As we get older a funny thing happens to most of us whether we like it or not. No, I'm not just referring to the changes in our physical bodies for it is clear that our hair loses it color, our skin its luster and our joints slow. But as we age we all gain wisdom. Wisdom comes from experiences and the lessons that we learn from our actions and their results over time. Wisdom, unlike intelligence, seems to grow as we age and increase from our experiences. While there certainly are some young wise people, wisdom seems to reside most in those who have lived longer.
In the United States particularly, we however work hard to ignore wisdom. As our population ages, we find ways to take our elders out of the mainstream. We move them out of business (ostensibly at age 65), out of industry, out of the teaching professions and instead relegate them to retirement communities where our focus is either to enable our elders to enjoy their golden years on the golf course or playing mahjong, or at least get them out of our way. Viewed this way, our aging seniors carry an increasing burden on the remainder of our population. Their health care is an increasing burden on our finances and their need for daily assistance redirects productive resources.
But we seem to missing the point and wasting a very power productive force in the way we have grown to treat our elders. By farming their wisdom we can increase our productivity, leverage their experiences and move our society ahead in ways that we have never dreamed possible.
As we transition into the second decade of the twenty-first century, we must find ways to tap into this reservoir of wisdom. While our seniors certainly will always need an increasing level of physical care, we must change our mindset on our aging from one of maintenance to one of leverage of their extraordinary capabilities to change our world for the better. By exposing their wisdom in ways we have not yet considered, our country and our world can indeed become a much wiser place.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
An Open Letter to Tim Cook
Dear Tim,
Congratulations on your recent promotion to CEO at Apple. Obviously, we are all concerned about what this implies about Steve's health. However, as his hand picked successor we have all the confidence in the world in the potential of your tenure.
Last week we saw the press you generated from your initial interviews. In those, we heard you say that "Apple would not change" under your leadership. While that may be what your loyal Apple employees, shareholders and the press wanted to hear, it raises many concerns.
It's very difficult to be the successor of an "imperial CEO." Just ask some of the high profile successors to Bill Gates, Phil Knight, Larry Page and a host of others. As the returning CEO at Apple, Steve certainly generated superhuman results, commanded a cult-like following, changed the course of consumer behavior, and in doing so resurrected your company from the ashes into one of today's most valuable companies. I'm sure this is a legacy you would like to perpetuate. But if I were going to give you any advice as you take on your new role, it is BE YOURSELF! Don't try to live in someone else's shoes. Be authentic. Even if it means changing the way things are done at Apple.
Steve Jobs is a once in a century phenomenon. Perhaps history will record him in the same league as Einstein, Ford, Ben Franklin, or Edison. You are not Steve Jobs. So don't try to be. Tim, you have much to bring to Apple. You have been the behind the scenes architect of some of the most important parts of Apple's success. But I fear that if you try to perpetuate Jobs-ian cult-like status you will fall flat on your face.
Being yourself will require changes that Steve would not have made. Make them. Be sure they are thoughtful and take into account the expected reaction from the loyal Appleonians. Start with "Why". Make sure the employee ranks, customers, and even the press understand your deep feelings for the changes and then proceed.
Don't expect immediate gratification. In fact expect the opposite. Human nature abhors change. Most of your constituents will likely oppose your changes. Be patient. If you are as smart as you appear, the changes you make will be for the good. Keep the faith; don't back down.
Apple is an important American icon, especially in this fragile economy. Finding ways to cause Apple to grow and prosper is more important than ever. Steve hand picked you for this job. He probably was right. Don't let us down.
Congratulations on your recent promotion to CEO at Apple. Obviously, we are all concerned about what this implies about Steve's health. However, as his hand picked successor we have all the confidence in the world in the potential of your tenure.
Last week we saw the press you generated from your initial interviews. In those, we heard you say that "Apple would not change" under your leadership. While that may be what your loyal Apple employees, shareholders and the press wanted to hear, it raises many concerns.
It's very difficult to be the successor of an "imperial CEO." Just ask some of the high profile successors to Bill Gates, Phil Knight, Larry Page and a host of others. As the returning CEO at Apple, Steve certainly generated superhuman results, commanded a cult-like following, changed the course of consumer behavior, and in doing so resurrected your company from the ashes into one of today's most valuable companies. I'm sure this is a legacy you would like to perpetuate. But if I were going to give you any advice as you take on your new role, it is BE YOURSELF! Don't try to live in someone else's shoes. Be authentic. Even if it means changing the way things are done at Apple.
Steve Jobs is a once in a century phenomenon. Perhaps history will record him in the same league as Einstein, Ford, Ben Franklin, or Edison. You are not Steve Jobs. So don't try to be. Tim, you have much to bring to Apple. You have been the behind the scenes architect of some of the most important parts of Apple's success. But I fear that if you try to perpetuate Jobs-ian cult-like status you will fall flat on your face.
Being yourself will require changes that Steve would not have made. Make them. Be sure they are thoughtful and take into account the expected reaction from the loyal Appleonians. Start with "Why". Make sure the employee ranks, customers, and even the press understand your deep feelings for the changes and then proceed.
Don't expect immediate gratification. In fact expect the opposite. Human nature abhors change. Most of your constituents will likely oppose your changes. Be patient. If you are as smart as you appear, the changes you make will be for the good. Keep the faith; don't back down.
Apple is an important American icon, especially in this fragile economy. Finding ways to cause Apple to grow and prosper is more important than ever. Steve hand picked you for this job. He probably was right. Don't let us down.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Anniversary of 9/11
I’m not sure about you, but I was very moved by the commemoration events of 9/11 over the weekend. Even going so far as to get tearful over recalling the Mike Piazza home run and ensuring story from back in 2001 (if you don’t know Mike, he’s a former New York Met’s player who hit a game winning homerun the night that baseball started back after 9/11. He apparently touched the lives of many, including a family of one of the firefighters who lost his life as a first responder.)
But the purpose of my correspondence is not to be sappy. It is to spur all of us to action.
Since 9/11 we have fallen into an national malaise. Our economy is in the doldrums. Our politics have become quite divisive. Our optimism is at an all time low. And the patriotism, caring, and goodwill that we experienced just post this horrific event has given way to a nation that is not nearly as cohesive as the one we felt at that time. As I watched yesterday, I was frustrated and felt the need to do something.
I thought back to what I did and said on that fateful day. I was in London on 9/11 and only heard of the attacks when an administrative assistant at the firm we were visiting interrupted our meeting crying, just after lunch (UK time) with the news. I felt powerless then, being 3,000 miles away from home, my family, friends, and my office. So I fell back on the only thing that I knew was true – the way we treat each of our fellow human beings is something that we immediately and directly can control.
With all the uncertainty over what was happening back at home, I wrote a note to all my employees and friends that evening from my hotel room just off of Hyde Park in the heart of London. I asked each to reach out and do a random act of kindness each day for at least one person. Whether that be holding a door open, welcoming a stranger, giving blood to help an ailing person, or whatever else they could come up with. I figured that whatever we did at a grass roots level might be contagious and might become more common place and perhaps even a way of life for us to deal with each other. I didn’t expect this to solve all the problems of the world, but I did think it would be a small start.
As we look back at 9/11 from where we are today, it sure appears to me that we could use a little bit of extra kindness in our lives today. So I will renew my request to you. Perhaps with this small act we can create a movement that might just provide the tipping point we need to get our nation and our world back on track. And if you pass this notion on to a friend, perhaps together we might begin to make a difference.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Lessons from our Country's Leadership
As we wind down towards what appears to be a short term resolution of our debt ceiling issue, I am feeling the same frustration as tens of millions of other Americans about the process of governing our country. Along the way, I wondered, sometimes out loud, if there was anything we could learn in business or in life from this horrendous episode of our history.
The first lesson that I believe we can learn is that when you are in a position of power, taking advantage of that will always lead to future consequences. President Obama did exactly the wrong thing when he had the once in a century opportunity to ram through healthcare legislation while holding a razor thin opposition-proof margin in the Congress. While the legislation passed, he set himself and our country up for these unforseen consequences of the future.
Leadership Matters! When times get tough and there is clear and devisive strongly and honestly felt disagreement, it takes a true leader to step up, let both sides vet their points of view and then force compromise. Leadership requires sensitivity to feelings. Leadership requires diplomacy. Leadership requires discretion. Great leadership does not call press conferences to air partisan feelings to the world. Most great leadership takes place behind closed doors, not subject to the public scrutiny. When you try to gain friends or politcal points instead of progress, you are not exhibiting leadership.
Hostage negotiating may solve immediate problems but carries with it a heavy price. What we are seeing from factions of one of our political parties is clear and unadulterated hostage negotiation tactics -- disregard of the consequences of not being able to reach an agreement. Hostage takers set clear lines in the sand and are not willing to budge. They hold the key to the results and know it. They have a purely selfish or ideological rationale. If you give in to a hostage taker they will ALWAYS ask for more. Unless you are willing to bear the consequences of not coming to agreement, don't even begin the negotiation process with them.
Unfortunately, hostage takers often win. In order to avoid catastrophic consequences (life or death in this analogy and the demise of our economic system in reality) our politicians overwhelmingly gave into the hostage takers. The question now is: What is next? With our economy still alive (some think barely), you can be sure our hostage takers will ask for more, continuning to hold our Nation's economy and political system at bay. Ultimately we are bound for a shoot out with dire consequences. The only thing that is not clear is where and when.
The first lesson that I believe we can learn is that when you are in a position of power, taking advantage of that will always lead to future consequences. President Obama did exactly the wrong thing when he had the once in a century opportunity to ram through healthcare legislation while holding a razor thin opposition-proof margin in the Congress. While the legislation passed, he set himself and our country up for these unforseen consequences of the future.
Leadership Matters! When times get tough and there is clear and devisive strongly and honestly felt disagreement, it takes a true leader to step up, let both sides vet their points of view and then force compromise. Leadership requires sensitivity to feelings. Leadership requires diplomacy. Leadership requires discretion. Great leadership does not call press conferences to air partisan feelings to the world. Most great leadership takes place behind closed doors, not subject to the public scrutiny. When you try to gain friends or politcal points instead of progress, you are not exhibiting leadership.
Hostage negotiating may solve immediate problems but carries with it a heavy price. What we are seeing from factions of one of our political parties is clear and unadulterated hostage negotiation tactics -- disregard of the consequences of not being able to reach an agreement. Hostage takers set clear lines in the sand and are not willing to budge. They hold the key to the results and know it. They have a purely selfish or ideological rationale. If you give in to a hostage taker they will ALWAYS ask for more. Unless you are willing to bear the consequences of not coming to agreement, don't even begin the negotiation process with them.
Unfortunately, hostage takers often win. In order to avoid catastrophic consequences (life or death in this analogy and the demise of our economic system in reality) our politicians overwhelmingly gave into the hostage takers. The question now is: What is next? With our economy still alive (some think barely), you can be sure our hostage takers will ask for more, continuning to hold our Nation's economy and political system at bay. Ultimately we are bound for a shoot out with dire consequences. The only thing that is not clear is where and when.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Skipping a Level
There's a right way and a wrong way to have skip level meetings. But meeting with staff members who report to one of your direct reports is a great way to ensure that you have open communication with your team and that you understand the issues that your team may be encountering at a very personal level. While trust is a critical part of the relationship between a manager and an employee, I've always relied on "trust and verify" as the way to ensure that the trust remains solid. The verify part, is to hear what's going on right from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Sometimes managers are reluctant to enable conversations between their boss and their direct reports. Usually this is due to a lack of confidence or perhaps this trust issue that I mentioned. But getting to a place where these meetings are part of a regular schedule is a very helpful process.
As I said at the outset, there is a right and wrong way to go about these meetings. The right way involves building trust, setting this out as a standard process, and implementing it well by spending your time listening. These go wrong when the manager begins to migrate from listening to telling. When a manager skips a level and "tells" an employee what to do or directs them to a different place than perhaps their direct manager was suggesting, things can go awry.
Skipping a level and directing an employee is a clear way of disempowering the manager. By introducing direction from a skip level above, priorities can change, authority becomes foggy, and the manager caught in the middle may likely be damanged. Accepting negative comments about your direct report from their subordinate, even without acknowledging or acting upon them, can erode the foundation that a manager requires to with her employees. So your conversation should be directed at gaining a clear understanding rather than imposing your way or offering up your authority.
Assuming you can pull this off without negatively impacting other management level relationships, you can learn important information about your organization that you might not otherwise receive.
Sometimes managers are reluctant to enable conversations between their boss and their direct reports. Usually this is due to a lack of confidence or perhaps this trust issue that I mentioned. But getting to a place where these meetings are part of a regular schedule is a very helpful process.
As I said at the outset, there is a right and wrong way to go about these meetings. The right way involves building trust, setting this out as a standard process, and implementing it well by spending your time listening. These go wrong when the manager begins to migrate from listening to telling. When a manager skips a level and "tells" an employee what to do or directs them to a different place than perhaps their direct manager was suggesting, things can go awry.
Skipping a level and directing an employee is a clear way of disempowering the manager. By introducing direction from a skip level above, priorities can change, authority becomes foggy, and the manager caught in the middle may likely be damanged. Accepting negative comments about your direct report from their subordinate, even without acknowledging or acting upon them, can erode the foundation that a manager requires to with her employees. So your conversation should be directed at gaining a clear understanding rather than imposing your way or offering up your authority.
Assuming you can pull this off without negatively impacting other management level relationships, you can learn important information about your organization that you might not otherwise receive.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
I'm not good at others providing me with praise. But I was particularly moved by Rick McAninch's introduction at the recent Stevie Awards. Rick hit my "why" spot on. I am quite grateful to Value Selling and all they have done to help me understand the solution selling process and being a critical partner in developing the various sales teams with whom I have had the opportunity to work.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Finding new STAR Employees
A mentor of mine once told me that if your success in hiring is 50% you are better than most. And although that may be correct, a 50% miss rate is very expensive.
For much of my career, I relied on what I thought were sly questions to probe and test each interview candidate, trying to figure out how they think, how they reason, how intelligent they are, and how they might fit into the organization. Some passed with flying colors and some failed. Some we hired and some we did not. However, when I reviewed the "results" of my hiring, I was disappointed. There was all too little correlation from the ones who "passed" the interview process to their success in their roles.
At Force 3, we decided to try to beat these odds. After a good amount of research and a little help from our friends, we aligned on a new approach of behavioral interviewing called STAR. The acronym STAR stands for "S"ituation, "T"ask, "A"ction, "R"esult. The difference between a STAR interview and those traditional interviews that most of us fall back upon, is that done right, a STAR interview is very hard for the prospective employee to game.
I not assuming that any prospective employee that I've interviewed has intentionally been deceitful. However, it is very clear that we all try to "perform" during the interview process. Some of us do a better job than others - for example, sales people are good at being chameleons and taking on the characteristics best suited to win over their prospect. However, when we interview, we are really not trying to measure performances, we are trying to measure people.
The STAR process enables us to to a much better job of getting past those who just plain old interview well and those who don't. It focuses us on inquiring deeply into their past successes and failures and actions that the candidate actually took, rather than those they might have thought about. We drill deeply into what actually occurred in their historical backgrounds and then are in a position to overlay those actions and results on what we anticipate they will encounter in our environment.
The interview process that we use is painstaking and tedious. It requires the investment of tens of hours of multiple peoples' time and attention. It includes multiple (usually four) stages of multi-person interviews, exercises, and social interaction. It requires a deep commitment from our organization - both in time and resources. And, as we have learned the hard way, there are no shortcuts.
Some candidates blanche at the investment required on their part to go through this process. These candidates can be weeded out immediately. Others find that the intensity of the process gives them confidence that we are serious about the quality of candidate we invite into our organization. And the best candidates are often the ones who are specifically attracted to our process because it enables them to more clearly portray their past experiences.
So far our anecdotal results seem quite promising. However, anecdotes alone are not enough to justify this level of investment. So over the next months and years we will be comparing our success rates and anticipate being able to attribute a concrete return on our investment to this process.
For much of my career, I relied on what I thought were sly questions to probe and test each interview candidate, trying to figure out how they think, how they reason, how intelligent they are, and how they might fit into the organization. Some passed with flying colors and some failed. Some we hired and some we did not. However, when I reviewed the "results" of my hiring, I was disappointed. There was all too little correlation from the ones who "passed" the interview process to their success in their roles.
At Force 3, we decided to try to beat these odds. After a good amount of research and a little help from our friends, we aligned on a new approach of behavioral interviewing called STAR. The acronym STAR stands for "S"ituation, "T"ask, "A"ction, "R"esult. The difference between a STAR interview and those traditional interviews that most of us fall back upon, is that done right, a STAR interview is very hard for the prospective employee to game.
I not assuming that any prospective employee that I've interviewed has intentionally been deceitful. However, it is very clear that we all try to "perform" during the interview process. Some of us do a better job than others - for example, sales people are good at being chameleons and taking on the characteristics best suited to win over their prospect. However, when we interview, we are really not trying to measure performances, we are trying to measure people.
The STAR process enables us to to a much better job of getting past those who just plain old interview well and those who don't. It focuses us on inquiring deeply into their past successes and failures and actions that the candidate actually took, rather than those they might have thought about. We drill deeply into what actually occurred in their historical backgrounds and then are in a position to overlay those actions and results on what we anticipate they will encounter in our environment.
The interview process that we use is painstaking and tedious. It requires the investment of tens of hours of multiple peoples' time and attention. It includes multiple (usually four) stages of multi-person interviews, exercises, and social interaction. It requires a deep commitment from our organization - both in time and resources. And, as we have learned the hard way, there are no shortcuts.
Some candidates blanche at the investment required on their part to go through this process. These candidates can be weeded out immediately. Others find that the intensity of the process gives them confidence that we are serious about the quality of candidate we invite into our organization. And the best candidates are often the ones who are specifically attracted to our process because it enables them to more clearly portray their past experiences.
So far our anecdotal results seem quite promising. However, anecdotes alone are not enough to justify this level of investment. So over the next months and years we will be comparing our success rates and anticipate being able to attribute a concrete return on our investment to this process.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Patience
I never had it and probably never will. I want and expect things to be accomplished quickly and efficiently. I get frustrated when it is taking longer than I expect to handle almost any issue. I've always thought that my urgency was a positive personal quality. Short cycle times means efficiency. But does it? Last year I had the opportunity to learn an important lesson about patience; one that I expect will change the way I look at the future.
One of our more experienced sales people, although only with us for just over a year, had come off of a very poor year of production - something like 30% of quota, which meant that they were costing us more than they were generating. The portion of the prior year they worked for us was equally disappointing. Most sales organizations don't stand for that kind of poor production. I didn't think we should either.
But their manager was supportive, expressing that the rep was "doing all the right things." Not wanting to take the baton from the manager's hands, I agreed to participate in some of their one on one meetings to learn for myself. I investigated their sales process - it looked surprisingly good. I sat in on a pipeline review - it looked promising. I decided to wait another quarter before forcing a decision. Others in the organization told me I was getting soft.
Another quarter came and went with no appreciable production. I revisted the conversation with their manager again. And once again I was told that production was coming. But my patience was wearning thin. I heard echos of my critics calling me soft. I was growing impatient.
We girded for what I expected to be another disappointing quarter. To my surprise and great satisfaction, my patience was repaid, again and again and again. Not only did the sales rep improve, but they ended up producing three times their annual quota during the remainder of the year.
Since then, I've probably not grown much in the patience department. I still get frustrated when things don't happen quickly enough. But now I religiously rely on my managers to "prove" out their points of view and suspend my impatience in anticipation of even greater future results.
One of our more experienced sales people, although only with us for just over a year, had come off of a very poor year of production - something like 30% of quota, which meant that they were costing us more than they were generating. The portion of the prior year they worked for us was equally disappointing. Most sales organizations don't stand for that kind of poor production. I didn't think we should either.
But their manager was supportive, expressing that the rep was "doing all the right things." Not wanting to take the baton from the manager's hands, I agreed to participate in some of their one on one meetings to learn for myself. I investigated their sales process - it looked surprisingly good. I sat in on a pipeline review - it looked promising. I decided to wait another quarter before forcing a decision. Others in the organization told me I was getting soft.
Another quarter came and went with no appreciable production. I revisted the conversation with their manager again. And once again I was told that production was coming. But my patience was wearning thin. I heard echos of my critics calling me soft. I was growing impatient.
We girded for what I expected to be another disappointing quarter. To my surprise and great satisfaction, my patience was repaid, again and again and again. Not only did the sales rep improve, but they ended up producing three times their annual quota during the remainder of the year.
Since then, I've probably not grown much in the patience department. I still get frustrated when things don't happen quickly enough. But now I religiously rely on my managers to "prove" out their points of view and suspend my impatience in anticipation of even greater future results.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Start with Why
As is my usual habit during the holidays, I've read several books these past few weeks. One I just completed was Start with Why by Simon Sinek. Mr. Sinek's premise is that all organizations can describe "what" they do, some can explan "how" they do it, but few can describe "why." He suggests that the only sustainable way to be a leader, whether it be a person or an organization is to start by describing "why" you do what you do. And that "why" ought to be much more than just plain monetarily focused.
Thinking about this personally, I discovered that I too need a "why". I've often tried to put the pieces together to determine where I am in my life's work and and perhaps how I got here. In fact I truly believe that we are all put on this earth to make a difference. And my difference is to share what I know and how I know to do it, to make others great. I do it in business, I certainly try to do it with my kids, and I do it through my work with my alma matter, Union College, and the other schools where I am invited to work directly with the students.
At Force 3, my "why" is the same. I am privileged to have been invited to participate at an executive level of this very successful company that has existed without me for almost two decades. And I came to Force 3 with no background in working in the federal government market and no experience working with a product reseller. So why did they need me, and what business did I have thinking I could help?
My background for the past decade plus has been working with founder-led companies that are trying to increase their scale. What I have found consistently in each of these experiences is that in order to do so, a founder-led company needs to change. It needs to go beyond a single powerful and effective leader who up to a certain size can virtually touch every person every day, to one where others now need to take on this role. Morphing from this personal founder-led touch, to one where these touches need to be multiplied and come from others, is a difficult and non-intuitive task. It requires a different approach than just about any founder has known in their past.
The founders whom I have had the honor to work with have all been quite capable. They all have beat the odds, created valuable entities from scratch. My role has always been the same. Take the magic they have performed and somehow multiply this over a larger group of employees at a greater scale than ever before.
To do so, in each case, has required the identification and the development of new leaders. No matter what the industry, or even the size of the entity, it has always been the same. My "what" is that I work hard to identify people with capabilities who perhaps have not yet been sufficiently challenged to take on a new role, a new identity, or a new set of skills. What I have found is that there often are people within these organizations who are capable of taking on their new leadership positions, though in many cases they are not certain they are up for the task.
Most times it is not easy. Embracing change is not something that most of us humans are much good at. We crave routines, we like certainty, and we are likely quite good at doing the jobs we are doing today. My "how" is moving their proverbial "cheese" and forcing them outside of their comfort zones. Then giving them some insights, tools and methods for moving forward with these new opportunities.
My challenge is getting people to agree to follow my leadership. I am usually the new guy, the interloper, the one who will now interfere with their personal relationships with the founder. The task is often daunting.
As with most organizations, my "what"s are very clear. My "hows" have been honed from years of trial and error. And now, I have found a new tool to help me leverage these "hows." Starting today, I'm starting with "why." I'm going to always be sure that the people I am working first know my "why". Why I do what I do is that I get real joy and satisfaction from taking someone who is capable but untested and unsure, and challenging them to take on bigger and more important roles than ever before. Getting them to try new things, give up old routines, and make a much larger impact than they ever thought possible.
Unfortunately, sometimes there are casualties. But often, these are outweighed by the value that is brought to the organization, and perhaps most important, by the increasing capabilities of the people who decide to take on the challenge.
Perhaps my "why" in genetic. My mother spent more than three decades as a grade school teacher. She even taught my own first grade class for several days as a substitute teacher. Whether this is genetic or has grown over my years of experience. I am now very sure that this is my "why." And, I am looking forward to seeing how starting with my own "why" will improve the odds of my success.
Thinking about this personally, I discovered that I too need a "why". I've often tried to put the pieces together to determine where I am in my life's work and and perhaps how I got here. In fact I truly believe that we are all put on this earth to make a difference. And my difference is to share what I know and how I know to do it, to make others great. I do it in business, I certainly try to do it with my kids, and I do it through my work with my alma matter, Union College, and the other schools where I am invited to work directly with the students.
At Force 3, my "why" is the same. I am privileged to have been invited to participate at an executive level of this very successful company that has existed without me for almost two decades. And I came to Force 3 with no background in working in the federal government market and no experience working with a product reseller. So why did they need me, and what business did I have thinking I could help?
My background for the past decade plus has been working with founder-led companies that are trying to increase their scale. What I have found consistently in each of these experiences is that in order to do so, a founder-led company needs to change. It needs to go beyond a single powerful and effective leader who up to a certain size can virtually touch every person every day, to one where others now need to take on this role. Morphing from this personal founder-led touch, to one where these touches need to be multiplied and come from others, is a difficult and non-intuitive task. It requires a different approach than just about any founder has known in their past.
The founders whom I have had the honor to work with have all been quite capable. They all have beat the odds, created valuable entities from scratch. My role has always been the same. Take the magic they have performed and somehow multiply this over a larger group of employees at a greater scale than ever before.
To do so, in each case, has required the identification and the development of new leaders. No matter what the industry, or even the size of the entity, it has always been the same. My "what" is that I work hard to identify people with capabilities who perhaps have not yet been sufficiently challenged to take on a new role, a new identity, or a new set of skills. What I have found is that there often are people within these organizations who are capable of taking on their new leadership positions, though in many cases they are not certain they are up for the task.
Most times it is not easy. Embracing change is not something that most of us humans are much good at. We crave routines, we like certainty, and we are likely quite good at doing the jobs we are doing today. My "how" is moving their proverbial "cheese" and forcing them outside of their comfort zones. Then giving them some insights, tools and methods for moving forward with these new opportunities.
My challenge is getting people to agree to follow my leadership. I am usually the new guy, the interloper, the one who will now interfere with their personal relationships with the founder. The task is often daunting.
As with most organizations, my "what"s are very clear. My "hows" have been honed from years of trial and error. And now, I have found a new tool to help me leverage these "hows." Starting today, I'm starting with "why." I'm going to always be sure that the people I am working first know my "why". Why I do what I do is that I get real joy and satisfaction from taking someone who is capable but untested and unsure, and challenging them to take on bigger and more important roles than ever before. Getting them to try new things, give up old routines, and make a much larger impact than they ever thought possible.
Unfortunately, sometimes there are casualties. But often, these are outweighed by the value that is brought to the organization, and perhaps most important, by the increasing capabilities of the people who decide to take on the challenge.
Perhaps my "why" in genetic. My mother spent more than three decades as a grade school teacher. She even taught my own first grade class for several days as a substitute teacher. Whether this is genetic or has grown over my years of experience. I am now very sure that this is my "why." And, I am looking forward to seeing how starting with my own "why" will improve the odds of my success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)