The Learning Curve

Lions, Tigers and Micromanagement! Oh My!

2007-09-21T12:57:00.000-07:00

One of the standard questions during job interviews for management positions is, "what kind of manager are you?" I don't know of too many people who answer, "Oh, I'm into micromanagement." I know that those words have certainly never passed my lips. However, after reading the thought provoking post by Ben Horowitz (in Marc Andreesons excellent blog), I may actually have to say "it depends."

Mr. Horowitz recommends two different times when micromanagement is critical for the success of any executive. The first is related to Andy Grove's idea of "Task Relevant Maturity." "Andy explains that employees who are immature in a given task require detailed training and instruction. They need to be micromanaged. On the other hand, if an employee is relatively mature in a task, then it is counterproductive and annoying to manage the details of their work."

Most of us would agree that the sink or swim method is not the best way to learn how to swim, but it is often the way that we give out new assignments or train new employees. In addition, my best bosses were those that managed the transition from micromanagement to freedom the best.

The second time for micromanagement is to help overcome weaknesses. As Mr. Horowitz states, "Almost nobody is brilliant at everything. When hiring and when firing executives, you must therefore focus on strength rather than lack of weakness. Everybody has severe weaknesses even if you can’t see them yet. When managing, it’s often useful to micromanage and to provide remedial training around these weaknesses. Doing so may make the difference between an executive succeeding or failing."

The costs of making a wrong hire are pretty steep in lost productivity, salary, training dollars and time. But because of two management failures most part people are fired for their weaknesses and not their strengths. Failure One - not understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their employees and then actively (often intensively) working to overcome the employees weakness. Failure Two - management not accepting accept responsibility for Failure One, blaming and then firing the employee for the weaknesses that management didn't work on overcoming. Oh my!

The Tractor Factor

2007-08-24T11:03:00.000-07:00

I spent 12 years of my career working with non-profits run by dairy farmers. The budget discussions were always fascinating. The farmers would spend hours debating projects that cost between $20,000-50,000 and then in the blink of an eye they would approve projects with million dollar price tags.

The subject matter didn't seem to be a factor as the projects both large and small came from the same pool of projects (advertising, nutrition education, p.r. and research). The defining factor was money. My theory was that the dollar amounts in the $20-50K range was approximately the same cost as a tractor. The farmers knew what it meant to buy a tractor but didn't have a frame of reference for a $10 million advertising campaign.

The Tractor Factor is alive and well in Clive Thompson's article on the Psychology of Numeracy (how we understand numbers) in September's issue of Wired. Mr. Thompson discusses the impact of Bill Gates applying his skill in working with big numbers to stamping out maladies like malaria, diarrhea, and parasitic infections. Most people are hard wired to approach philanthropy by focusing on very small numbers of individuals (groups that don't get much larger than an extended family), while Mr. Gates is able to think about (and then fund) projects that will help millions.

Often we are told that the Devil is in the details but it appears that some of us can handle more details than others.

Thanks to David Pogue for the headsup on Mr. Thompson's article.

Deeper or Broader

2006-12-04T12:54:00.000-08:00

A recent study by Karim Lakhani into innovation using open source software provides support for the idea that "innovation happen at the intersection of disciplines." Thus it appears that if you want to be innovative you either need to have a broad interest area (become a generalist) or have access to a wide range of expertise (be a specialist with a broad network).

Either way the new, cool stuff is at the edges.

Goose Bumps

2006-07-07T11:35:00.000-07:00

Marketing quote of the month:

"Today you’re competing for heartshare, not marketshare. Top of mind without goose bumps is a waste of money."

from Tom Asacker's A Clear Eye blog

TED Finally Available to the Masses

2006-06-29T14:24:00.000-07:00

One of the priciest ($4,400), coolest conferences around is TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design). It is a four day conference held in Monterey, California with presentations by some of the brightest idea people in the world (talk about a prime networking opportunity). Each presenter is given a deliberately short amount of time (18 minutes) to present their ideas. This does tend to focus the presentations but also provides enough time for the idea to be developed and shared.

This year TED is releasing these presentations for online consumption. I recently listened to the presentation by my favorite technology writer, David Pogue of the NY Times. Wow. Clean video, lots of viewing options and a dynamite talk about the need for simplicity in technology.

Don't have the time or the cash to attend TED. Now you can get the talks. The networking is in the sharing. Enjoy and welcome to TED.

Who Owns Your Brand?

2005-03-28T14:57:00.000-08:00

Kevin Roberts of Saatchi and Saatchi in an August 2004 interview stated, "You've got to remember, brands are only invented to charge a premium. That was the purpose of a brand; it didn't have any other. Recognize me, desire me, have faith in me, trust me, pay more for me." In short "select me."

Companies spend enormous amounts of time, money and effort creating, promoting and protecting their brands. This effort leads many companies to the mistaken belief that since they create, promote and protect their brands that they also own them.

This belief is wrong. Their customers own their brands. Why? A brand has no value outside a customer's head.

When there is alignment between the efforts of the company and the values of the customer then there is a strong brand. However, when the company violates their customers' values then its brand value erodes and can eventually disappear.

Wal-Mart presents an interesting case study. Through the 70's and the 80's Wal-Mart's founder Sam Walton was a folk hero and Wal-Mart was a great American success story. However, after Walton's death and the continued expansion of the company throughout the U.S. and the world, Wal-Mart has increasingly become a target of consumer groups, class-action suits, and politicians. Wal-Mart has increasingly been viewed as a destroyer of small business and a poor employer. A recent Google search using the terms "hate" and "Wal-Mart" generated 508,000 hits.

The erosion of Wal-Mart's brand has been going on for years. Wal-Mart's advertising campaign that emphasized its low prices and friendly greeters has not been sufficient to overcome the negative corrosive influence of bad publicity on its brand.

Wal-Mart announced in a nationwide newspaper ad on January 13 a change in tactics. Their current advertising/public relations campaign is designed to present Wal-Mart as a friend to communities, local businesses, its employees and its customers. Wal-Mart created its own pro-website www.walmartfacts.com to counter the negative websites on the web.

It will be interesting to see if the owners of the Wal-Mart brand (its customers) will respond positively to Wal-Mart's new message. America loves to cheer an up-and-coming company like the early Wal-Mart. However, a core American cultural value is that "big is bad and should be viewed with suspicion." Wal-Mart is certainly big and has no plans to shrink anytime soon.

For Wal-Mart the success or failure of its new advertising/public relations campaign is not insignificant. Wal-Mart's long-term success depends on it.

Campfires are Going Upscale

2005-01-19T09:33:00.000-08:00

There is a paradox happening in kitchens all across America. Even though we eat out more and more (and at-home less and less) our kitchens continue to grow. It is not just the size of the kitchen but also the amount of money spent on its construction that is increasing.

Part of the fuel for this growth is the continued economic impact of the baby boom generation. This demographic continues to dominate domestic spending and they are entering the highest paid parts of their lives. Although this explains where much of the money is coming from it does not explain why so much of it is focused on the kitchen.

We are all perfectly able to eat alone. Many of us do it everyday. But if we want to establish and maintain long-term relationships we feel the need to eat together. The symbol of the campfire as a unifying point is based on this aspect of all human cultures. We have gathered where the food is prepared for thousands of years and are still doing so today. Below are some impacts of this trend:

Architecture: Many architects who design homes are starting to design them without formal living and dining rooms and putting more time and expense into the kitchen. This makes sense to designers, builders and owners because this is where people and guests spend most of their time in the home.
Appliances: Companies such as Viking Range have taken advantage of this trend by providing high-end, high cost commercial-type appliances for the home."
Food: The resurgence of fondue fits this trend well. What better food to put into a new upscale kitchen than an upscale campfire that allows people to cook, eat and mingle together.

Multi-Tasking and Management

2004-10-12T13:23:00.000-07:00

In today's world we are constantly being given the opportunity to do multiple things at once. You used to be considered exceptional if you could walk and chew gum at the same time but now you need to be on the cell phone, answering your e-mail and reviewing your favorite blogs.

The terrible thing about our attempt to do so many things at one time is that humans are pretty mediocre multi-taskers. Brain research has shown that productivity actually goes down when we attempt to do many things at the same time.

Multi-tasking's negative impact on productivity is especially true when working with people. I have tried to read my e-mail and listen to coworkers or to track events on a TV and listen to subordinates. It just doesn't work. People know when they are getting the short end of your attention span and they get upset and it impacts their morale. Working with people is generally the most complex and complicated job that a manager has. Getting it right can make or break the company and the manager.

A related problem is our growing Attention Deficit. The more that we multi-task the less time that we spend on any given issue, person or job. So when we are managing, we always want our colleague's to get to the point, to cut to the chase, etc. It is as if we want all of our information presented in soundbites. Some problems with this simplification of communication are that not all of us are good at soundbites and most of life's problems are not simple. An interconnected, global world is more complex not less.

It's time to reinforce that old cliche "Do one thing at a time."

The Philosopher King - Soccer Style

2004-09-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

Generally I don't understand philosophy. The tools and techniques that philosopher's use leave me cold. But I have found that philosophy's Solipsism provides the fundamental underpinning for the job of the referee.

Solipsism can be expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which exists.' This point of view comes about because the only mind we can ever be sure of is our own. This is obviously not a viewpoint shared by many people...except on the field of play (kind of).

You see the referee is the ultimate Solipsist. Only his/her viewpoint truly matters. It is the referee who decides when the game starts and ends, who is offsides, who's ball it is, who committeed a foul, did they do it in the box, etc. We encourage our referee's to exercise their Solipsistic (I think that's a word) point of view. Ideally we (players, coaches, spectators) willingly give up our Solipsistic right to have our viewpoint count because we know that if everybody's viewpoint or perspective counted then chaos and anarchy would reign and the game just couldn't be played.

Most of the behavior problems at a soccer field occur when we forget that the referee is the Philospher King. Many coaches, players, and parents get out of hand when they try to exercise and impose their own Solipsistic viewpoint onto the pitch. These attempts conflict with the viewpoints of others (including the all-important referee's) and lead to screaming matches, fights, and red cards.So before and during every match this important tenent must be remembered.

Long live the king.

The Seven Shoulds

2004-09-02T13:12:00.000-07:00

The following nugget is from a great piece of cultural analaysis that my friends at the Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis recently did for NASA. Although in the appendix "The Seven Shoulds" provides the beginning of a cultural template for any marketing of products to the American Mainstream.

Cultural values are simply broad tendencies by members of any group to prefer one state over others. Values are rarely articulated, since they operate at a pre-conscious level, but they are instantly recognized in their violation. They are expressed over time as a consistent pattern of movement in the direction of a desired state. They express a deeply held feeling for the way things “should” be.

In the US, some of the key “shoulds” are:
1. Individuals should determine their own destiny.
2. Individuals should control their social and physical mobility.
3. Actions should be judged in a moral light.
4. Authority or “bigness” should be viewed with suspicion.
5. We should have as many choices as possible.
6. Anything can and should be improved.
7. The future should be better than the past.

From Appendix A of the 2004 report to NASA "American Perception of Space Exploration" by the Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis

Vision Sells - The Reagan Legacy

2004-06-09T11:51:00.000-07:00

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Proverbs 29:18)

People make choices between ideas, products, political candidates, etc., based on which choice provides the most compelling vision. And the most compelling visions are the ones that match the target audience. This match of vision predisposes the receiver to accept not only the message but also the messenger.

Communicating a vision that resonated with the American people is where President Ronald Reagan excelled. As discussed by David Brooks in a recent NY Times op-ed piece, one of Reagan's most enduring triumphs is his transformation of the conservative movement from "...a past- and loss-oriented movement to a future- and possibility-oriented one, based on a certain idea about America."

A major component of Reagan's reputation as the Great Communicator was that his message was in step with what most Americans wanted to hear. They shared the core cultural belief that the future should be better than the past both for the country as a whole and for each and every American.

Both George Bush and John Kerry will attempt to ride on Reagan's legacy. However, the vision that lifted and appealed in the '80s does not necessarily lift and appeal today. Our choices for president are finding it difficult to articulate a vision that resonates with and appeals to most Americans. President Bush necessarily has to focus on combating terrorism and the war in Iraq. This focus on external activities although couched in patriotic terms has not ignited the American people. Kerry's main theme is that he is not Bush.

What happens when there is no vision in candidates, products or ideas? People vote or choose by price. "It's the economy stupid" entered the political lexicon when the lack of vision choices in 1992 became a referendum on how people felt in their pocketbook and the same thing may happen again in 2004.

As Reagan showed in his 1980 campaign to unseat Jimmy Carter, Americans cannot be without a compelling vision of a markedly better future for long. Our culture won't allow it. We have always been a proactive society, not a reactive one. Bush and Kerry are trying to provide a vision that fits with the emergent larger vision that Americans share. Their success in November will depend on how well their visions are tailored to fit within the emerging vision of the society they want to serve.

Smarty Jones: The "American" Hero

2004-05-26T13:20:00.000-07:00

I live just outside of Philadelphia and Philadelphia's new media darling is Smarty Jones. Smarty Jones has won 2/3rds of horse racing's Triple Crown and is king in a city starved for a champion. Although the support for Smarty is not unanimous (as a recent letter to the editor shows) most people in our town and across the country view him as an authentic American hero.

Smarty Jones is portrayed as an undersized horse with lots of talent. Much is made of the fact that he was born and trained in Pennsylvania (not Kentucky), that he survived a serious accident at a starting gate, and that his owner, trainer and jockey are all just regular guys in an extraordinary situation.

It is not surprising that the writers and TV shows have pursued this storyline this way. All of the portryals fit into our American culture's definition of what it takes to be a hero and to live the American dream.

If (when?) Smarty Jones wins the Triple Crown he will have an advantage over many of our other sport's heroes. His actions or his words won't topple him off the pedestal that the American public has put him on.