Yearly Archives: 2015

/2015

One-Fact Marketing

My wife helps people trace their ancestry through genealogy investigation. Unfortunately, she occasionally starts with someone else’s previously researched data. As she proceeds with her additive research, she occasionally finds a falsely identified relative from whom a whole tree has been built. Once this is discovered (after she has spent considerable time), she realizes that her time has been wasted on a dead trail—all because a previous researcher probably took one bit of ‘convenient’ information and jumped to a wrong identity conclusion without confirming it with a second or third source. My wife knows when investigating ancestry, you never accept any identity unless it can be verified by a second independent source.

This rule also applies in business marketing. The trait of a first-rate marketer is an obsession with information—they can never get enough and never consider it true unless it is corroborated.

An immature marketer will believe the first piece of information they hear. Without the curiosity to confirm the particulars, they act on this initial knowledge and tell their teammates. Suddenly, an unconfirmed fact—or rumor—becomes the truth. The misinformation is then spread to teammates who don’t question its validity. It becomes “the truth” and hence, the pursuit of confirmation stops.

When I was engaged in marketing, I would take advantage of this phenomenon. I deliberately leaked misinformation about my strategy in professional forums or in circles of particularly talkative people, in order to feed and fool the lazier marketers of my competitors—those who I knew wouldn’t bother to take the time to confirm the information with corroborating sources. I was careful to stay consistent with the misinformation in different settings, in hopes of creating multiple channels.

Key false facts I would leak included: the name of a […]

By |May 1st, 2015|Career Lessons|0 Comments

Principle-based Corporate Decisions

I have always believed that the majority of the operational decisions of a company need to be made from a set of core philosophies, precedent of past decisions and guidelines—those that guide the rationale behind nearly every decision. This is called principle-based decision-making, as opposed to situational-based models that make one decision at a time without a repeatable philosophy or rulebook. I have seen companies where situational-based decision making is dominant, creating erratic “one-off” decisions dictated by personality, familiarity and the last lobbyist. Mr. X receives a different decision than Ms. Y because of who they are or when they ask, not based on the principle of the issue.

Inconsistency of decision-making confuses those within the company, often giving way to a process of “game-playing” to get the desired answer. This is particularly an issue in technology-oriented companies due to the genetic personality type of the leadership. The natural tendency of the technology-trained decision maker is not to elevate to principle, but rather to dive into more detail. These individuals feel that somehow, by obtaining more detail, enlightenment eventually becomes evident and custom decision-making is a more sophisticated approach. But detail mining can also be used as justification for inconsistent answers on issues. When situational-based systems dominate, people within the organization start to game the process. They plot the timing. They selectively choose the sequence of who to asks last. And they usually tell their friends how to beat the system to get the answer they want.

If situational decision-making takes over, layers of the company’s management create added variation. One unit’s answer to a common problem/issue may be totally different than another unit. Soon the rank and file of the company categorizes the managers into “liberal” […]

By |April 1st, 2015|Career Lessons|0 Comments

Moving Your Company Upstream

My services are often requested from mid-sized professional services firms desiring to add management control and internal synergy, as their companies grow in multiple directions. Most of those firms started with several good content centric consultants and succeeded in growing by serving their clients well. With that success they wanted to add new growth streams and had internally found numerous advocates for new approaches. They embarked on a series of growth initiatives of various success levels. They observed larger firms and have tried several, if not all, of the following:

Add geography (more cities and even more countries)
Add new practice sectors (transportation, energy, water, environment, buildings, public relations, information technology, etc.)
Add new service offerings in both the upstream and downstream approaches (construction, CM at Risk, PPP, procurement, manufacturing, management consulting, asset planning, and operations and maintenance)
Add new client sets (different industrial sectors such as oil/gas, pharmaceuticals, tires, forestry, defense, etc.) or the Federal Government or state and local governments)

When I work with them and discuss their frustrations, they complain about increasingly having a complex set of “tribes” with different pricing concepts, skill types, risks, compensation expectations, client sales points, and wildly different superiority complexes. The CFOs are usually in a daze as to how to account properly to give everyone credit, but have one auditable set of books. Organizational design is especially a problem and no one is happy with the current design. Designs are complex requiring a three- or four-dimensional matrix. Sometimes they even have a few independent companies that each require different levels of support. No matter how they organize they may solve one issue, but soon create new flaws. These new flaws irritatingly grow over time, suggesting another re-organization. At the same time […]

By |March 1st, 2015|Career Lessons|0 Comments

Talk To Me!

OK, I admit it…I have a major hang-up with voicemail in offices as the primary mode of daily operations. I think it is diametrically opposed to superb client service for a services company. I don’t know how long voicemail has existed, but its appropriate usage has progressed over time from bad—to terrible—to miserable. Let’s admit it, voicemail is primarily there for the convenience of the one for which the automated voicemail message was generated, at the detriment of the sender of that message. The recorded message is indirectly saying, “My time is more important than yours, and I’ll get back to you when it is convenient for me. If necessary, I don’t care if we play phone tag for a week.” Is this what a good client service company is about, really?

When I say the voicemail conundrum has only gotten worse, I am referring to central computer-generated “receptionists” that force you to go through the electronic menu of: “If you know the extension of the person you are dialing, dial it now. If not, type in the first three letters of their last name” process. I have noticed the numbers on a phone are big, but letters are small—leaving me to struggle to find my glasses while response time runs out and I need to call again. It infuriates me. Everyone has experienced the systems for so-called great utility, insurance and banking companies that require you to wade through a series of push button access prompts. “If you want your balance, press 1, if you want to transfer funds, press 2, if you want to…” and on and on. I experienced one company that had eight different sequences in their automated “general directory.” Finally, as […]

By |February 1st, 2015|Career Lessons|0 Comments

Drilling Holes For Reality

Recently one my former Human Resources directors sent me an excellent article by Jack and Suzy Welch, entitled The One Question Every Boss Should Ask. Strayer University’s Jack Welch Management Institute published it. The boss’ key question of the article’s provocative title is: “Am I alone?”

When providing the article, my friend went on to compliment me as being one of the best leaders he had ever worked for to avoiding the Welch’s feared syndrome. That comment inspired me to write this article.

In the article, Jack and Suzy were referring to the isolation, and thus, a lack of a true world framework leaders often find themselves in when they are victims of not getting enough unbiased, unfiltered information. The insularity is caused by continually hearing the news from the same people, all of who have personal agendas. All reports want to stay relevant and positively regarded in their boss’ minds. Good news and compliments often grant them that, along with more and even easier future access.

The authors talk about the boss being trapped behind a corner office door receiving a stream of appointments consisting of only senior people who receive access and your time due to their positions. For the leader, these direct reports can steal most of your time. Of course, you need to allow time to listen to these subordinates you count on to help run your business, but devoting 100% of your time to them creates a false perception. Time is wasted when the same people consistently give the leader an overly reassuring, positive impression of the business. The result is the leader being comforted about their personal performance, which leads to decisions based on devoting the vast majority of your time to […]

By |January 1st, 2015|Career Lessons|0 Comments