Yesterday my podcast series was rated number 49 in the iTunes top business podcast rankings, and we downloaded 1200 episodes in one day. Thanks for listening – stay tuned to this station.
(The next series of podcasts, after the current one on Managing, will be about Strategy.)
You are never known by your best, but you are always tarnished by your worst.
Your triumphs are often forgotten by the marketplace – your disasters rarely are.
You’ll spend a long time recovering from one job done badly, or one client (or boss) disappointed in you.
People talk, and they criticize and gossip more than they praise.
It can take years to build trust, moments to lose it.
I’m not sure what you can do about this, except try, desperately try, not to mess anything up, and if you still do, try to mend fences (and your reputation) before you move on.
Coert Visser in the Netherlands has been kind enough to conduct and publish an interview with me about blogging. It can be found at http://www.managementsite.com/contents/articles/495/495.asp
This is the first part of an interview, so watch Coert’s site (which is in both Dutch and English and contains much of interest) for more to come.
I have also placed a copy of Coert’s interview, along with many other interviews with me, on the “About David ” part of my website.
In a recent blog and article, I argued that law firms are remarkable for being low-trust institutions, and that this prevents them from accomplishing many of their goals because individuals do not work to advance the institutions goals, but mostly their own.
Mel Bergstein, who has just stepped down as CEO of the major consulting firm that he founded (Diamond Cluster) pointed out in a comment on my blogpost that the issue was much more generalizable, and that creating trust in organizations was a common challenge for all organizations of knowledge workers.
I’ll be writing a follow-up article about this in the future, but here are some preliminary thoughts about what it takes to create an organization where people trust each other and work for the common good, thereby also achieving more for themselves as individuals.
This is not a complete package, but I hope it’s enough to stimulate some discussion. What do YOU think it takes to create a “High Trust Organization?”
Today I posted a new article on my website entitled Strategy Means Saying “No”.
I won’t try to summarize all of the arguments here, but will just point out that the article is about the difficulty that all companies and all individuals have in turning away the opportunity for short-term cash in order to stay focused on their declared strategy. (The article is an explicit follow-up to my earlier article Strategy and the Fat Smoker.)
One of the saddest mistakes businesses make is that by stressing growth and volume (goals that are almost sacred in most companies) they are inescapably, unavoidably inevitably led to compromise their own strategies and turn themselves into undifferentiated organizations that look like everybody else.
If you stress growth and volume above all else, then you’ll end up, strategically, with the posture of “We’ll do anything you ask, just pay us and we’ll do it.” And you know what that reminds you of, right?
Being strategic is hard. It requires you to focus on what makes you truly differentiated and special, and truly delivering on that promise. You do achieve greater volume and profits because of your excellence.
But there’s a difference between “Let’s make money by delivering on our strategy” and “let’s make money any way we can.”
Too few companies (or individuals) have the courage and ambition to do the former, and too many companies (and individuals) come across with the latter clearly as their operating philosophy: “we’ll do anything for the money, just ask.”
A significant proportion of the phone calls I receive enquiring about my services are invitations to speak at in-house conferences and meetings. I actually get hired for only a small proportion of these, because I am, it appears, a demanding and difficult person to hire.
The problem derives from the fact that, in choosing when and where to get involved, I try to select engagements where I have a chance – at the very least, a chance – at doing something meaningful and purposeful, and making a difference through my presentations.
However, I am constantly astonished by what a small percentage of people organizing conferences and meetings actually want this, or have even thought about it.
Most of the time, they want a speech that is entertaining, informative, stimulating and motivating. What they don’t seem to want is anything that specifically addresses the way they run their firm or the real-world changes they are really trying to make.
They don’t, it seems, want anything that appears challenging, provocative, controversial or potentially divisive. They don’t REALLY want to address the topics they ask their speakers to talk about.
For example, I recently received an enquiry asking me to speak about the topic of a book of mine, True Professionalism, and convey to the audience the importance of living up to the organization’s “sacred values.” They wanted me to be inspiring.
However, when I asked if I could take votes at the meeting as to how well everyone thought the organization was currently living it’s values, the organizers were terrified – “No, that would stir up things too much!” they said.
I also discovered the problem in the few months that I experimented with working through a speakers’ bureau. I met with their agents to explain the type of work I was willing to take on. I was astonished to discover that this was a relatively unusual request for them – most speakers and most clients operated on the principle that if the date was available and the date was free, then a booking was made.
The idea that a discussion should take place, to see if the speaker could be used to further the organization’s goals, and fit into other changes that management wanted to bring about, seemed to be an uncommon desire.
Of course, the clients’ experience with speakers could have contributed a lot to this situation. Many speakers have only their “fixed” presentation, and make no attempt to custom-tailor it to the specific situation.
Whoever is at fault, the fact is that, most frequently, meetings and conferences are organized as “stand-alone” events, with a life of their own, disconnected to the firm’s progress.
This is also evidenced by the fact that, most frequently, it is not someone in management who calls me, but a “conference planner” or someone in “administration” – people who are not in a position to discuss what changes the organization is really ready to tackle.
Most meetings, and most keynote speakers, have agenda topics, but no clear goals. Twelve years ago, I wrote an article called Meeting Goals, available on my website, on the possible goals of a meeting- but to this day, most of the calls I receive are from people who haven’t begun to think that through.
I think it’s perfectly valid to want an entertaining speaker, and I’ve tried throughout my career to be both entertaining and inspiring in my style. But the thought of being JUST an entertainer no longer excites me – there’s so much more that could be achieved with a conference presentation or seminar, if companies only had the courage to plan that version.
I attended the graduation of my niece, Fiona, from the University of Virginia. The commencement speaker was Tom Wolfe, author of The Right Stuff, The Bonfire of the Vanities and many other works. I’ve been a fan of his work, especially his earlier non-fiction writing, for a long time.
As a speaker, he did meander a bit, covering many of the themes he has previously written about. However, his main point was very effective.
Using the examples of Jesus, Mohammed, Marx, Freud and many others, he pointed out that the world has frequently been changed profoundly through words, offered by an individual without an institution to back them up.
I’m not sure how the graduates reacted to his point, but as a writer without an institution around me, I, of course, found it very inspiring.
There’s nothing like flattering your audience into thinking they could be compared to great people.
His point also reminded me of Peter Drucker’s often quoted message that, in business and elsewhere, nothing ever happens except when it is created by “a monomaniac on a mission.”
A little less flattering an image to accept for oneself, but equally accurate.
My version?
Whatever it is that I want to see happen — it ain’t up to THEM. It’s up to ME.
I’d like to pause the proceedings for a moment to thank the growing community of friends who participated in the conversation here in the month of April with your comments and trackbacks.
Commenters
1styearassociate, Stephanie West Allen, Angel, Annette, Debra H. Bender, Mel Bergstein, Friedrich Blase, Bren, James Bullock, Shawn Callahan, CarSinger, James Cherkoff, Curt, DUST!N, Ed Dodds, Doug Fletcher, Tristan Forrester, Edward Gabrielse, Michelle Golden, Andy Havens, Huda, Josh, Steve Kaplan, Rita Keller, David Koopmans, Moe Levine, Howard Lovatt, Karen Love, Bruce MacEwen, Greg Magnus, Markkleeberg, Mike O’Horo (“The Coach”), Mike, Rob Nance, Mike O’Horo, Orikinla Osinachi, Bill Peper, Ric, Roman Rytov, Jon Sacker, Tired Secretary, Carl Singer, David A. Smith, Nut Suwapiromchot, Charles Tippett, Ian Welsh, Mott Williamson
Trackbacks, for my readers who are non-bloggers, are a delightful practice peculiar to the blog world where fellow bloggers let you know when they are writing about your ideas–something like the blog world equivalent of an academic footnote. (For more details, please see the lengthier explanation of trackbacks I posted last month.)
Trackbacks
Adam Smith, Esq. (also: here, here)
Modern Marketing – Blog by Collaborate PR
The New View From Object Towers
Thank you to all of you for contributing your opinions to these dynamic conversations.
And for those readers who haven’t left a comment yet, please consider yourselves officially invited! I’m looking forward to getting to know you and hearing your ideas, too.
When and if I am ever tempted to write another book (and I will be, I will be), I’m going to keep by me “The top 12 sins of Marketing Gurus (and their books)” the May 15 blogpost by Uri Baruchin, an Israeli marketing consultant based in London.
As a brief summary (read his post in full for explanation) his top 12 are
I hope I don’t make too many of these mistakes in my writing, but I’d like to offer some defense of some of these practices.
First, the reason that so many authors and consultants use anecdotes, best practices, sweeping generalizations and sweeping negatives in their work is that clients, readers and other audiences want exactly that.
As someone who has written both anecdotal and “present-the-evidence” books, I can report that no-one wants to spend the time to follow a refined chain of logic, and no-one wants to be forced to wade through the accumulated evidence just to have the conclusion justified.
Instead, clients and readers are always asking for the key message, something they can absorb quickly and turn into a corporate mantra. Clients keep telling me they have a new strategy, when all they have is a new slogan, slightly adapted from the latest fad management book.
Yes, consultants (including me) make all the mistakes that Uri identifies so well, but I think that this is one time when the blame must be shared.
It’s not just consultants who are responsible for creating management fads and inventing new jargon and “pushing” them onto a reluctant audience. Just as frequently, if not more often, the clients and the readers (again including me) are “pulling” the fad approach by implicitly asking authors “What have you got that’s new, exciting and can be conveyed in a keynote speech?”
A reader asks:
I’m currently working on the definition of a body of knowledge that will ultimately be submitted to the International Standards Office as a global standard. As part of the process, it’s necessary for me to approach a number of experts in the field and persuade them to join an advisory body. What is the best way to approach those experts? How would you recommend that we best persuade them to contribute their time and support to what will inevitably have to be a compromise document (which may not entirely agree with their particular beliefs and methods)?
As a frequently published author with some reputation as a consultant in my field, I know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of (many, many) requests like these, so I’ll answer from that perspective.
It’s always amazing to me how many people contact me, suggesting we meet immediately (“You don’t know me. How’s Friday?”) or telling me precisely what a significant benefit it will be to them if I were to give them my time and attention. (“I’m contacting you because you can be really helpful to me.”)
It strikes me as odd that people don’t think they have to give me a reason to help them, other than what’s in it for them. Even if the person you’re contacting is immensely charitable, isn’t it likely that a person in a position to do a favor for you probably has had other requests for assistance? Shouldn’t it therefore be obvious that you have to make a (credible) case as to why they should help you?
Notice, this isn’t about finding the right pick-up line. (“I’ve heard of you, you’ve never heard of me, but I know we have mutual interests and can be of assistance to each other if we can meet to get to know each other better.”) (Yes, all these quotes are real experiences I’ve had)
Instead, before you make contact, you need to think about and come up with a substantively valid reason, why it would be in that person’s interest to help you (among others) out. That reason has to have emotional meaning for the person from whom you want the favor.
It sounds a bit blunt, but every human being, when asked for something, is always going to ask themselves “What’s in it for me?” This doesn’t mean that they are always venal and selfish – it might just mean that it furthers a cause they believe in. But if they are going to respond to you, it’s going to be because helping you is going to make them feel good in some way, not because it’s going to make you feel good.
So, what are the possibilities? Well, I won’t be able to list them all, but here are some of the appeals (some noble, some not so noble) that have worked on me at various stages of my career. (Disclaimer: I give no guarantee that they will ever work again! Don’t take this blogpost as an open invitation to call me and ask for a favor!)
a) It will advance a cause you believe in
b) It will give you a chance to work with people you respect
c) You will meet interesting people who you might not otherwise have a chance to interact with
d) It will help spread your name and fame
e) You’ll be helping the next generation avoid the mistakes you made
f) You don’t want to be left out and let other people set the agenda
g) You’ll learn a lot by participating
h) Your friends are involved
i) You’re enemy / chief rival is involved
j) This is your chance to leave a legacy that will live on after you
k) It’s a way to get feedback on your ideas before you have to commit yourself publicly
l) You’ll be publicly thanked and recognized as a prime contributor
m) It will introduce your ideas to a whole new group of people
n) The people seeking your help are especially deserving because they are neglected or disadvantaged
There are more, but that should be enough for you to be going on.
Hey, everyone! What appeals have worked on you?
