Art Petty on Management

Inspirational Leadership: The Victim of the Balanced Scorecard?

Note from Art: Today's post is by Guest Blogger, Amy Meyer, a veteran technology marketing and product/project management professional, and an all around talented leader and wonderful person.  I hope that this post helps launch Amy's blogging career.  She has a lot to say worth listening to. (More Bio/Contact Info at end of post.)

My name is Amy Meyer and I have had the pleasure of working for and with Art for many years.  I look back on this time with gratitude, for the experience has rewarded me with life-long insights into how a company can achieve and maintain excellence.  But I can also tell you that this is truly a double-edged sword.  The experience has also made me less tolerant of poor leadership and as Art continually shares, there are plenty of examples from which to draw.

Today I’d like to cover what I believe to be a disturbing management trend.  In today’s world of the Balanced Scorecard, companies have never focused so much energy on alignment of results with strategy.  I applaud the approach.  In fact I recommend it.  But sadly it seems that for some organizations, results have become the sole focal point—the only thing that matters.  What they are losing touch with is the fact that results are driven, at least in most companies, by living, breathing human beings. 

It’s time these companies face the facts.  You can’t get results by placing a scorecard in front of a talented individual and say “Get this done or you won’t get a raise next year”, and then walk away.  This approach only works if your goal is to drive up your attrition rates and lose your best and brightest.

A balanced scorecard is not a replacement for leadership.  To blow your scorecards out of the water, you need to nurture those people who make the magic happen.  This requires more than management—it requires inspirational leadership.  It is great to have smart people as colleagues and friends, because they can help you out if you ever need to write a guest blog!  In this case I asked some of my most respected how they would define an inspirational leader.  Here’s what they had to say.

An Inspirational Leader is Someone Who...   

• Includes you in deciding the team’s direction rather than telling you what direction to go

• Picks up the shovel and digs with you rather than standing above you telling you to dig faster

• Makes other people feel important and appreciated, helps people believe in themselves

• Sets the pace, leading by example rather than decree

• Only assumes credit for providing his or her team the opportunity to succeed

• Motivates through personal performance examples and exemplifies the skills that he\she possesses through knowledge transfer and demonstration

• Knows when and how to encourage individual talents and maintains team integrity while respecting every individual

• Takes time to understand team members, creating bi-directional relationships that ensures the team that he/she has their best interests in mind

• Is proactive rather than reactive—two steps ahead, instead of one step behind

• Creates excitement in the workplace

• Builds efficient teams by trusting the occupational strengths of his or her subordinates and recognizes individual talents that balance one another

• Builds team morale by recognizing work-related achievements

• Provides opportunities for development on enjoyable and challenging projects rather than artificially inseminating the team with mandatory bonding events

• Sets a credible and ethical example to follow, has integrity

• Displays exceptional communication behavior, both as a speaker and listener, using well-educated inference as necessary

• Can either make or break a company

It’s time to wake up.  Scorecards are measurements.  To achieve and exceed your corporate goals requires the inspiration of confident leaders.  So, how are you doing?  Are you providing your team the support they need to achieve the results the organization requires?  Why don’t you ask them what you could change to make them more successful!  Being an inspirational leader requires a thick skin.  Have the courage and the self-confidence to learn from the team you serve.

--

Amy Meyer is a veteran technology professional with a broad spectrum of experience including strategic marketing, product and project management, software development and IT management.  Amy is currently focusing her efforts and research on the topic of enhancing technology project success through investment in talented individuals and collaboration with cross-functional stakeholders.  If you share Amy's passion for the topic, feel free to contact her via e-mail at amy.meyer@charter.net

From Imperial Court to Learning Organization

Today’s post was stimulated by a great article in the July/August 2008 Harvard Business Review, The Competitive Imperative of Learning, where Professor Amy Edmonson of Harvard Business School outlines the differences between organizations that focus on execution as efficiency—doing things better and faster than your competition versus execution as learning—focusing on learning and adapting faster.

In brief, Professor Edmonson compares and contrasts the approaches used in the traditional industrial age model of motivation and performance evaluation processes versus those required for today’s knowledge-worker dominated organizations.  The approaches required for success in the two models are dramatically different.

In the Execution as Efficiency model, Professor Edmonson indicates that leaders provide answers, employees follow directions and optimal work processes are designed and set up in advance.  In the Execution as Learning model, leaders set direction and articulate the mission, employees discover the answers and work processes are highly fluid, adapting at the speed of organizational learning.

Practical Applications: A lot of Executive Talk, but...

When it comes to driving change, words and actions must match. Few organizations are immune to the massive forces constantly reshaping the world around us, and few organizations can afford to live solely by the Execution as Efficiency model.  We live and work in a world increasingly dominated by knowledge workers, and while one part of an organization may be dominated by an efficiency orientation, other areas, marketing, sales, research and development, must move towards a learning approach or face dire consequences in the marketplace. 

In my own experience working with organizations that have grown up with an emphasis on efficiency but are talking about the need to become more flexible and adaptable, it is often the people doing the talking that are serving as the barriers to change by failing to revamp outmoded systems and processes.

Five Barriers that Get In the Way of Developing a Learning Organization:

1. The Imperial CEO and Royal Executives: A class system that puts undue weight on the import of executives.  Instead of the executives serving the organization, it seems like the organization exists to serve the executives.
2. Strategy by Edict and Set According to the Calendar: Every year at about the same time, the organization stops and waits while the royal court sits behind closed doors working out the new organizational structure and lofty statements that provide the masses inspiration to work hard until they receive fresh inspiration next year.
3. Strategy by Default: “We have a strategy, and it’s to sell more,” is a commonly heard phrase in this tuned-out environment.   Another is, “Strategy is for the big boys, and we’re too small to worry about anything other than doing our jobs.”
4. People as Expenses: the words coming from the mouths of executives might be saying “People are our most important asset,” but the systems supporting the identification, development and retention of talent are saying, “People are our biggest cost.”
5. The Functional Structure: specialization works in some areas, but in general, the silo structure of many/most orientations is the greatest impediment to shared learning.  While the phrase, “we’re all in sales” is commonly shouted by salespeople frustrated with the lack of organizational support, the fact is that, “marketing is truly too important to be left to just the marketing department.” 

What to Do If Your Organization Needs to Learn:

• Take the royalty out of the royal court.  This culture shift has to start at the top—the non-CEO Chairman of the Board and the other independent board members have to step up and overthrow the caste system and monarchy that pervades so many executive environments.

• Recognize and act on strategy as a process that involves everyone.  (I’ve posted on this one seemingly a thousand times, so I’ll spare you the details and direct you to the Strategy category on this blog.)

• A robust execution process with plenty of accountability and constant evaluation of performance and consideration of lessons learned is the fastest way to pump up organizational learning.

• Make the identification, development and retention of talent the job of every manager or supervisor in the organization.  Challenge HR to create systems to support these activities and start living up to the notion that people are your greatest assets.

• Break down the walls by at least moving towards a strong matrix or a project environment for major initiatives.  Cease and desist with throwing initiatives over silo walls, and build a project culture with the charter to execute and to educate the organization on lessons learned.

The Bottom-Line for Now:

It’s time to quit talking about becoming a learning organization and start knocking down the time worn conventions, institutions and processes that stand in your organization's way.  In an ideal world, this change starts at the top with an insightful leader or leadership team that understand what it takes to move from an efficiency orientation to a learning focus.  In reality, a lot of this change will need to be driven by leaders in the middle that clearly see what is happening in the external environment as well as what it takes to win in that environment.  If necessary, let the royals executives posture and play while you go about the business of changing the business one initiative at a time.

Ironically, Mid-Level Managers May Save Your Business

Ever since terms like reengineering, right sizing and downsizing became part of the corporate lexicon; midlevel managers have been taking it on the chin.  This once populous class has been synergized and right-sized almost to extinction.  Those that remain often struggle with spans of control as wide as the Golden Gate Bridge and limited authority that is constantly challenged from above and below.  I find it just a bit ironic (and appropriate) that this much-abused class of leader may just hold the key to surviving and prospering in tough times.

In a great article in the July 7. 2008 Wall Street Journal, entitled: In Search of Growth Leaders, authors Carr, Liedtka, Rosen and Wiltbank offer the results of their multi-year study of the role that midlevel managers play in fueling organic growth.  Their conclusion: "most companies have managers who can turbo charge results.  The trick is finding—and nurturing—them.  Read the article for some great insights on finding and developing these critical midlevel leaders. (And read my post: Management By Jane: Leading Effectively from the Middle for some additional thoughts.)

The Power of Great Managers in the Middle:

• Appropriately trained and armed, midlevel managers are directly focusing on strategy execution—they lead the teams that do the work that drives performance. If your organization is failing to execute on strategic objectives, look to the middle, not to place blame, but to identify what you can do better to help your managers succeed.

• As the article authors highlight, a tremendous amount of innovation comes from the middle.  In my own experience, the managers that fuel innovation are the ones that are relentless about creating the right conditions for their associates to succeed.   Breaking down barriers and taking the heat for bending the rules are common and comfortable tasks of the innovative midlevel manager.

• The most important talent scouts and developers are often found in the middle of organizations.  The savvy manager recognizes the import of identifying and developing emerging leaders, competent role players and potentially brilliant individual contributors. While top management might want the organization to become good at this talent scouting and development, like strategy execution, the majority of the heavy lifting takes place in the middle.

Five Ideas to Strengthen Your Support and Success In the Middle:

1. Change your perspective on the midlevel management layer.  Instead of looking
at the organization chart and seeing cost to be minimized or taken out, look at this group as resources to enable strategy execution, fuel innovation and scout and develop talent.  Quit broadening spans of control to the point of ridiculousness, and begin setting goals around strategy, innovation and development, and suddenly the cost perspective starts melting away.

2. Involve midlevel managers in strategy formulation...not just in rubber-stamping the strategy formulated by executives.  Remember, the people in the middle likely understand your customers and your organization's capabilities at a much more detailed level than those of you with V's or C's in your title.

3. Create systems to help midlevel managers experiment with and implement new ideas.  Provide key managers and manager groups with executive sponsors charged with cutting through corporate clutter to help get things done.

4. Reward successes, provide visibility and learn from misfires.  Easy words to write and speak, but realizing this environment takes discipline. 

5. Recognize the fact that new classes of virtual leaders...Project Managers and Product Managers have emerged over the past two decades to replace the former middle level.  These critical positions often carry tremendous responsibility burdens with little real authority across functional boundaries.  If these positions exist in your organizations, strive to create the sponsors, systems and infrastructure to allow them to perform.

6. As an executive, get over yourself.  No one said that you are required to have all of the answers.  It's a sign of strength, not weakness if you are emotionally secure and intelligent enough to recognize that your strength comes from your ability to get the best from willing contributors. Take the time to invest in reinventing your leadership style.

The Bottom-Line for Now:

The article referenced above is must reading for every executive looking to solve the challenges of how to fuel organic growth.  Innovation doesn't occur on command, and while good accidents happen (e.g. think 3M and Post-Its), hope as we all know is a lousy strategy. 

I teach, train and support midlevel managers in all forms of organizations and by and large, I find them generally miserable about their tasks and their ability to positively impact their organization.  The majority of their frustration stems from working for leaders that succeed in stifling the conditions required for innovation and execution to flourish.  The opportunity is in the middle...not the problem.  For the source of the problem, take a long, hard look in the mirror. 

The Project Management Discipline of Strategy Execution

A number of months ago, I wrote about the benefit of applying professional project management practices to help improve strategy execution (Struggling with Strategy? Think Project Management).  While many view strategy as something that is transformational (and it often is), the fact is that an organization moves from where it is today to where it has decided to go one project at a time...like a football team marching down the field on a long-drive.

In the June, 2008 Harvard Business Review, in an article entitled The Secrets to Successful Strategy Execution, Gary Neilson, Karla Martin and Elizabeth Powers add considerably to the body of knowledge on strategy execution, with this excellent article, backed by a considerable amount of research gained in surveys of over 1,000 organizations.  Their findings seem to support their thesis that: "enterprises fail at execution because they go straight to structural reorganization and neglect the most powerful drivers of effectiveness—decision rights and information flows."

A few key findings covered in the article:

• Employees at three out of five companies rated their organization weak at execution.  (Asked: Are Important strategic and operational decisions quickly translated into action?)

• The number one rated trait (by a landslide) that makes organizations effective at implementing strategy: Everyone has a good idea of the decisions and actions for which one is responsible.

• Of the top eight traits (17 were identified), five were tied to having effective and timely information flows and three were related to decision rights.

• Structure as an effective trait for driving strategy execution did not hit the  list until number 13, with a relatively low strength index rating. 

Fascinating. It's important to see a large body of research dedicated to the execution issue and it is a great learning experience to see how valuable information flows and decision rights are to successful strategy execution.

Additional Thoughts on Strategy Execution:

Structural changes, properly implemented at the right time and for the right reasons can go a long way towards addressing and improving the information flow, decision rights and collaboration issues that are so critical to strategy execution.  Don't write off structure as a powerful tool in strategy execution,  however as the authors highlight, don't jump to structure as the solution.  It's one part of many pieces to the solution.

Back to my strategy execution as project management thesis, the best performing project teams are characterized by clear structure, unambiguous roles, detailed communication plans and clear accountability for decisions and results.  Top notch Project Managers ride herd on these issues, seeking out points of confusion or gaps in information flows and fixing them in process.  

The fact that the authors are able to cite as a research finding that 3 out of 5 surveyed managers believe that their organizations do not quickly translate strategic priorities into action tells me that most of those organizations have not adopted a robust project management discipline for strategy execution. And while strategy is arguably more complicated than creating a new product or constructing a building, it is very possible to structure and manage your execution program using the same approaches. 

The bottom-line (for now):

Strategy execution is where value is created.  The best plans are worthless unless they are backed by a group of people that understand their roles and accountabilities and that have the information they need when they need for rapid decision-making.  Execution never takes place in a straight line and without setbacks.  In fact, the setbacks are powerful learning experiences that a good team will leverage as it adapts and responds to internal and external factors.

A large part of the solution in my opinion is treating execution like a high-order program comprised of a series of projects to be managed.  Ask a good Project Manager how to successfully pull of an execution program and I suspect they won't need to interview 1,000 companies. 

Sirius and XM: Does Satellite Radio Resonate?

With thanks to the team of Phil Myers, Craig Stull (Pragmatic Marketing) and David Meerman Scott (Web Ink Now), I'm looking for "Resonators" everywhere I go.  And no, "Resonators" are not some new cool gadget, but rather, as defined by the aforementioned authors in their soon to be released book, Tuned In, they are products or services that so perfectly solve problems for buyers that they practically sell themselves. (Full disclosure,  I've had a sneak peek at some of the concepts in this great new book, and I am presenting my take on what their book means for leaders in a webinar, entitled: Tuned In Leadership, next Friday, June 13.)

An article in the Wall Street Journal last week entitled "Slowdown Generates Static for XM, Sirius," outlined the challenges that these two (planning to be one) satellite radio companies are having in generating the much needed growth in subscriptions, given a slowing economy and especially, slowing automobile production and purchases (a key source of new subscriptions for both).  Now that the companies appear to be moving towards gaining the final OK to merge, they are running into their next hurdle, trying to solve the riddle of profitability by delivering premium content and commercial free music to customers willing to pay.  Both organizations have purportedly invested heavily in adding celebrities (e.g. Howard Stern) and major sporting events (NFL, MLB, NASCAR etc.) in an attempt to lure enough subscribers and advertisers and eventually generate profits.

According to the article in the Wall Street Journal, the combined subscriber count for both companies is in the neighborhood of 17.9 million...adding a net total of 3.7 million last year.  The article contrasts this with 21 million Ipods sold last year and the fact that 54 million people tune in to internet radio every week.  Of course, many more people tune into traditional terrestrial radio—in spite of the mundane and redundant programming and the mindless and endless commercials (this author's opinion).

I have been a subscriber to satellite radio almost since its inception...first XM and now Sirius.  I have a subscription in my car, and I have a portable unit that I use in other cars, on my boat or in a boom box when I'm working in the yard.  I drive a fair amount, and I love the constant access to CNBC, other news channels and some great talk shows.  I also appreciate the opportunity to tune in to commercial free jazz content on the ride home after a day training, teaching or working with a client.   I am almost as passionate about my satellite radio as I am about my family's growing number of Apple computers and related products, but I worry a lot about the survival chances for this incredible medium.

I reviewed the afore-mentioned article in a management class of working professionals last week, and the discussion and key points might be germane to the teams at XM/Sirius.  In this northwest suburban Chicago class of 15, I was the only subscriber, and while several had heard the names of the companies, there was little perception of  what satellite radio is all about.  Overall, the class struggled to describe why anyone would pay for radio, although most agreed that the commercial free aspect was nice.  After discussing the features and benefits (and pricing model), a few offered that they might pay for Howard Stern or some sports, but overall didn't find the concept of satellite radio solving any real problem or didn't find it exciting and unique enough to place it into the "must have" category.  Truthfully, I even let some of my passion for the offering filter through and in spite of this, the reaction to the concept of paying for radio (even premium and commercial free radio) was that it is not doing anything to solve a problem that anyone could identify, although it sounded like a nice luxury.   Clearly, satellite radio was not a Resonator with this audience.

The bottom-line for now:

As stated, I'm a big fan.  I would be sad to lose my Sirius radio.  (It's playing in my office right now as I'm typing this.)  However, I've long suspected that this medium has bigger problems than the scrutiny they are receiving over the prospect of merging.  The companies (in my opinion) have failed to do what other companies and products like Apple and the Ipod do so well...to create something that is so compelling, that solves such vexing problems or creates such an incredible experience, that large number of buyers cannot live without it.  Sirius's new Stiletto 2 combines the best of a portable, Ipod-like device with the ability to play MP3 files, but still total subscriber numbers remain low.

If I'm XM/Sirius, I would be losing more sleep over why people aren't knocking down the proverbial doors to take advantage of their quality offerings.  I hope they make it, but if my class is representative of a large part of the potential subscriber base, satellite radio either doesn't resonate, or the companies have failed to communicate the value in a way that resonates.  I hope that the management teams are Tuning In.

Seven Suggestions to Consider When Creating A New Market

If you've ever worked in an organization or on a team that got caught up in the quest to create a new market you know that the experience is all consuming and exhilarating.

While the all-new pure white-space scenario is elusive, a fair number of organizations leverage their deep knowledge of a specific segment, a group of customers or a set of customer challenges to create new offerings that don't fit traditional market definitions or boundaries.  The combination of blazing a new trail and believing that what you have created and what you are espousing will help reshape and transform for the better how something gets done is intoxicating. 

I met the other day with a CEO living through this very situation right now, and from listening to her very real challenges and reflecting on my own experiences on one of these market-creating odysseys, I offer a number of leadership and management suggestions that might prove helpful on your own journey of market creation. 

7 Issues that Should Keep You Awake at Night on Your Way to Creating a Market:


1.  You have to surround yourself with flexible, free-thinking and adaptable people.  Hiring the former BIG CO executive who hasn't lived through what it means to swim without a life raft may not be the best plan in the early phases.  You don't have time to wean people off of big company practices...bring in the professionals that have already been through this process somewhere else.

2.  Listen to yourself and your people talk and read your own propaganda.  If everything that comes out of your mouth is about how great your new product is at the feature/function/capability level, you've got a problem.  If the answer to every business question is something about the unique capabilities and elegant architecture of your revolutionary product, you've got a problem.  If your web site is nothing but more of the above, the problem is real.  The prospective clients that you are seeking as early adopters are motivated by a bigger vision, not by the elegance of your technology.

3.  Markets don't emerge on anyone's schedule.   If you are banking on going from nowhere to critical mass on a short-horizon, you and your investors are likely to be disappointed.  While everyone in awhile markets emerge at remarkable speed, most of them take years and often never emerge.  If your market's emergence is dependent upon people and institutions changing long-standing practices and overcoming deeply embedded approaches, you better be planning for a marathon, not a sprint.    

4.  Back to the message coming from you and your web site.  Like it or not, you are evangelist and educator all at the same time.  If all you do is shout product, you will not appeal to either the hearts or brains of your prospective customers.  Make sure that your people, your web content and the preponderance of your conversation is educational and informative and not pure product propaganda. 

5.  Traditional marketing tactics don't work when you are creating a market.  Give it up and shoot your marketing head if he/she is suggesting advertising, trade shows and direct mail as primary vehicles.  (OK, this one will generate some controversy.  Sorry, I believe that the world has changed and people gather their information and assign trust in very different ways than they used to.  Before flaming me on this topic, read David Meerman Scott's: The New Rules of Marketing and P.R.  and then let's start the debate.)

6.  Traditional selling tactics don't work when you are creating a market.  See also the marketing comment above.  Transactional salespeople and sales approaches need not apply.  Your early focus is on market visionaries willing to take a risk to realize something profound for their business.  Match the value creation resource with the task to fuel the vision.

7.  Map the Influencers and figure out how to appeal to their fundamental need.  Don't know what that is.  It's simple.  Market influencers gain influence by having radical opinions on what's right, what's wrong and what organizations need to do about what's right and what's wrong.  Paint your vision for them, encourage them to develop their own vision and provide them with a soapbox to tell the world.  A good influencer will never back you or your product overtly, but if they see the opportunity to enhance their position by grabbing on to the issues that you are dealing with, they help educate the market.  This type of influence is not purchased with a subscription to an analyst firm or via press releases, it is gained through personal relationships and involving the right individuals in your strategic market and client discussions. 

The bottom-line for now:

The above 7-suggestions barely scratch the surface of what it takes to succeed in helping an organization create, define and profit from a new market.  However, they are important issues that I often do not hear the leaders of these exciting firms thinking and talking about.  Creating a market is a non-routine project, and as a result, non-routine thinking is required every step of the way.  Leave the traditional tactics at home, spend some time thinking beyond the moment and trust your gut that this is really challenging.  Remember, if you are right, you want to harvest what you spent so much time, money and gray matter pioneering.  If not you, the companies right behind you will be happy to benefit from your efforts.

Too Many Projects Chasing Too Few Resources in the Strategy-Starved Organization

Whether you are operating at the strategic level or working in product development, I would bet my life-starting morning cup of coffee (a great Mexican roast from Conscious Cup in Crystal Lake, IL) that your organization faces more opportunities than it can possibly deliver.  The extreme of this situation is Project Gridlock, a phenomena that I've observed in mature technology firms where the demand to support and enhance legacy offerings collide with the need to modernize or create new products to grow the business and stay-ahead of competitors.

Why Strategy is the Leader’s Most Potent Tool

As a leader, imagine having a metaphorical tool at your beck and call that was capable of catalyzing action, focusing the collective energies of your team members and providing a greater sense of purpose to everyone around you.  This tool is strategy and all too often and for varying reasons, this tool is left idle in the bottom of the leadership toolbox, brought out only for special occasions like the annual off site or in preparation for budgeting.  The best tool misapplied is no better than a crude implement.  Unfortunately, strategy as a leadership tool is widely misunderstood and rarely or poorly applied.   

From Strategy-Starved to Strategy-Fueled: It's All About Communication

"It’s a dirty little secret: Most executives cannot articulate the objective, scope, and advantage of their business in a simple statement. If they can’t, neither can anyone else," indicate David J. Colliss and Michael G. Rukstad in the opening of their article, "Can You Say What Your Strategy Is?" in the April, 2008 issue of Harvard Business Review.

In an MBA class on Project Management that I am currently teaching, this topic came up in the context of the role that project managers play in strategy execution.  This class of working professionals agreed that strategy execution is conducted largely via projects, yet it is uncommon for individuals in project management roles to be plugged into the strategic management process.  As such, there is little context for many of the critical decisions that arise in the form of executing major projects.  In my informal poll of the class participants, there was additional consensus that most organizations do a less than stellar job communicating strategy to the broader employee population.

Want to Change? Manage Strategy in Bursts!

Traditional strategic planning approaches often fail to deliver the results that firms require to jump start growth or pull out of a sustained decline.  Legacy approaches emphasize a periodic focus on strategy—often an annual refresh against a long-range plan.  This “strategy as an event” approach is increasingly obsolete in a world that changes overnight, with markets being born, maturing and dying at hyper-speed.  Instead, what is needed is a more dynamic means for professionals to experiment, innovate and to assess results and refine activities in near-real time.

Organizations that learn to work in “Strategy Bursts” are able to learn, adapt and refine their strategic activities faster than more plodding competitors, but this new style requires learning and internalizing a new approach to strategy management and execution.  For many leaders and executives, succeeding with this new model requires letting go of old strategy habits and biases.