prepared to invest more attention) will stay on this blog. Things like this:
I dearly hope that business models that rely on high switching costs are on the wane. (See this article summary from HBR.) I currently have insurance relationships with two different Canadian banks (car and house); the renewal rates are weeks apart. Every year, I am reminded by each of the bundling discount that I could receive by increasing the number of products, but neither makes it easy for me to do anything but renew what I have… and I never remember until after automatic renewal notice! (Talk about scarce attention!)
Good for them for deriving value from my inability to keep track of the dates! The downside, I would argue, is that my home mortgage is currently with a third major back (in the current climate, this may not or may not be desireable business for a bank!). My experiences with small-ticket insurance items is such that I won’t entertain moving my business to either of the other two when the mortgage comes up for renewal (and that date is in my calendar!).
Perhaps the impossibility of maintaining customer equity when you have diversified products and an old-school model will drive more customer-centric approaches… but maybe not. Hey, they may not even miss me.
I recently had the opportunity to work with a group of volunteer board members. A friend of mine and I were also volunteering our time to help in making the board work more effectively together, especially in their meetings.
As individuals, they were all lovely people who shared a common passion for the cause that the association was furthering. As a group, however, the meeting and general interactions had deteriorated to the point where one of the group members suspected they had become a dysfunctional board. The “volunteer” dynamic is fascinating in these instances because, conceivably, it would be easier to walk away from a dysfunctional volunteer situation than it would be to leave a dysfunctional company.
We were leading a discussion on what entails an effective meeting. There were no surprises, and, yes, Robert’s Rules were raised and quoted. There was an interesting dialogue at the end of the session that illustrated in large part the problems that the group faced. The following dialogue from a discussion on an opportunity to meet with a municipal group:
A – When did you get the e-mail?
B – I got the e-mail yesterday, maybe it was Thursday, and it said that we could send a couple of people to the meeting. I think that we can decide who those people are.
My friend – Does that sound reasonable, A?
A – Well, I would have to have to see the e-mail.
Robert’s Rules are no match for a meeting where past interactions have driven “benefit of the doubt” to the point of zero. It may take long time for my friends A and B to work together. Acknowledging that benefit of the doubt is absent, and giving it anyway, could provide opportunities to gain benefit of the doubt faster. It is a tough one, and it takes a big person to start, but there is sometimes very little standing in the way of two people working together more effectively.
American Idol has increased the profile of the “critique” and also demonstrates the different flavours that this sort of constructively critical feedback can take. Even if you are not familiar with the show you may have run into this type of coaching critique:
- Unclear (aka Randy) – Praise the good and allude to shortcomings; downplay the importance of the negative and openly use the prefix “I don’t know what it was but…”;
- Cheerlead (aka Paula) – Give As for effort; make everyone feel that they are trying their best;
- Direct (aka Simon) – If it is great, say so; call out all performances that fall below the “great” level and pin point exactly what was missing.
Whether a boss, mentor or coach, the Direct version is the one that holds the most promise for the coachee to develop existing skills and acquire new ones. People who truly want to develop—especially those who employ coaches—should challenge the Unclear, as well as the critiquing school of “Good, good. More of this is just fine.”
Where this falls down is when the Simons of the world cannot provide insight to fill the gap. Showing what is missing is important, but if the emperor indeed has no clothes, there is definite value in telling him or her where to shop.
Last week, Simon pointed out that singer Kady Malloy had “an astonishing lack of personality.” Voice, looks and all other assets could neither compensate nor cover up this fact. In the follow-up banter with Seacrest, Kady claimed that she did not know what Simon had meant. I would suggest that what she really didn’t understand is: “what do I do differently?”
Providing the “what should you do” is the value that the executive coach can and must add. Simon is not a coach, but would likely be good one because he is very perceptive in isolating what is missing. For what it’s worth, I think that Kady could smile and move more when she sings. For personality to the extreme (pun intended), watch Gary Charone sing “Hammer to Fall” in the 1991 Freddie Mercury Tribute concert.
- November 2011
- October 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- Recent Posts
- Blogroll
- Meta
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
