What does getting picked off to end a world series game have to do with business management?

Game 4 of the 2013 World Series.  Kolten Wong, a 23 year old rookie pinch runs for a hobbled Allen Craig.  With two outs in the ninth inning, with Carlos Beltran at bat, trailing by two runs, he gets merciless picked off the base by Koji Uehara for the last out of the game and a turning point for the Red Sox.  So what does this have to do with business?

Carlos Beltran striking out looking 2006 NLCS

First some disclaimers.  Yes, I am a Red Sox fan.  And yes, I am still not over Carlos Beltran striking out looking with bases loaded for the Mets to end up on the short end of the NLCS in 2006 against the Houston Astros.

In the press conference after the game, Mike Matheny stated the following: 


Kolton Wong picked off to end Game 4 WS 2013

"Well, he knew, we had meetings early on, we go over all these guys," St. Louis manager Mike Matheny said. "We talk very clearly about a very good pickoff move. He was reminded once he got on base, and also reminded that run didn't mean much, [to be] be careful, shorten up. And he got a little extra, then he slipped and the slip cost him."

This press conference statement was lost in the noise of the event.  But it was one that struck me as profoundly wrong.  Kolten Wong was devastated.  He is a phenom prospect with a great future.  But this statement did him absolutely no good.  It did nothing to build any trust with Matheny.  It added to what had already been quite a bad day for Wong.  And it showed up as a less than caring manager, simply placing the blame (albeit quite ingeniously) on a rookie base running mistake.

How about we rewind the tape and instead of Matheny making this statement he said instead: "It was my fault.  I knew I was taking a chance by putting a rookie in this sensitive situation.  In fact, this runner did not matter - the next one was the tying  run.  So putting in my speedster on first at this time was a dumb mistake on my part."

The same result would have happened in the game.  The Cardinals still would have lost.  Changing his words would not have changed the outcome of the series.  What was done was done. The "slip" did cost the Cardinals the game.  But the words that Matheny used cost his team much more and this individual immensely.   Choosing a different approach, one where the manager took responsibility for the mistake, would have cemented a bond between a manager who surely wants the most from this promising player in the future.  And it would have gone a long way to deflect the criticism that Wong no doubt felt.

Family Business

Over the past few decades, I've had several experiences with family businesses.  None were my family (which probably is the reason I've had to work so hard in my career).  But they are a special breed of entrepreneurial endeavor.  Recently, I was interviewed for an article in the Harvard Business Review about a fictional (at least the names were changed to protect the guilty) family business.  Attached is a link to that article.  The Ex-CEO Contemplates a Coup.

Back to School

Last Thursday I made what has become an annual pilgrimage to Cambridge, Massachusetts for a set of MBA classes at Harvard Business School and MIT's Sloan School.  In the classes, a combination of professors lead by Noam Wasserman present the Les is More X 4 case that was created several years ago.  Each year is both humbling and invigorating.  Humbling in hearing these smart students pick apart my actions at the various CEO engagements that I've had. (I sure wish I had carried around a pocket sized HBS class with me before I did some of the things I did.)  Invigorating, in that I get energized by the exuberance of the students and their intellectual prowess and innovative thinking.

This year however was a bit different than the four years prior.  First of all I was set up to do five classes in one day at the two Universities -three at Harvard and then two at MIT.  Even just physically, it is difficult to get "up" for each of five classes in about 8 hours of duration, as well as navigating through Cambridge across the river (Charles) and between these two schools.  But perhaps more interesting is how the day started and ended.

Typically I arrive on the Harvard campus about an hour before the first class.  This was no exception.  I was greeted by Matthew O'Connell, Professor Noam Wasserman's assistant.  He ushered me into Noam's office where we touched based about the logistics for the upcoming day.  This year, Magnus Thor Torfason, Assistant Professor of Business Administration, was joining in the fun and has been teaching a 3rd section of Founders' Dilemmas at HBS.  Our cordial conversation started off as usual with Noam mentioning innocently along the way that a partner from Northbridge Venture Partners would be attending the class as a guest.  Apparently Noam had not put together the name, Michael Skok with the case itself and was unaware that Michael was actually the Board member at Active Endpoints that had at the end of the case been the lead board member who fired me.  Awkward was an understatement.  Noam asked whether we should make different plans.  We both agreed that we would proceed as usual with Noam making me promise not to change anything about the way we had gone about presenting the case in the past.  For the uninitiated, the case ends with me playing the role of Michael as the student plays me, negotiating his role as CEO.

In any event, the class went on as planned.  I was quite aware of trying not to hold anything back and when it got to the time where I played my board in a mock phone call with the student, I gave as real a rendition of what actually happened as I could.

So how did Michael react?  He paid what perhaps could have been the ultimate compliment to me and to Noam the author of the case.  He said that he emphatically believed that what we had portrayed was completely authentic!  In the event that I have not, over the past 7 years, been able to vent my emotion over what happened that infamous spring,  I now am over it!

And so you ask, how did the ending top that?

In the last class which took place at MIT, I was finally and comfortably situated in the classroom in advance of the class.  Professor Matt Marx and I had decided that I would not be introduced to the class until about half way through when the students had (incorrectly as always) voted on what they expected the outcome of the Active Endpoints case would be.  Shortly after the class started, while interrogating my actions at Metaserver, my first venture as CEO, one of the students who was exasperated by the stupidity of one of my actions blurted out: "Les needs to put on his big boy pants" in order to become more mature in my approach.

When it came time for the vote and the class all voted as usual that I would save the day, Matt innocently points to me in the back of the room and asked whether or not the class was correct.  When I answered, I suggested that I would have to pause for a moment in advance and "put on my big boy pants" first.  The class erupted in laughter.  And the student who had made this statement was embarrassed.  But it was all in good fun and education as I took the floor and answered the eager questions from the students.

Afterward, by the way, I told the student to make sure he never backs down when he has thoughts like he did.  Because, although it might have been awkward to hear, he no doubt was correct!

Becoming Advocates of our Own Healthcare

Each year executives across the country are faced with tough decisions regarding the provision of health care insurance to their employees.  Questions like what type of coverage to provide, how much employees should contribute towards this insurance, and which employees are covered, are coming under much more scrutiny than in the past.

The idea of employers owning the burden of providing health care insurance in the United States originated less than two generations ago during WWII.  Then employers found offering health insurance to be a way to get around the wage freezes, as an enticement to attract scarce workers.   In 1945, when President Truman failed to get his sweeping national healthcare programs passed, corporations offering health care insurance steadily became a standard part of the employment relationship that has continued through today.

Health insurance programs, usually offered to full time employees, have taken much of the risk of health care coverage from American employees.  However this risk has been replaced by a sort of malaise when it comes to employees making intelligent health care consumption choices.  Since many insurance programs don't discriminate among the various choices for the provision of health care services (for example choosing to visit your hospital emergency room for a bad cold), employees often don't act like smart consumers when it comes to health care choices.  Employees who fail to consider the most effective venues and treatments for their illnesses contribute to increasing costs of healthcare and significant inefficiencies in our system.

But as we all are becoming aware, our healthcare system in the US is changing, as are the ways in which we insure against these ever rising costs.  During the Obama administration our federal government has made the furthest inroads yet on prescribing who and how Americans procure health insurance.  A prolonged recession is putting extraordinary pressure on US corporate profits, causing executives to rethink this grand bargain. Technology is expanding the choices available to treat illness and extend life expectancy.

Does the relationship between what has become the benevolent corporation expected to offset the health insurance costs of the individual still make sense in the 21st century?

I personally believe it is time to rethink this bargain.  We must use market demand, consumer choice, and free market pressures to balance and align health care as we do in so many other consumer markets.  As employers we owe it to our employees not just to help subsidize the extraordinary cost of consuming health care through the offering of health care insurance, but also to help them make good choices.

One way we ought to consider changing the status quo is by offering subsidized health savings accounts coupled with high deductible insurance programs in lieu of many existing health insurance programs.  High deductible plans mean that for the first several thousand dollars of an employee's annual health care spend, they actually pay this out of their pocket.  I expect that involving the employee in actually paying real money for their health care consumption might encourage them to ask more questions, be more selective in their services, and think about costs rather than just plunking down their employer backed insurance cards. Subsidizing health savings accounts will help to take the sting out of the high deductibles paid by the employee - but still require the employee to physically pay the bills.

The cost to employers for offering these types of plans should end up being a wash.  High deductible health insurance should cost less than other plans.  That savings could be used to fund the subsidies for the HSAs.  Healthy employees can keep the money in their HSA and roll it over year to year, gaining value and maintaining that as a rainy day fund should their employment relationship change or something catastrophic occur.

As employers we need to start thinking about these kind of alternatives as our small way of participating in finding a solution to escalating medical care costs.

The Boys of Fall

It's baseball playoff time and appropriately, Carlos Beltran has taken center stage as a slugging star for the St. Louis Cardinals. Those of you who are baseball fans will recall Carlos played for my beloved Mets for several years, coming off his great post season with Houston. His time in New York was checkered. But I will always remember him for the at bat I have documented below in a game the Mets had every chance to win, Endy Chavez made his miraculous catch, and ... well read on and you will hear the passion that I have for the guys from Queens and how Carlos fared there in the 2006 playoffs. Just like everything else in Baseball, it has implications that go way beyond the game.

    Bottom of the ninth inning. Seventh game of a best of seven series. Bases loaded, two outs, the home team down by two runs. First pitch, a fastball heading right down the middle of the plate. The batter bears down, carefully watches the pitcher’s release, checks the spin on the ball and … continues to watch as the first strike settles into the catches outstretched glove. Behind 0 and 1, he knows now that the pitcher is coming right after him. The home crowd roars, all on their feet. They know fate is with them. Otherwise, why would the left fielder have caught that ball that clearly was destined to put this series on ice several innings before. It had to be fate that allowed him to jump higher than any human could possible have gone and clutch the ball in the most remote heights of the leather webbing of his well worn glove, white still showing, coming down hard against the wall and still holding on. But not just holding on, maintaining his composure to turn and whirl a strike to the cutoff man who then tossed to the first baseman for an inning ending double play, preserving this moment. The moment of now, when with one swing of the bat, the series would be tied again, or maybe even over, in the home team’s favor. The pitcher winds and pitches, coming straight down the middle again. This time the batter knows where it is headed and loads and swings. The ball dodges his bat falling harmlessly on the ground several inches from the batters feet. Well fate works this way, doesn’t it? In fact, fate wouldn’t have it any other way. Why would success come with one strike when it would be even sweeter with two. Relaxed now, realizing that his success is preordained. This is the moment that he has been dreaming about all his life. For thirty years he has toiled and ached and practiced to put himself in this position. He’s proven himself as worthy of the privilege of bringing joy to the thousands there live to see his heroics and millions watching electronically in their homes. Kids staying up way too late, pleading with their parents that this is a one in a lifetime opportunity and that school tomorrow doesn’t matter this much. This is the year. The very first time in their short lives that a championship would be won by their team. Two outs, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, two strikes. The pitcher stares in at the catcher’s signal. But it’s clear to all 55,000 plus souls in the stadium and everyone else paying attention that wherever this pitch starts, it will end up somewhere in the lush green grass that still covers the field, even with the chill of autumn taking hold. Somewhere in a void between fielders. Somewhere just far enough out of the reach of outstretched glove to give the base runners a chance to round the diamond with the tying and winning runs. Or maybe even beyond all that in the dark shadows beyond the outfield wall. The pitch is headed for the plate. Again, right down the middle. The batter prepares for what he knows is the inevitable. He coils ready to pounce. The pitch continues its trajectory. It’s a foregone conclusion of what the batter is going to do. Fate has taken hold. And then….the ball thuds into the catcher’s glove. The fans moan, the umpire calls the third strike. The visitors rush the mound. The batter, more capable than almost any human being who ever walked this planet, of launching that little white sphere 500 feet, is just standing there. In the same position he started, full of potential and opportunity, well prepared by having practiced and performed this very same action thousands of times over the past eight months and before that as well. The season is over. CARLOS, YOU CAN’T GET A HIT IF YOU DON’T TAKE A SWING!

When the going gets tough...

The business environment for 2013 is proving itself to not just be difficult but also unpredictable.  So how does a self-respecting, goal oriented, anal compulsive executive figure out what to do? How about this prescription?  http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/10/19/insights-trachtman-market-views.aspx

Taking Time to Work On rather than In Your Business

As executives, we all fight "fires" every day, taking time away from the things we would like to accomplish.  Despite the tyranny of the urgent, we have a choice and there are things we can do to change this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/ceos-must-find-time-for-strategic-planning--heres-how-to-do-it/2012/03/20/gIQAdnQrVS_story.html

Wisdom Comes to Those Who Wait

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.