« August 2009 | Main | October 2009 »

September 28, 2009

Story-telling Worksheet

www.mixnerstrategy.com

Denning's book has a premise: story telling is the way to make your company grow. Interesting concept. Sometimes useful. Here is a worksheet (truncated) on formulating a story about where you want to take your company (Denning, 99):

One piece of paper, three sections. First section: Where we've come from. Second section: Where you are now. Third section: Where you are heading. A line connects the sections. It ties the story together, "the journey of your life" (Denning, 99).

Now tell a short story (sixty seconds) about the first section. Review it for relevance. Tell it to other people. Check out if they understand it and have suggestions. Repeat for the next two sections. You now have a three minute speech to tell your team. Need a longer speech. Prepare more one minute stories. Add them to your speech.

Seem too simple? Try it. You don't want a complex formulation. You want simple stories, one after the other, to engage folks. They'll actually listen and engage. That's good.

Denning, Stephen. The Leader's Guide to Storytelling. Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. Jossey-Bass. 2005.

Kawasaki's Revolution

www.mixnerstrategy.com

Kawasaki was the marketing person involved in the launch of the Macintosh computer at Apple. His book is full of lists on how to do stuff related to new product launches. Lots of lists. Here's a list on why hiring market research consultants aren't necessarily useful all the time (Kawasaki, 115):

  • You probably know - or will recognize - the subtleties that a trained researcher will miss.
  • Because you don't focus on research per se, you'll notice more. Hang around places where buyers congregate. Look for what they need. Figure out how to supply it. Kawasaki talks about market research for auto show rooms. Without a Mom on the team, it would forget that Moms would love to have a place to put the kids while they wait for a car repair, pr better, buy a car.
  • Sam Walton strolled through lots of competitor's stores. He'd notice it. By the next Monday, it was happening at WalMart. The Saturday management meeting made sure of that. Fast to market. More profits.
  • Use folks with lots of different experiences on your market research teams. If they're all the same, you get fewer useful ideas. More ideas, more profits. Makes sense.

Kawasaki, Guy with Michele Moreno. Rules for Revolutionaries. The Capitalist Manifest for Creating and Marketing New Products and Services. HarperBusiness. 1999. 

Reengineering Useful in Down Times?

www.mixnerstrategy.com

You'll remember that business engineering got a lot of press in the nineties. I revisited Hammer's book to see just what is applicable today. Here's Hammer's part of a list of things to do to make sure your process works (Hammer, 201-213).

  1. Don't fix the process - change it.
  2. Focus on process, not trivialities. Look for big issues to address, or don't bother.
  3. Focus on values and beliefs as part of your process. Ignore them? Ignore your employees who are watching very carefully for a reason not to help you.
  4. We talked about trivialities. Minor results are the same. Big results, or don't try.
  5. Don't give up. Well, that's obvious, but how many instances can you supply where a company you are involved with gave up too quickly?
  6. Don't constrain the scope. Everything is on the table, or nothing.
  7. Move through, around, by culture if you must. Don't get mired down.
  8. Bottom up doesn't work. Without the support of senior management, you've got nothing.
  9. Now here's one that I don't like so much: Don't assign someone who doesn't understand reengineering to lead the effort. Well, remember, this book was written by consultants. They want you to hire them, and no one else. Remember that when you decide to hire them or not.
  10. Reengineering has to be at the top of the agenda. Focus on the most important items that are likely to get the biggest results.
  11. One project at a time, and only one project at a time. Concentrate your efforts if you want to succeed.
  12. Don't stop when folks resist change. Resistance just might be healthy indication of results just over the horizon.
  13. Get things done. Don't take too long. Get going.

Hammer, Michael and James Champy. Reengineering the Corporation. A Manifest for Business Revolution. HarperBusiness. 1993.

Garry Wills on Napoleon

www.mixnerstrategy.com

There is Wills on Washington (Cincinnaticus). There is Wills on Lincoln (Lincoln at Gettysburg). Then there is Wills on everyone else, a treatise on leadership discussing thirty-two good, and not so good, leaders. In this case, Napoleon is the good. We're going to forget about the bad and focus on the good of Napoleon.

Six key points that resonate with leaders today (Wills, 89-92):

  1. Forget about victory for its own sake. Winning the battle, winning a town, without winning the war is useless waste of energy. Pick your battles.
  2. "Attack in head-long lunges (Wills, 90)." Small groups, left to fight alone, lose energy and become fearful. Concentrate your legions. Give them drums and noise makers. Scare the enemy so they run before they engage.
  3. "Fight toward supplies (Wills, 91)." Napoleon didn't travel with a lot of supplies. Ammunition, probably. Food, maybe not. If the troops wanted to eat, they had to fight their way to the food, which was always on the other side of the enemy.
  4. "Fight only with preponderant force on one's own side (Wills, 91)." Mass your troops. Wait until your forces out-numbered the enemy. Split the enemy forces and fight them one at a time, never all at once. That meant he couldn't allow them to concentrate.
  5. Here's one I like: simplify. Fight head on. Don't go around, forget about ambushes, and all the convoluted battle plans everyone else had. Attach. Head on. Now.
  6. Finally, keep moving. If the enemy was fixed in a town, ready to sit it out, entrenched, find another army to fight. Keep moving. Don't lay siege, especially for a long time. Abandon, wait for the enemy to emerge, engage. Don't wait around if you can help it. Remember, if you are waiting around, you aren't fighting toward food. You're starving. Starving isn't good, especially if you didn't have supply trains coming.

Wills talks about Napoleon's first real campaign in Italy. He defeated two armies and was on his way to Vienna, having beat two other French armies to the punch. That wasn't supposed to happen, especially from an up-start like him. At the last minute, Napoleon stopped. He didn't attack Vienna. He just didn't have enough strength. Everyone at the time said he failed. Well, maybe so. Actually, if you look at it, he showed good decision making ability. At Vienna, he would have lost. Why fight a battle you're going to lose? Napoleon knew the answer to that one.

Wills, Garry. Certain Trumpets. The Call of Leaders. Simon & Schuster. 1994.

September 18, 2009

A Leader Has to Have Followers - and What Else?

www.mixnerstrategy.com

It's pretty obvious that leaders have to have followers. Since we all watch CEOs in action, knowing when they are going to fail might be a good thing to know, yes? I think so. Wills takes the time to detail the leadership styles of thirty-two different leaders, half of them successful leaders, the others not so effective. Some of the leaders failed because they couldn't inspire any one to follow them. That's pretty obvious to see. Usually, corrupt folks are found out eventually. Not a very good leadership style. (OK, Madoff took a little bit longer, I'll warrant. He's an outlier, wouldn't you agree?)  What about the rest? They couldn't find followers. OK. Why?

There seems to be one effective predictor of failed leadership, namely, leaders and followers without a goal that they all agree on. Now, Madoff's staffers must have been following along, at least to some extent. Why they did it isn't clear. If they profited, why aren't they in jail, you ask? My prediction: they will be eventually. That's still an outlier example. Most CEOs, when they fail, fail because folks are not helping to create their company goals. The CEOs have followers, yes. But the followers aren't buying into - or, don't understand - the results the CEO needs from them.

Three key things to remember: There has to be a leader. There have to be followers. They have to have a common goal that they all agree to.

We could stop right here and call this the end of the lecture. Not so long ago we talked about failure in corporations (Mixner). We followed Block's description of failure. He said that effective leaders are stewards, not dictators. Stewards follow more democratic principles than dictators. As a result, because they allow their teams to make decisions - even about values and vision, usually high level tasks - on their own, their teams buy in to what they do and perform at a higher level, usually at much higher levels. That's good for everyone.

When we mix Wills (got to have a leader, followers and a goal) with Block (the best thing is to let the team make up their own values and actions with a little very high level training on how to do those things) we've got something very valuable. Let's combine terms, sort of like algebra: steward leaders, enlightened followers, high level goals that they create together and that they all buy in to. Now we're getting somewhere. Think about it.

Mixner, Jack. Democratic Strategy. References Block's Stewardship. http://mixnerstrategy.com/blog/2009/09/post_1.html 

Wills, Garry. Certain Trumpets. The Call of Leaders. Simon & Schuster. 1994.

September 16, 2009

Beware the Omniscient CEO

www.mixnerstrategy.com

I took a graduate class in comparative literature along the way. The idea was to understand how to evaluate a book quickly not only for its conciseness, but also for its applicability. We'd ask ourselves who the narrator was in important scenes, how knowledgeable that narrator was, and, further, what kind of axe that narrator had to grind. I find myself doing the same thing with strategic plans.

In literature, they examine the narrator's point of view. In strategic planning, we do the same thing. The omniscient point of view (the narrator knows everything, is all knowing) is pretty obvious sometimes, especially when the CEO dictated the plan without any input from the team. Objective point of view (tell what happens without stating anything else) (Literature) loses the feeling of it all. When you are discussing values, for instance, forgetting about feelings may not be a very good choice. Whether the narrator participates in the story either directly (first person) or indirectly (third person point of view) sometimes shows through.

Having an omniscient CEO isn't all bad, especially when you're going through tough times. It is dangerous, however, in the situation where all creativity of the team at all levels is wrung out of the system. Sometimes, sales people - and loading dock people, for that matter - know what is best for the organization. Not allowing them to make decisions on their own isn't a very good idea, even when they are making strategic decisions.

When you think about it, while we live in a democracy, our businesses aren't very democratic. Leaders sometimes stay leaders for many, many years. In a democracy, elections and term restriction limit the amount of damage any one person can do. In a business, that isn't always the case. When a CEO is saying, "I know what is right for the organization," and doesn't brook any real comment about what she/he is saying, watch out. Dictatorships get things done, yes. Sometimes, however, they forget to do the important things, like motivate employees to help the company succeed.

Literary Analysis Guide. Point of View. http://www.ci.maryville.tn.us/mhs/studyskills/CompGuide/LitAnaPOV.htm 

Literature. Exploring Point of View. Types of Point of View. http://www.learner.org/interactives/literature/read/pov2.html

September 07, 2009

The Harley Davidson Story

www.mixnerstrategy.com

My good friend George Morrisey, a professional consultant if there ever was one, suggested that I read the Zimmerman/Tregoe books on strategy back when I was first setting up my consulting practice. George was interested in the Tregoe explanation of Driving Force and how it applied to corporate strategy. The idea was to identify the driving force of an organization and, with it, the time frame for its application. Combine the force and a time frame into a quantifiable strategy. Critical issues were identified and planned for if there were supporting strategies that made sense.

Recently, I found the Zimmerman book in the library. It is interesting because it talks about culture and how to amplify its effects throughout the organization. My first impression of this discussion was that the strategy of spending a lot of time identifying the culture and then trying to communicate senior management's perception of values throughout the organization was just that - a strategy that took too much time to implement in this fast changing environment. That's my assumption, especially when it is amplified by Block's book on stewardship. Block, Tregoe and Zimmerman are all trying to effect positive change at an organization. Block uses management lightly, expecting them not to dictate a value system, but to open a dialog with customers and employees to deteremine what values and strategies are important to each part of the organization. No one grinds on results, because each person in the organization knows the metrics that are important to them and their individual customers and operates to them. Tregoe and Zimmerman are more analytical, spending large quantities of energy in examining the current belief system in an organization (Zimmerman, 219) and trying to effect its change to make it jive with management's point of view.

Zimmerman's team was involved in the turn-around at Harley Davidson in the early eighties. There is an entire chapter on what happened there. Basically, they realized that their bikes were over-priced and marginally shoddy, with, however, wonderful brand recognition. Their job was to fix the shoddiness and lower the price, something they were able to help the Harley team accomplish. Everyone was happy. Good story. Harley hadn't applied quality techniques yet; lean manufacturing was something that they couldn't even fathom early on. But they had craftsmen who cared about the bikes they produced. That was enough. Engaging teams of craftsmen to resolve they problems was enough to "kick-start" Harley for another twenty year run of success.

I feel like I have to say that I like the Zimmerman method better than the Block method, but I can't. I see value in both their points-of-view. Stewardship - letting the team figure things out, and do them without explicit direction - and beliefs set from above that flow throughout the organization are, in the end, be very similar. They feel different, but they're not. Interesting.

Block, Peter. Stewardship. Choosing Service Over Self-Interest. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 1993.

Tregoe, Benjamin B. and John W. Zimmerman. Top Management Strategy. What It Is and How to Make It Work. Quickstone. 1980.  

Zimmerman, John Sr. with Benjamin B. Tregoe. The Culture of Success. Building a Sustained Competitive Advantage by Living Your Corporate Beliefs. McGraw-Hill. 1997.

Jobs at Pixar

www.mixnerstrategy.com

Those of you have been following what I write will be aware that I am interested in Steven Jobs management techniques - or lack thereof - at Apple. After leaving Apple the first time in the mid-eighties, Jobs started a new computer firm, Next. He had money. He had time. He was mad. A good combination for starting a tech company. It didn't really work, unfortunately, and Jobs ended up selling some of the Next operating system to Apple in the late nineties, presaging his return as CEO. We know all that. I wanted to know about Jobs's time at Pixar. Did he act the same way? Was he as pushy? Or - and this is what really happened - did he just sign checks and leave folks alone because he couldn't really influence the art at Pixar, as everyone was better than him at animation. That's basically how it worked. Jobs ended up investing $55 million ($5 million to buy the company from Lucas Film (Price, 7), and $50 million over ten years to keep the doors open). Ultimately, his job was to stay out of the way, let the management in place run things, and, importantly, arrange for distribution agreements of Pixar animations through Disney, and, finally, the sale of the whole company to Disney. Along the way, Jobs was part of the reason that Eisner ended up leaving Disney, to be replaced by the more affable Iger, who Jobs could get along with, and, who, with Jobs nudging, bought Pixar for stock worth at that time $7.4 billion. Not a bad performance for Jobs. Patience paid off.

Price, David A. The Pixar Touch. The Making of a Company. Alfred A.Knopf. 2008.

Democratic Strategy

www.mixnerstrategy.com

A while back we talked about Machiavelli and John Bogle (Mixner).

Machiavelli says, basically, it is all right to break the rules, especially if you do so to reach your ends. Bogle says that the ends aren't your ends, they're society's. Character and courage don't count for much if they are all about you, instead of us.

Machiavelli was writing way back when, Bogle, last year. Bogle was trying to make sense of the melt-down in the financial markets over the last decade. Machiavelli was selling his services, his knowledge. Block adds words to the discussion that are worth reviewing here.

Democracy is all about people having a say in their future, capitalism not so much. Owners and managers - bosses - exert special powers in the workforce that vary from the democratic ideal. Bosses aren't elected to terms that are finite. Do it right, and a boss can hold on for a very long time. We assume that as we enter the plant gate, it is all right to leave some of your decision making ability behind. Bosses indeed do know better, and we'd better realize it - or else. No, it is not so blatant, but when was the last time you spoke what you were really thinking in a weekly review session, unless by chance, you were the boss - the manager - in the meeting?

Block has thought through a lot of this. His point of view is worth sharing. Normally, planning for the future of an organization takes place at the highest levels. A team - and, usually it is a team - of senior managers joins together to consider the values of the organization, its mission, its vision, objectives for the next years, and maybe even specific strategies for the organization to follow. The assumption is that the plan will be carefully articulated, shared with the organization, and, here things start to get sticky, implemented at all levels of the organization.

You know as well as I do that implementation is where all strategic plans begin to fail. Great plan, poor implementation. We see it all the time. We didn't have time to implement the plan. Customers were asking for stuff, so we didn't have time. Something like that, right? So, do you pitch the planning process and give up? Maybe not. But what to do?

Modify the process. Don't be dictatorial. Let the team determine what is important to them and their work. "Values spring from the top," you say. Maybe. Forcing the entire organization to use a time-clock may not make sense. Forcing the entire organization to follow edicts from headquarters may not make sense. We all say, "We knew that." Since you knew that already, what were you doing? You were defining some of the company's values locally, that's what. "You're caring for a sick child today. I'll cover for you." The work will get done. Control shifts from HR to individuals in their own work units. But "HR has to control," you say. Maybe not. Nor does a boss have to control if she does things right. Set parameters, yes. What customers, broadly, do we target? OK. Clarity, then is a management role (Block, 32). Value-added ways to address a market. Again, a management role (Block, 32). But the how and whys? They get answered not by senior management, but by the folks who know the answers. Reward goes down in the organization as it is no longer the carrot it once was. Punishment goes down too. The team rewards and punishes, not management. Direction goes down; clarity goes up.

So, who keeps their job in this new environment? People who understand that they are not subordinate, but equals, that's who. Want someone to protect you and your job? Not going to happen. Your responsibility is making sure a team wants you enough that they ask you to play in their game. That's not management's job. It's your job. Eventually, we'll need fewer managers, won't we? The teams will manage themselves. Some managers will realize that managing, even coaching, is an empty title. They had better be doing some work, not just managing. "But the reports due at the end of the month," you say. Is anyone reading them, anyway? Isn't it better to interact with customers, rather than managers, anyway? That's your job. That's management's job, as well.

Who leaves the organization? People who don't hold up their end of the bargain. Not interfacing with customers? Maybe it's time to leave. Don't know who your customer is? Maybe it is time to leave. Or, more properly, maybe it's time to find out, and do something about it.

Block, Peter. Stewardship. Choosing Service Over Self-Interest. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 1993.

Bogle, John C. Enough. True Measures of Money, Business, and Life. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2009.  

Mixner, Jack. The Virtuous Leader. http://mixnerstrategy.com/blog/2009/01/the_virtuous_leader.html