Emergn blogs illustrate new
ways of thinking and doing.
Written by members of the Emergn team, our blogs are explanatory, practical and thought provoking.
Blanket Statements
February 9, 2012 | Alex Adamopoulos
Maybe you know this person. You have worked with them and they also may be someone you know outside of work. When you talk to them they seem to insert sentences about other people you both know or events going on with the words “always” and “never” in the conversation. Perhaps you haven’t given this much thought but if the relationship is business related then maybe you’ve considered how those types of statements make you think different things instead of thinking something specific.
A core principle I’m learning and re-learning to employ in my personal and professional life is to “say what I mean and to mean what I say”. I emphasize “learning” since it is very easy to be vague and ambiguous about statements I make. It seems to come natural at times for all of us to omit details about a conversation or facts about another person’s actions or performance.
A key aspect of relationship management in business is this principle of being specific in what one says. It certainly relates to being truthful and to having the courage to say exactly what needs to be said but in the context of this article I want to emphasize the equally important part of being specific about the detail of the statements we make to our colleagues, our clients and to those we interact with in industry.
Blanket statements are never useful. They are nebulous and often send the wrong message. They seed doubt and mistrust and are usually intended to make a grand point about how right the person making the statement might be. They tend to be self-serving even when outwardly it doesn’t appear that way. In other words, we make blanket statements because we want to make a point that makes us look right and therefore look good in the position we are taking.
We have a rule in our home that says no one can use the words “always” and “never” when discussing or debating a topic where opinions and views are prevalent. This probably sounds a bit harsh but think about it for a moment. How often do we argue or debate with someone on a topic and say that they never do this or they always do that. Is that really true? You’re thinking, “absolutely”!
The reason we have this rule is because it forces a conversation to happen. It forces people to think about what they are going to say, how they are going to say it and why. Perhaps simplistic, we have found that is has changed the way we talk with each other and it has introduced a level of integrity into the conversation that doesn’t exist when we make blanket statements.
In business, blanket statements have an even greater danger of really messing things up. If we desire integrity in the business then it goes deeper than just maintaing accurate data and records. Integrity in the business starts with the communication and conversation that takes place between people.
Blanket statements create unnecessary questions. The benefit of having accurate financial information is minimized if senior managers then say things in meetings like “the salespeople always forget to update the pipeline” or “our delivery teams never capture accurate project information or produce the right content”.
These blanket statements make other senior managers wonder how we can then have accurate financial information. It also sends a message that we doubt the commitment and integrity of our salespeople. Are they trying to hurt the business? Do we need to hire new salespeople? Is the manager of the delivery organisation lazy and not bothered with ensuring we have the information we need?
How could these statements have been said differently? Perhaps a better way would have been to say “most of the pipeline information is complete enough for us to produce an accurate forecast but the field for required resources is not complete in the following opportunities so we need to check with the appropriate salesperson to get this information”. On the other statement it could be stated as “We need to understand more about the projects we’re involved with. The information we have is helpful but we need to assess what else we might specifically need as a team so we are better informed”.
Maybe you’d make these statements differently than the example I provided but hopefully the point is clear. Integrity in the business means we have integrity in the conversation. It requires that as team members we are not lacking a spine. It means we care enough to get the facts right, communicate what is working well and not present our views as a slight on someone else or the company when in fact it might only relate to one piece of data missing or misrepresented.
Being factual, truthful and specific is hugely important to how we start, maintain and keep relationships in business and in life. People want to work with people they trust and the people they trust are those that present information with specificity and integrity especially when it involves others. It is a good practice to examine how we are communicating and whether we are prone to omit details in exchange for trying to make a point.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Luxury cars at the drive-thru
February 6, 2012 | Alex Adamopoulos
What I’m about to say in no way means that I’ve done extensive research on the subject nor that I have conclusive evidence. It is only an observation I’ve made many times that I’ve wanted to write about. I often notice that there are some really nice luxury cars sitting in the queue at the McDonalds drive-thru. Although I’ve been in the queue on occasion (for the grilled chicken sandwich, really), I tend to notice that some of the more expensive cars on the road are sitting there waiting to order.
The question is why is this even relevant. Don’t people with really nice cars have the same tastes as the rest of us? Are not people with an above average income allowed to eat fast food instead of always having to eat at finer establishments? The answers are of course “yes” to both questions but the truth is we do tend to notice when two things don’t immediately appear to go together.
The reason we do this is because we have a preconceived mindset and a set of expectations about how people should behave under certain circumstances and specific environments. Even though these may be unspoken or not even at the forefront of our minds, certain events trigger them. For me, and some others I’ve spoken to, it seems when we see a 7 series or an S class in a drive-thru queue we immediately wonder why this person needs to eat there, apart from loving that particular food, which is reason enough in itself.
I’ve heard several times that “you can take the man out of
In business, I dare say that most of the major initiatives that organisations undertake have their success or failure directly tied to the extent of change that people will go through or are willing to go through. There is much emphasis on IT, business process, organisational design and this thing we call change management. The emphasis on these things often supersedes the reality of just how large the task is for people to have a different mindset about the work altogether. We spend an enormous amount of time drawing charts and diagrams, building project plans and creating lots of slide-ware; all to further the cause of the initiative. We spend less time asking the people involved important questions about their views, perceptions, expectations and even feelings.
We fail to completely understand the environment and it’s deep seeded impact on how people work and why they do the things they do. We make assumptions such as people will view things the way we do or since we went through this change in the past and have had similar experiences then others must come along the same way or even at the same speed of change. This can be seen in several types of organisations such as public sector or financial services or manufacturing. Each brings with it a unique set of cultural and operational values that are not often visible to outsiders, especially those tasked with helping introduce change and transformational type initiatives.
I pulled out some questions we’ve asked of people in the past in organisations where change programs were being introduced. Understanding those “unspoken” views of the people were critical to the success of the program. Some of the questions and answers we received included:
- Why are you not outwardly supportive and cooperative regarding this new policy the company has introduced?
I care so much about the company’s welfare that I am challenging the true benefit this policy brings.
I don’t need one more thing to do or to interrupt my routine, therefore even though the company needs to do this, it’s not working for me.
The policy is needed but I believe it can be improved and want to ensure my voice is heard so I and others who are mostly impacted by this policy can work with the company to shape it correctly for all of us.
- You were making progress with this new program but you seem to be defaulting back to what you were doing previously, what is the reason?
I’m struggling to learn and the path of least resistance is just easier but I’m afraid to admit that and ask for help.
I really don’t see the reason to change, my job is not at risk and I’m providing enough of what is needed doing what I’ve always done.
I never agreed with this new program and figured I’d go along until it became too much work.
- As a key stakeholder you are sending mixed messages to others on the team, is there a misunderstanding or blocker that you need to talk about?
My perception is that this type of company can’t really adapt to this type of change, they don’t really go together (drive-thru perception).
I want this to work since it is important for me personally but I really don’t care about the detail, I leave that to others
I have not invested the time to truly understand the full impact, risk and benefits so I need help doing that so I can be clear about messages I send.
To some extent, these and other questions do get asked but the frequency with which they are asked and how they are revisited is what can increase or decrease both the risk and speed of change. People have perceptions and expectations about what works, what goes together and what doesn’t. When we work with people to help them go on a journey where change will be uncomfortable, unnerving and somewhat onerous, we need to ensure that we are not placing our perceptions and expectations on them, assuming they need to come along the same way we would. Sometimes change programs are initiated with a group level mentality, meaning that we expect groups of people to come through the funnel and all come out the same way. People learn at the rate they are capable of and it is our role to help the people in organisations come along at the right pace, which will be unique to each person.
See you at the drive-thru.
The Power of Environment
January 31, 2012 | Phil Black
I read an article by Seth Godin the other day. In it he said that the average worker is going straight to the bottom. The workplace has changed so much over recent time, that workers should not be content with taking orders and everyone should make themselves unique and different so people seek out their specific set of skills. If he is correct then this will be a challenge to every company that says ‘our people are our greatest asset’. I don’t think it is as black and white as the article suggests, but I do think that business environment has changed in terms of expectations and speed, and the average worker needs to figure out how they contribute more effectively. However, I also believe that some of that responsibility lies with the enterprise, and their need to change their environment to help employees.
In my previous post I wrote about the fact that talent isn’t as innate as we think, and that the only way to ‘world-class’ and becoming an expert is based on practice. Purposeful practice. And, lots of it (approximately 10 years of hard, deliberate practice). In reading around the topic it became clear that many of the stories describing the path to success seemed to be centre around a couple of things. A person who was to become the future star with a desire and motivation to succeed that was often developed as a result of an early influence in their life. And an environment that was constructed by circumstances often including the input of a third party who played a key role to the main protagonist. Matthew Syed put it well when he said, ‘Child prodigies do not have unusual genes; they have unusual upbringings’.
The environments within these stories turned out to be unique and extreme in some way that helps the future star become the person they become. An environment so powerful that the future star develops a dedication, the skills, the support and the opportunities to rise to the very top of their chosen pursuit.
There are lessons in these stories to help us shape our own environments to develop the talent of our people. We may not be starting with susceptible kids who at the age of 3 decide that they want to be the future star of formula one or the next mozart, but there are people who, with the right conditions, can strive to be the best. We always have an opportunity to improve and excel regardless of when and where we start. As leaders it is important to recognise the environment that we really find ourselves in. Max De Pree in his book Leadership Jazz said ‘People must be able to pursue their potential’. It all comes down to environment and opportunity.
Exacting Standards
Albert Einstein said, ‘I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn’.
What I find most interesting about the stories of talent and determination I’ve examined is that one or more of the elements of any of the backgrounds has been completely uncompromising. The fathers of sporting prodigies such as Venus and Serena Williams, or Tiger Woods, or Lewis Hamilton created circumstance of every situation for helping their children develop mentally and physically. These environments were based around extreme and exacting standards. There was little compromise. They helped focus on their weaknesses to develop, but also helped them shape an utter belief that they were meant to be part of the elite. They relied on the idea that practice makes perfect, and nothing but perfection was acceptable. Does this sound like your workplace?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit. ~ Aristotle
Standards such as these are often encountered in the business world too. Two examples spring to mind: IBM and Apple.
For IBM they needed to transform themselves from the mainframe supplier of hardware to a services based company that used the expertise to shape solutions. They created an environment based on values and principles that were upheld from Lou Gerstner’s vision. The change required a move away from the aggressive sales approach of product and a move towards a more service-based culture developing and delivering solutions, and relationships. Dee Hock’s quote describes the problem for most of us in the enterprise space well:
The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get old ones out. ~ Dee Hock
Underneath all the sophisticated processes, Lou Gerstner concluded, there is always the company’s sense of values and identity. This is where he decided to focus. In his book, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, he said, “It took me to age fifty-five to figure that out. I always viewed culture as one of those things you talked about, like marketing and advertising. It was one of the tools that a manager had at his or her disposal when you think about an enterprise.” He added, “The thing I have learned at IBM is that culture is everything”.
They spent years resetting the standards and upholding the expectations required. I think this is a key enabler for performance. It is rare to see it upheld. It is more likely to be talked about and dismissed like Gerstner refers to.
The other example (and there are many more) is Apple. Since his death, Steve Jobs has had many things written about him. Not least has been about his approach to leadership and management. He had a pursuit for perfection. It is written that his ego drove him in a way that ensured that everything about the product created by Apple was exact. He worked tirelessly to be the best and he held the whole of the company to his very high standards. Nothing was ever good enough and he constantly challenged to improve. It will be interesting to see if the environment continues.
Enabling Fast Feedback – To stretch, fail and learn
The complexities and dynamics of how a single person’s performance can be linked with the entire performance of an enterprise is too great. There needs to be another way of getting more direct feedback on performance, and what can be done to improve.
As business leaders or managers, providing fast feedback is critical for the growth of team members. This is what the environments of the elite did for them. Often we can go weeks, months or, in some extreme cases, years without giving real feedback on the work our people do and how they are performing it. We are often very critical of the results delivered by people, but not the practice that generated the result. This needs remedying, and we also need to create environments outside of the day-to-day job to develop skills.
Now, I’m not of the opinion that you only learn from failure. Learning from success is also useful, and good for the self-esteem. But, what I am a fan of is that you learn more from the situations where you have been stretched and tested. Max De Pree said ‘We need to learn to think in terms of discovery. Once a discovery is made, we need to make the right connections and to give relevance in our current environment’. This means we need to develop a learning culture.
Julia Cameron once said that ‘Making a piece of art requires a myriad tiny steps’. Many little lessons need to put together to develop a masterpiece or an outstanding performance. This is all the work that is done behind the scene that often goes unnoticed. People need an environment where they can make mistakes, gain feedback and improve. This needs to happen regularly. In sport, this is the training ground.
In business, we don’t have training grounds. We are always on. We don’t get the time and luxury of professional athletes. We are less tolerant of failure in business like sports fans are in the big games. Even Michael Jordan regales stories of missing some really important points in crucial games on his way to becoming one of the greatest. Maybe this is something we need to improve upon.
Developing the business training grounds is necessary. We need to develop communities of practice that enable us to learn and improve in a safe but challenging environment. Maybe in teams and projects outside of the normal spotlight. The problem is that many enterprises have developed a fixed mindset culture. One where a commitment made (however realistic or not) is one that must be met at all cost or at least expectations managed appropriately. And there is no room to learn or improve when you are on one of these projects. The fear of failure permeates everything and most people do things within their own comfort zone so that they are not to blame or culpable within a project that is destined to hit the rocks. This means that the project will never get the best and most courageous ideas or the most effort invested in it. In a sense, they are set up to fail because of mindset.
Making the Time
If the numbers are to be believed and it takes 10,000 hours to develop a world-class expertise in sports, arts, business or any other discipline, what does it mean in terms of supporting the development of our people? Remember the Dee Hock quote? The skills that have already been developed in our existing workforce may no longer all be relevant. Some will be, but the business environment has changed. The business environment will continue to change. Traditional companies are already struggling. Kodak anyone?
We know teachers are already teaching students skills that will help them deal with jobs and technology that don’t exist yet. We need to be doing the same in business. This means unlearning some stuff that we’ve always known to be right (or at least we thought we did!). We need to prepare people for uncertainty. We need to encourage and support people to experiment and improve for the good of our companies. We need to create a culture of critical thinkers. This requires a change in our environment.
People will need time and space to improve. It might not require 10,000 hours for everyone in an organisation, but it will take committed time nonetheless. It means that we need the right influences in our organisation that represents a set of exacting standards that helps us develop. But it also requires a strategy for developing a new set of skills, and releasing the latent potential within the organisation.
The world of business is moving super fast, and the practice that is required to remain world class is increasing. We might not think the kids coming out of college are quite ready to run our businesses, but they are more savvy with technology than most of our workforces. They might not understand the politics of our organisations or the nuances of managing a message, but they certainly know how to connect with people around the world and are more ‘agile’ than most middle-aged business folks. They know how to communicate in 140 characters or less. Their environment is one of ubiquitous technology, speed and communication. This is what Godin was referring to, I believe. They are already many hours ahead of us on their way to 10,000.
Our environments need to cultivate learning and skills acquisition that help all levels of an organisation improve. Not just the graduates, or apprentices. Not just the people in the talent pools. Nor just the workers. This includes leaders and followers alike. It includes the young and the old. We are all products of our environments. So, our results depend on our ability to create the best environments for today.
Writers write
January 16, 2012 | Phil Black
An obvious statement. One that I sometimes find easy to forget though. I have been talking about writing for some time. I’ve always wanted to write well. I am an avid reader. I’ve read many fantastic books: Fiction, non-fiction, biographies, comedies, tragedies. The list goes on and on. I must have read thousands of books. Because I read such exceptional work and see the amazing end product, I feel I should be able to produce something as compelling. The truth is that I don’t write well enough and it doesn’t come easily to me. In reality with my current situation I am never going to produce a written masterpiece. My talent is not great enough.
However, one of the books I’ve been reading recently is Bounce by Matthew Syed. This is a well written book covering the idea that talent is a myth and the people we believe to be born with god-given gifts are really the product of their environment and the amount of hard work and dedication they have invested in their chosen discipline. We see the tip of the iceberg. Matthew’s premise comes from many studies, but also from his own, personal story. He became the British number-one table tennis player at the age of 24 and has reflected on what shaped him to be the best in the country. I’ve come across many stories like this before. Gladwell’s Outliers covers a number of situations where notable individuals in recent history were shaped by a unique set of circumstances and an opportunity which others didn’t capitalise on. Some of these came from the largest names within the computer industry who grew up in the Silicon Valley area at the time when the first opportunities to mess around with technology appeared. The opportunity and temerity to play helped shape their futures.
From the field of sport, Jonny Wilkinson and David Beckham are two notable sportsmen that I’ve read about that have stories (Jonny’s story) that border on the obsessive. They had a desire to perfect a particular skill which helped them to become part of the elite within their chosen fields. It wasn’t just the desire though. The conditions were right.
I have a similar story (not exactly mine, but one I was part of) that parallels much of the thesis in the book. When I was 7 my parents moved across my hometown, Stevenage. It wasn’t too far, but far enough away for me to have to find a new group of friends. I lived on a green at the front of my house. A patch of grass that was about 20 square meters with about 10 trees and various stumps that made excellent football goals. Around the green were 8 houses. In those 8 houses there were 6 boys of similar ages. Martin, Ashley, Jason, Ross, me and Andrew. I was the oldest and Ashley was the youngest. He was born the year I moved into the house. He was also the younger brother of Martin. Around the area (not directly around the green, but within 100 yards) were around another 10 lads who were mostly older than me. The one things that we all liked playing was football. As I grew up I played a lot of football with different groups. Sometimes with the older guys, but often with the lads around the green. We played all the time. When Ashley just started walking he joined us ‘out the front’ (as we called it) and he loved it. He loved trying to emulate his older brother (and his Dad, Luther, who was also pretty nifty with a football at his feet). Ashley was always first out and last in. He ran tirelessly and he always worked hard and had a great temperament. He couldn’t compare to most of us when we were 12 years old – he was still only 5, so we’ll let him off – but you could see he was shaping out to be very good. Because we played constantly and we actually played at a high standard (Martin and I both played at a pretty high standard as teenagers – actually, Martin still plays at a high standard) the younger boys became really good for their ages and they all went on to play together for many years. It was a great training ground. In fact, out of the 6 people around the green, 4 ended up playing professionally. Two of them found very good professions in the English Premiership. Jason played for Norwich City for a while. Ashley now plays for Manchester United and is a regular in the England first eleven. The environment helped shape two-thirds of that small population to get paid in a game that they loved. The 10,000 hours invested (I prefer Seth’s view on this, but in the case of well-established vocations 10,000 hours seems about right) never really felt like work. This story feels more than a coincidence.
Hard work, practice, an environment of challenge and a support network that encouraged and nurtured has helped shape an elite sportsman. When you read the life stories of many of the most successful people in the world they have similar characteristics in their narrative. Often, very unusual upbringings.
The formative years for people really do shape them, but I believe hard work, environment and opportunity could play as big a part in later life as they do at the beginning. We are just more attuned to helping youngsters because we believe they require nurturing and a supporting environment. The challenge is: what comes first? The opportunity or the hard work?
In various roles I’ve had I’ve been asked by my team members to promote them into positions of leadership. For me, it feels odd when someone comes up to me and asks for me to tell her team-mates that she is now in charge and they should listen to her. People who know me, and have worked with me, know that I am not someone who would generally take the requester up on their offer. I have done, but it has been under specific conditions. My view is that leaders lead. They don’t need me to tell others that they’re the leader. Project managers manage projects. It should be obvious, and everyone will know. A head-of-sales will sell and run sales. It is who they are. I wouldn’t need to explain. If someone needs to ask for help in setting other people’s expectations (and they’re not new to the position) then I tend to think that my interfering in a process that should be one of self-organisation is wrong. People tend to do the job they are most capable of.
But, I have helped people take up the position they desired. It has only ever been on the back of a serious amount of dedication and application of practice to be able to do the role. That is, the person has shown and demonstrated the hard work required before any opportunity arose. The aptitude and attitude are inextricably linked. Without the attitude the aptitude will never be gained if, like me, you believe in Matthew Syed’s thesis.
If you desire to lead a team then you need to do it. You need to practice it. You need to find and create opportunities to develop your skills. Most people tend to do what they can do. If you aspire to greater things then you need to do things you can’t do. This is what rounds us out and develops our skills. The difference between who you are and who you want to be is what you do.
We see less practicing in adulthood because everyone expects us to already be the finished article, and it is scary to show weakness to our peers. We tend to develop the skills to hide what we’re not very good at. We must resist this temptation and encourage ourselves and people around us to continue to practice and develop even if this means lesser performance whilst learning. Without this, we will stick in our comfort zones and continue to develop the defence mechanisms that maintains the status quo.
As for me, these stories give me hope with my writing. It means that my lack of innate talent shouldn’t hold me back. It is all reliant on my ability to practice which is more down to my priorities, my motivation and my work ethic. So, as it says at the bottom of this wordpress page (when editing) I should just write.
Being Professional
January 11, 2012 | Alex Adamopoulos
The common dictionary defines professional as following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain. It also says it relates to a person who is an expert in their chosen field or vocation. I imagine each of us has a mental picture of what we believe a professional might be. In business the idea of a professional takes on many different shapes but I’d like to cover some of the basics.
When I say “the basics”, I’m referring to our appearance, conduct and behavior as people working in business environments where we interact with others each day, especially customers and those external to our own organization.
Someone once said that 80% of success is just showing up. I would add that how we show up makes more of a difference. I recently did an interview for a senior role in the company that is intended to be primarily customer facing. Upon review of this person’s resume (CV) it made sense to schedule a meeting. It was at this point that my views of a professional were challenged. While this person had good experience, a seemingly successful track record and knew a fair amount about the topics we were discussing, I was constantly distracted by their shirt. This person’s shirt had never been ironed, the collar was turning up, the stitching on the sleeve was coming apart and I kept trying to reconcile in my mind how this was something they didn’t realize might be troublesome in an interview, especially for a role that would be dealing directly with customers at senior levels.
Maybe his dry cleaning got lost or his iron stopped working that morning or perhaps he just didn’t see it as important. The person didn’t have the complete set of experience and skills we needed and if he had, then I would have definitely addressed this in the interview. Part of me wishes that I raised it with him regardless just to make him aware and see if he was even conscious of this fact. This experience emphasized all the more how important “being professional” really is. This again goes back to what our definition or expectation might be, but if we take the simple dictionary definition, then being viewed as an expert and following an occupation somehow implies that we need to know where we fit into the equation and then look the part accordingly. I say accordingly because there isn’t one look or one way to be professional but it takes awareness and initiative on our part to know the what’s, why’s, when’s and how’s.
Answering the question: Would people buy from me? Will others follow me and accept my leadership? Am I credible?….
You might ask a different question. As business people, being professional means that we use a mirror and a lens. We use a mirror to honestly evaluate ourselves and ensure that our appearance, conduct and behavior meets the requirements for the environments we’re in. We use a lens to consider how others see us and whether we need to change something; be on time for meetings more often, talk less, listen more or even iron our shirt. Perhaps it is a bit personal, but I’ve had to tell others that they could use a mint or even take a shower.
If you work in a company where you are involved in the buying process, think about the people and companies you like to buy from. Maybe you’ve taken for granted that they show up dressed for the occasion at hand or that their company exemplifies core values and a presence that says “professional”. The truth is, it takes work to understand what professional really means for the given area or field we’re in but also for the customers we serve and the company we work in.
One organization held semi annual company meetings to discuss this very topic. They used the time to dig deep into the culture of their company and continuously redefine their definition or being professionals in their field. Everything from dress code, materials used, communication style and many other areas were addressed. They dusted off the employee manuals and kept a fresh perspective that if the markets and customers were changing then they needed to as well. This takes commitment and a level of effort that many will struggle to achieve but in the words of Alistair Cooke “A professional is someone who can do his best work when he doesn’t feel like it”
Lacking a spine
January 6, 2012 | Phil Black
Last night was a terrible one for Manchester United. They were comprehensively beaten by Newcastle United; A team six places behind them in the premiership. In some of the post-match reports the spine of the Newcastle team were heralded. This is a phrase that you often come across in football (soccer) and many other team based sports. The spine of a football team is: the goalkeeper, one of more central defenders, one or more central midfielders and at least one of the forwards. The spine of the team is the core that allows the rest to perform around them. A spine that is in unison, strong and powerful is key to success of any top-flight sports team. The spine discussed in these reports is a team within a team (eleven people on the pitch) within a team (the squad of players and the management, coaching staff and other supporting members). There are often many spines within different organisation structures, but there can be only one performing on a football pitch at the moment of play.
The telegraph described “There was a pace and purpose to Newcastle’s football, a quickness to their tempo as they poured forward, black-and-white-striped streaks”. The report goes on to describe how the different elements of the spine of the team were critical in making this situation real. Each player brought something to the spine on the night. They clicked. They were in harmony. It wasn’t really expected though.
It is amazing to think that on a different night, in different conditions the same spine may have been completely ineffective. Or, with one change of personnel in the spine, they may have been overrun by six goals the other way. That is the reality of teams in different situations. Individuals can make a difference, both positive and negative. Normally the Manchester United spine is the one lauded at the end of a match. Not their opposition’s. Manchester United, on the night, lacked a spine.
Shared purpose, interdependent roles and shared responsibilities supported by organisational structure and a goal that measures the team not the individual are important. But they also need to have time together to be effective. They need to learn instinctively who will do what and what skills are required to deal with different situations. They need to examine the conditions they are going to be playing in and who the opposition is going to put in their way. Tuckman’s model of Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing explains the phases over time that are required. This happens both outside of the playing pitch and then also on any single time that team get together to take on their opposition.
In business there are many teams each requiring strong spines. The elements of a spine is normally made up of individual members who come together to bring different elements of a business into cohesion. These are the people we trust, make things happen, generally good communicators who know their roles and responsibilities, and the skills of the wider team, what is important and how to get things done with the people around them. The similarities to the team within a team within a team notion is clear. When developing new IT systems or products the players on the pitch are the team delivering the work. They are (or should be) supported by other well-functioning teams (finance, PMO, HR, Project/Programme Management) with interconnecting member who help them prepare for, plan and execute to meet the goals set by the wider organisation and by them themselves. If any of these teams don’t have strong interconnected spines then trouble for the team on the pitch looms. The team playing the game is not enough.
Customer Experience or Customer Satisfaction
December 6, 2011 | Alex Adamopoulos
This week I had three separate experiences with three different companies that all provided poor customer experience. I trust that you have similar experiences weekly as well. The whole idea around customer experience is to maintain an ongoing deliberate effort to keeping customers pleased with the service they have received so that continuous improvement is something that exists as a real process. Customer satisfaction (CSAT), on the other hand, has a similar intent but has become relegated to binary measures such as surveys that produce a number (e.g. 95%) and often miss the closed loop requirement of getting under the skin of the survey.
Two of the three experiences I had were related to the company employee not knowing the answers to questions about their product even though they were the person responsible to interact with customers and serve them. Not only did they not know simple answers to questions I had about their product, they kept repeating the same wrong answer and ignored any attempt on my part to keep clarifying my initial question. The third experience was related to a global financial services firm that changed my account password at the request of an employee in my firm who was simply trying to get their access to accounts reinstated for the purpose of reviewing. In all three of these experiences I would provide a fairly low customer satisfaction rating if I were asked. That said, I have used the services of all three of these companies for years and have been fairly pleased. The question then is how does recent customer experience rate as opposed to overall customer satisfaction?
One answer to this question is to recognize that customer satisfaction is captured as a point in time measure that relates to a range of time over which a product or service was procured while customer experience is a real time measure relating to the most recent touch point of a customer with your product or service. While CSAT is important for capturing the high level view of “how we are doing”, customer experience provides us with an opportunity to improve in a rapid fashion.
Perhaps this is better explained in the difference between email and instant messaging. Email is a communication while IM is really a conversation. Many of us have used email for both up until the recent explosion of IM platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Yammer, texting, etc. These IM platforms have changed the way we talk to each other but have also become increasingly important for companies and their customers to share instant feedback. When a colleague of mine had a poor purchasing experience with a technology vendor, he tweeted about it on that company’s twitter account and got contacted within a day and was offered a satisfactory resolution. This is customer experience in action because the experience of the customer was dealt with in a real time manner vs. this same customer being sent a survey weeks after the purchase. Even if my colleague completed the survey, rated the company poorly and submitted it, chances are when the company processed all the surveys they received back their rating would still be high and this one customer experience would have been lost in the bunch.
In the enterprise space where large companies are providing services to customers via technology platforms the same holds true. The product development lifecycle (PDLC) takes many steps into consideration from the beginning of an idea through it’s production into a working product or service. The customer experience component needs to be at the heart of the PDLC of any product or service. This goes beyond just including various customer audiences to be part of the review process, it also needs to encompass a mechanism for how customers who use the product/service will interact with the company to resolve matters, improve service and build a better experience as close to real time as possible.
An emphasis on customer experience can bring a level of transparency and accountability that forces a decision, embeds a sense of urgency and causes companies to respond and resolve matters instead of burying the bad ones under the rug or letting them get lost in the survey frenzy of traditional CSAT models.
The continued used of technology platforms like IM will help improve customer experience if it is used correctly and is one mechanism for doing this but more importantly, companies need to remove the obstacles and the noise that prevent them from maintaining the heartbeat of their customers.
Customer experience is a conversation and the connection of voice and touch.
Optimizing the Supply Chain – Distributed Agile
November 1, 2011 | Alex Adamopoulos
In 2007 the topic of offshore distributed agile was front and center in the outsourcing community. There were lots of differing messages regarding the validity of actually using agile across two or more teams in two or more locations. We can say we’ve come a long way since 2007 but there are some key messages that haven’t changed and then some that have.
I had presented at a venture capital forum that year on the topic and recently pulled out some of the content to contrast what we are saying today. I was interested to see how our learning and thinking has changed. Here are some of the things that haven’t changed since 2007.
Don’t confuse effort with results
September 11, 2011 | Alex Adamopoulos
In response to my recent post, Two Primary Principles, I was asked about the tagline on my blog, “Don’t confuse effort with results”, and whether this is a principle I’ve described before. I realized that I hadn’t done that so I wanted to take this opportunity to do so.
I first heard this saying in 2001 from an executive I was working for who had the decency and courage to pull me aside one afternoon and share that although my work ethic and effort was not in question, the results, or lack of them, were in question. To be completely transparent, I was speechless when he explained this principle to me. I realized in that moment that I was viewing my work efforts as a measure of my success vs. weighing the results they were producing. I imagine this is a difficult conversation to have with anyone as a manager but it is certainly more difficult and challenging when you are having it with someone who has a big title and is expected to deliver quite a lot back to the business.
Two Primary Principles
August 16, 2011 | Alex Adamopoulos
As a company, we talk about values and principles a lot. We discuss it with each other and we discuss it with customers. It is more of a hot topic today than it has been for some time. The definition of company values and principles is important. Understanding the driving principles for you in your role and your company is just as important as the company’s mission statement and charter.
What you say you believe will impact how you behave and once you’ve put it out there for all the world to see in writing or etched on the glass of your conference room, then it is even more likely that you will need to remember them. A colleague of mine that presents to companies often on the topic of change and transformation often begins his presentation by showing a slide with our company’s values and principles on the left hand side. He then asks the audience if they can share what their company values and principles are. Each time I’ve witnessed him do this the result is the same; the audience shouts out some of the values and principles but typically it stops after 2 or 3 are mentioned. Each time it is obvious that they don’t really know them well.
The IT Mindset and Managing Vendors
July 17, 2011 | Philip Black
A slave to the business?
Have you ever come across someone who, when asked, tells you they work in IT? I wonder about this answer, what it means, who they actually work for, and why they don’t tell you about the work that their company does. I mean, IT isn’t a company, is it? In fact, I more often hear the speculation as to whether IT exists at all?? That is, whether IT is a part of the business rather than apart from the business. When I hear people answer that they work in IT, I conjure up images of many IT departments that I have walked into and feel my life-source drain slowly away from my body. I call this phenomenon the IT Mindset.
Application not Replication
July 15, 2011 | Alex Adamopoulos
This week I found myself using a one-liner that I’ve not used for sometime; application not replication. Many of us use one-liners because they often communicate a learning or experience in a very succinct way and avoid the need to use too many words. That said, one-liners are often just phrases we’ve picked up and tend to use randomly in any given conversation.
Then there are one-liners that have a deep and profound meaning to each of us because we have lived the experience rather than having just heard about it. For me, application not replication is one of those “one-liners”. This one-liner relates to a common mistake people make in many areas of life but for the purpose of this article let’s just say it relates to business. It refers to previous success and failure, to the things we did or didn’t do in other roles and positions we’ve held in companies.
