Learning for Growth (www.EffectiveLearningForGrowth.com)

Strategy Communication - Avoiding "Same Old, Same Old"

2011-11-09T07:00:00.005-06:00

When I spoke at Minnesota Manufacturing Group earlier this week, there were a lot of really good questions.

One was how to avoid the reaction of "Same old, Same old" - when the strategy is met with eye-rolls, muttering, and the attitude "This, too, shall pass" or "We can just wait this out - no need to change a thing!"

The reason so many have seen this reaction is that it works. When an organization's leaders don't have the guts or genius to create a meaningful strategy, or lack the discipline to pick one and stick with it until it works, strategy can easily become a "flavor of the month."

Why's that so bad? Well, for one thing, it increases organizational cynicism, a highly toxic force in organizational life.

For another, it stimulates or re-inforces lack of confidence in the leaders, since creating strategy, communicating it in ways that matter, and leading its execution is some of the most important work leaders do.

Especially when times are uncertain and challenging, communicating the vision in a way that reaches people's hearts, communicating the strategy in a way that makes sense - again, and again, and again - is a leader's most important work.

So, how to avoid the shrug reaction? Several key points -

Reach hearts with a high goal. The vision part needs to be a worthy cause, something that engages employees by seeing that this work makes a difference.

Challenge minds with an ambitious target. People are motivated by a goals that are not too easy and not impossible.

Engage people with goals and problem-solving. At all possible levels, set goals that align with and contribute to the strategic plan, so that everyone can see their part in achieving it.

Over-communicate the vision and plan, at all times, to all stakeholders. When you think you're wearing it out, you might just be getting started! Great executives can always communicate the objective, scope, and advantage of the strategy - and do!

Connecting strategy and metrics - why, and how - dashboard quality

2011-11-08T13:20:00.000-06:00

Did a talk this morning at Minnesota Manufacturing Group - the "7 Mistakes" talk from July, slightly revised.

Tremendously experienced and sharp group, asked some great questions - like how to measure and find the discipline of execution. like how to keep strategic plans from being perceived as "same old, same old," like the time horizon of long-term plans, like how to optimize ownership and accountability at the right levels. Reflecting on the answers will take several blogs!

Some organizations do carry their strategic plans over from year to year. If it's working, that's great. But the question is how do you know it's working, and that gets to metrics.

A strategy without a dashboard is almost useless - and creating the dashboard is where the first hard work comes in. There should only be a few metrics, since humans can focus on a few things, especially for a prolonged period of time.

And if there's only a few, then they'd better be good ones!

What makes good dashboard metrics?

They're forward-looking. On sales, for instance, you need good information about what's in the funnel (or pipeline) several months out, with appropriately cautious metrics that there won't be many surprises.

They're timely. On customer satisfaction or employee experience, an annual survey is too long to wait to find out if there's a problem! Better to have smaller samplings more often to keep a finger on the pulse so that corrections can be made when needed.

They measure what matters, rather than what's easy or traditional to measure. When a call center realized what pressuring to reduce time-on-call meant for customer satisfaction (strong negative correlation), they switched to randomly sampling customer satisfaction, without pressuring agents to get off the phone quickly.

They're trustworthy. The old adage of "garbage in, garbage out" is as true today as when the phrase was first used in the 70's - you can't make good decisions on bad data. If a key data source is compromised, leaders need to clean it up or find other data to inform the same objective.

They're strategically consistent. One person from Minnesota Manufacturing Group told the story of an organization he knew that measured salespeople on gross revenue, and production on cost-savings. Can you guess what these competing metrics created?

Next strategy blog - how to avoid "same old same old"

Better at Consulting Than Selling

2011-10-26T10:53:00.000-05:00

Preparing for the micro-seminar on prospecting, I realize that I'm not much of a salesperson - and that's OK!

One of the ways I work with clients is to teach them to sell - So don't I have to be a super salesperson myself to do that?

Does Rafael Nadal's tennis coach need to be a better tennis player than Nadal?

No, because playing great tennis is not what he does. The coach's skills are knowing what "great" looks like, how the timing works on Nadal's serve, how he's managing his attitude from moment to moment, what mistakes he tends to make (and there aren't many!), how to get his attention and give him important feedback at just the right moment.

In the last two years, I've worked with several clients who are better at selling than I'll ever be.

What I've helped them do - in some cases like second nature, automatically - is do better homework, figure out their target markets more precisely and frame their whole approach around client needs, not their product. They know how to make a good first impression, they know what to do next - and why - at any given moment. They ask better questions, and they're really great listeners. They help their customers find value in what they offer, from the customer's perspective, without pushing. They also know when to ask for the business, and when (and how) to ask for referrals. They get results!

Their skill is selling. Mine is helping them get better at it, as their advisor and coach, working from the sidelines, not the field.

Why strategy matters in uncertain times - From Today's Radio Show

2011-10-10T22:50:00.000-05:00

Today I was on Peter McClellan's radio show on Twin Cities Business Radio, and we talked about why strategic planning matters most when things are most uncertain.

(If you'd like to hear the whole show, here's the link: http://thinkonangus.podomatic.com/player/web/2011-10-10T08_38_40-07_00)

As for why an organization would bother with strategic planning now, in the fourth quarter, with all the uncertainty and doubt -- I believe, as many have said, that the best way to predict the future is to create it yourself.

I think the reason that so few companies devote the sort of careful thinking and attention to strategy is that they're overwhelmed.

Overwhelmed by busy-ness, with just too much to do.
Overwhelmed by uncertainty, not knowing what new bad news will come next from the economy or politics.
Overwhelmed by fear of the future, believing it could all fall apart.

But I'm finding with current clients that attention has power. When we focus on the future we want, and hold that focus long enough for it to become a plan, it starts to take on substance. With more attention and a bit of discipline to stick with the planning until it's done, it becomes a guiding force.

And when the strategy is set up, everything actually gets easier.

Sometimes the most important information from the process of prioritizing and making strategy is deciding what blinders to wear. What will you deliberately ignore, that would otherwise frustrate or distract you? What opportunities will you pass up, so you can focus on what will get you closer to the vision you want?

Networking as business development strategy - Improving how it works

2011-09-22T11:17:00.000-05:00

This year there's a lot of news and new approaches in networking, yet some things always remain the same.

There are new approaches to networking advocated by the folks at ProIntroNet, which launches groups with an education-oriented focus and an approach they call "golden rule networking." Also went through some training based on "7-Levels of Communication" book by Michael Maher - interesting ideas, and I'm putting some in place. A group at TwinWest Chamber of Commerce just re-established its purpose - why we invest time in networking together -- it's not about collecting business cards or meeting a referral slip quota, but about helping each others' businesses grow.

So, what remains the same? Some things work, some things just don't work, and it all comes down to attitude. Here's 3 of each -

3 things that work

Right places, at the right levels. While you never know who someone knows, if you want to meet bankers, networking with website developers or multi-level marketers is not a good investment.
Repeated contact and presence matter. People have to know you, like you, and trust you to refer you, or even be OK with being asked. If you join a group or attend a recurring event, at least be a regular and a contributor, if not an organizer.
Good first impression, then consistency. To earn people's trust, you have to reliably do what you say you will do. In networking, that means showing up and contributing.

3 things that DON'T work --

Pitching. Soliciting a sale on first contact is enormously ineffective, and usually makes a lasting bad first impression.
Asking near-strangers for referrals. Why would anyone refer a valued client or person of importance to a stranger? That "know-like-trust" has to happen first, or asking is rude and pointless.
High volume card exchange. If someone wants your card, they'll ask for it; if you push it on someone, it may find its way to the trash by the Exit; it will not ever result in follow-up.

Why do people still do these? If you know, please reply!

3 essential attitudes for effective networking

Curiosity. When meeting new people, you never know what interesting things you might learn. Genuine curiosity about the person, their life, their work always leads to learning of some sort.
Connection. Wanting to discover real points of connection - common interests, people, history - and willingness to explore them is good conversation, at least, and could lead somewhere.
Giving. Really having the attitude of giving - making connections, recommending resources, paying attention, being fully present - is the most important single truth about networking. You have to give before you can expect to receive - and if you focus on giving, it works.

Effective Learning for Growth occasionally does workshops on networking, at high efficiency and low cost. These are intended for those who want to change their perspective or sharpen their skills, and include some fun elements ("how to handle a bad handshake" or "how to remember names" for instance). To see when the next one's coming, check here: http://www.effectivelearningforgrowth.com/events.html

Strategy Mistakes - part 1 of.....

2011-07-27T14:45:00.000-05:00

Just gave a talk this morning at a breakfast for strategy-makers, on "7 Costly Strategy Mistakes." So for a while, I'll be doing "highlights of..." or "best ideas from..." in this blog on Strategy.

The first costly mistake is "the Secret Strategy" - where the owner / founder / president is the ONLY one who knows what the strategy is.

Is that crazy, or have you seen it, too?

In the case that led to naming this, a business owner actually told me "No, I don't tell my people what my strategy is. We have high turnover in this industry, and if I tell them what it is, my competition will know it within a few months."

I had to bite my tongue to resist asking the "Dr Phil" question: "How's that workin' for ya?"

What I did instead was to ask more specific questions about the impact on several areas that are predictable problems with the "secret strategy" approach:

The owner has to make all the decisions, because he/she's the only one who knows the strategy and real priorities.
Because of that, the owner is always "fighting fires" and handling crises caused by the players not knowing the playbook.
Because of that, employees who are bright, have initiative, and prefer some autonomy start to feel stifled and "second-guessed."
Because of that, the best ones leave, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about turnover, leaving the owner having to replace good talent and scramble to cover in the meantime.
Because of that, the customer experience suffers from mistakes, churning, and a succession of new customer-facing reps - not the way to inspire confidence or loyalty!

What does this cost?

Attrition costs at least 25% of annual salary - even for low-skill, minimum-wage folks. For skilled customer-facing people, for those with high technical or good sales skills, the cost is a higher percentage of a higher salary. For great salespeople or senior customer managers who have "a following" - the real cost of replacement can be more than their annual salary!

Even at the 25% level, if you replace 4 per year, you're paying the equivalent of a year's salary for a ghost - the "dearly departed" takes on a different meaning! It's hard to get profitable when you're paying salaries for empty cubicles.

And what's the cost in customer confidence and loyalty, when they get a new person every time they call?

Customer loyalty is a predictable casualty of high turnover and the sort of mistakes caused by customer-facing staff clueless about the strategy.

That could be so costly it drives a company out of business.

In the best case, it creates a tough hole to dig out of -- and an unnecessary one.

Please comment! Have you known companies with a "secret strategy?" How do the consequences and costs reflect what you've seen?

Next week, the next costly strategy mistake - "Strategy without Contingencies"

Strategy - Who cares? What's it worth?

2011-07-07T17:15:00.000-05:00

Strategy has gone through ups and downs, ins and outs historically. From the graduate school course I've taught on it, it has cycled through periods where companies spend massive resources gathering data, reporting up in endless detail, and creating strategy, all the way to periods where some companies rejected the idea of having one at all (we seem to be closer to that, now).

An article in Harvard Business Review said "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" (Collis & Ruskad, 2008, p. 83).

So what? What's lost if most people in the organization couldn't say what the strategy is?

A couple of important things - coherent decision-making at the right levels, and alignment.

Coherent decision-making means that everyone who might have to make a decision knows the direction and priorities. That reduces waste of precious resources (like the leader's time!), and costly errors.

Alignment is a subtler benefit. When everyone knows where the organization's heading, and why, and that direction and strategy mean something to the people in the organization who have to make it happen, better engagement happens. The work means something, so people stick around, give more of themselves, care about quality and customers, and work together to achieve more.

Employee engagement is at an all-time low. Some estimate that most people would leave their current jobs if they could find another one tomorrow. What sort of performance does that mean?

So, if an organization doesn't have a strategy, or its members could not say what it is, where do you start?

That's in next week's blog...

Sales Management - Career Path for Top Performers - Really?

2011-07-05T12:55:00.000-05:00

In a conversation with a top-performing salesperson in factory automation software for several years, I mentioned the premise of my book on the transition to sales manager, and was surprised at his response.

Maybe he's onto something...

I shared the statistic that 85% of top salespeople who are made sales managers don't last a year and leave the company, and he said that he hadn't seen that happen much. He agreed that top salespeople don't often make good sales managers, but said that top salespeople he's know don't accept the promotion, if offered.

When I asked what he saw instead, he said "The really good salespeople don't WANT to be sales managers - the ones who DO want to be sales managers are the ones who struggle with sales, who are burnt out, who want to escape the pressure of continually making the numbers."

So, in your experience, is this a stereotype?

Or do companies that promote a struggling salesperson to be the sales manager have the right idea - IF certain other traits and characteristics are there?

I've been interviewing successful sales managers who were top performers to identify what traits & characteristics they have in common, so that whether a company promotes the top performer or someone else, they'll stand a better chance of success...

More on those traits and characteristics next week...

Nice article on bad strategy

2011-06-27T16:19:00.000-05:00

McKenzie Quarterly's June issue has a good article on bad strategy that got me thinking about the "7 Strategy Mistakes" I'm presenting in late July. Some of what the article lists is also what's in the presentation.

The article lists the hallmarks of bad strategy are failure to face the problem, mistaking goals for strategy, bad objectives (fuzzy or "blue sky"), and fluff.

The article attributes the abundance of bad strategy to inability to decide, and to following a template-style strategy.

It's on the last point, his assertion that templating the vision, mission, values, and strategies always leads to empty rhetoric and fluff, that I believe the author is mistaken.

Of course, using a template poorly can go wrong . If an organization found a strategy self-help website and approached it as if playing "buzzword Mad-Libs" they'll get meaningless fluff. In the worst cases I've seen, they may work on it so hard and so long that they start to think it's beautiful -- often to the amusement of others. What a waste when it goes astray like that!

But when leaders develop strategy well, they ...

answer the hard questions in an honest SWOT,
do the hard homework of figuring out who's the real competition and how to beat them,
do a cold-eyed, realistic assessment of the changing market
make a coherent plan for using talent, finance, resources...

AND when they also really revisit the Why are we here? questions of vision, mission, and values (sometimes with help, when that's not a skill that the leaders start with) - then they can also engage the hearts, minds, and full talents of the organization.

Because the most brilliantly conceived competitive strategy won't make much difference if the organization isn't aware, aligned, accountable, and committed to it.

The article from McKenzie Quarter can be found at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_perils_of_bad_strategy_2826

Sales Manager Transition - What's the 1st year failure rate?

2011-06-21T06:57:00.000-05:00

Attended a webinar from ES Research last week about the sales training industry.

The founder, Dave Stein, dropped a statistic about the first year failure rate where companies promote their top-producing salesperson to be the sales manager.

It's 85%.

He's done a lot of research over the last several years, working with companies that provide or seek sales training, so I believe he's got it right.

My question is, why is it so very high?

Why don't companies define the sales manager job to be one that a human can do, select the right talent, and support them toward success?

I'll be answering those questions in this blog in the near future, but I'd sure welcome any ideas or suggestions from any who read this blog!

A quirky sort of strategy research

2011-06-17T17:10:00.000-05:00

For several years, I’ve been teaching courses on Strategy in a graduate business school. Over a hundred learners have all done essentially the same project: Based on the readings and research, evaluate your own organization’s strategy. What needs changing, and why? What are the consequences and opportunities?

The learners are all working leaders, often senior managers in some significantly large organizations; they roll their sleeves up and get it done every day.

So over the years, I’ve started to see some of the same patterns again and again. When things go badly wrong with strategy, they seem to follow one (or more) of a few specific patterns.

I’m also part of two different networks of consultancies, with Resource Associates (about 300 nationally) and with Association of Independent Business Consultants (over 1000 globally). In “members only” discussions, I’ve floated these patterns of mistakes, asking if others have seen these – and they have.

In my consulting practice, addressing strategy with clients, some of these same patterns have to be overcome.

When working for / with some well-known organizations over the last 15+ years, the same patterns were there, too.

So between direct, hands-on experience, polling other consultants, teaching, these patterns of costly mistakes keep popping up.

These patterns have predictable outcomes in how an organization operates, competes, and adapts. Those outcomes can be very, very costly. And some fairly simple (not easy, just simple) guidelines can keep organizations clear of these errors. (These are forming into a "white paper" to be published this summer).

Next week – What is it about strategy that can go so badly?

Sales Management Transition – How bad could it be?

2011-06-15T07:14:00.000-05:00

Of all the mistakes companies can make, one of the most expensive can be a four-part train wreck that goes like this:

Make a sales manager role that’s impossible
Promote the top salesperson into it
Give no coaching / training support
Expect the new sales manager to “clone” him/herself among former peers

What happens if this doesn’t work? Well, a lot, and none of it’s good.

The top-producing salesperson gets a job they can’t do and don’t like.
Every motivator and source of satisfaction gets turned 180 degrees.
The top producer’s clients may get ignored, and leave.
Other good salespeople get frustrated, and quit (or stay, but just go through the motions – and may even complain to customers).

That’s a staggering cost! Many companies can't survive it.

I once asked a very senior executive in a major pharmaceutical company what a mistake in promoting a great rep to be a bad district sales manager might be. She had given it some thought, and answered quickly “At least $2 million – and that’s before the lawsuits!”

She explained “A bad DSM causes good reps to leave, and when they do, it can spoil the relationship they worked so hard to earn. Sometimes, a bad DSM creates so much stress that there’s a spike in health issues and absenteeism among the reps. And if the DSM puts too much pressure on reps to produce, they may start overstating what they say – and that’s where the potential lawsuits and major damage comes in. A really disgruntled, unhappy rep who sticks around for a few months can poison every relationship in their territory, and you just can’t easily come back from that.”

So why do companies promote a superstar into a job that’s set up for them to fail?

That’s next week’s blog.

Sales Star to Sales Manager - a Dangerous Transition

2011-06-07T07:15:00.000-05:00

I've started writing a book about a transition many companies make: They take their best salesperson, their best producer of new business - and make them the sales manager.

It does not often end well. Most find that it's a job that's pretty much opposite of:

what they like to do
what they are able to do
how they have succeeded before.

They often find everything that motivated them to be the top salesperson - getting to be the hero for the client, making the seemingly impossible happen, having a lot of autonomy and control, seeing the direct connection between their activities and their income - gone, and replaced by its opposite!

They often hate the new job, and fail.

I want to do something about that, so companies can make getting the right person into the sales manager job and getting them successful in it.

So I'm writing a book about how successful sales managers made that transition from superstar to sales manager, and learned to like the very different job of managing other salespeople and succeeding through others.

More to come in weekly (or more often) blogs on sales management transition. Next week, The consequences - Just how bad can it be?

Good Networking Event

2011-04-15T10:26:00.000-05:00

Many businesses I know count on networking as an important part of business development, and sometimes an event stands out. One did for me late yesterday afternoon, and here's why, and what made it good.

It was crowded. It was off in a corner of a popular bar, Oak City in Bloomington, and there were at least 40-50 people there.

What's good about that? Well, it reduced that awkward clustering that happens where there's more room to spread out. It's easier to start a conversation with a stranger if you just turn around, rather than walk across the room. There was some "breathing room" at the edges, for those who got a little claustrophobic..

It was quiet enough to have a conversation at the edges of the crowd, or even in the middle.

It mixed two groups that don't normally get together for the first time - the Linked Minnesota networking group and the CHAD Meet-Up group. That made for a nice mix of familiar faces and people I hadn't met before. A banker I've met several times said he'd given my card to someone who needed some help with their business strategy, and I met a nice job-seeker who loves working in customer relations gave me a great reason to reach out to an old friend who may need someone in that role.

I had good conversations and discovered some mutual interests with about four people there, and will be following up with them next week.

I'll be folding a few examples of things I saw (or did) into the Networking micro-seminar I'm doing next Friday.

Consultants Can't Sell

2011-04-13T17:23:00.000-05:00

In the first 2 years consulting and coaching, I've helped clients learn to sell, or improve their sales. I've worked on my own sales skills, to "walk the talk." After all, you wouldn't hire a tennis coach who didn't know how to play, or a consultant that had never solved a problem like you have, right?

Yesterday Jay Niblick (Innermetrix) used an example in a webinar for Assn of Independent Business Consultants that got me thinking a little differently.

What if you got a cold call - from a doctor? Would you consider becoming a patient? If you did, what would you expect about competence, quality, or price?

People hire consultants when they believe the consultant can help them fix a problem (or realize a dream) that they really care a lot about, and have the resources and willingness to get help. They need the consultant to have expertise and be an authority in what they need, as well as the skills to help them make changes that work.

So what happens if a consultant starts to "close" - switching roles to a salesman to seal the deal? Do trust and confidence naturally and automatically sink?

That's why, in my practice, I never "close" but only ask the same question every time, when my prospective client has seen that I'm a trust-worthy expert who can help them improve something that matters a lot to them. That question is simply "What do you want to do now?"

Networking for Professionals - Top 5 List for Improving Results

2010-06-04T08:00:00.003-05:00

CPA's, lawyers, engineers use networking to meet potential clients (as do business owners, entrepreneurs, and so many others!).

When professionals network to find clients, here are 5 best practices that lead to better results.

Go where clients gather. Not all network events are equal. The managing director of an accounting firm told me yesterday that many Chamber of Commerce events are "mostly salespeople talking to other salespeople." If you're looking for salespeople, great! If you're looking for business owners and decision-makers, you're in the wrong place.
Know why you're there. You can set goals and objectives for the outcome you want from the event, such as "meet at least 5 interesting people" and "arrange follow-ups with at least 3 people." You're not there for the chicken wings, or to talk to the people you already know, or to add volume to your business card collection.
Arrive early. This lets you get used to being in a crowd while it's still small. If you go to the name tag table, you can also see who's coming that you might especially want to meet. You may even take the role of greeter and connector.
Focus on first impressions. Pay attention to your own and others' body language, handshake, appearance, expressions, and first words. You get (and give!) more information from the first few seconds of a relationship than you realize.
Listen. The best first impression you can make is being a great listener. And the more you listen, the more you learn, the better you'll know the people you're meeting. Conversely, the more you talk...

These are 5 of the best of best practices for improving results at networking events. There are so many more available at the micro-seminar on networking next Wednesday. To learn more, click Networking Micro-Seminar

Re-thinking Sales - for Professional Services like CPAs, Attorneys, Engineers

2010-06-04T07:00:00.000-05:00

Last blog started to reframe selling for those who tell themselves "I'm a CPA - I never wanted to be IN sales!" I've heard the same from attorneys and engineers. Problems start with how we define what "being in sales" means.

One way we define a role is with examples - for instance, is a salesperson someone like the hilariously slick Herb Tarlek on TV's "WKRP in Cincinnati" or Al Pacino's con-man Ricky Roma in the movie "Glengarry Glen Ross?" Do we define what a salesperson is by stereotypes selling used cars or timeshare properties?

No wonder those who studied accounting / law / science to be professionals in their field may recoil when expected to also sell! It's not who they are, not what they trained to become, not what they want to be!

That deep resistance, based on their definition and expectations, leads to an attitude/performance "doom loop." They don't want to do it, they do it badly, they experience failure, and they hate and resist doing it more.

To break out of the "doom loop" starts with redefining what selling IS.

Sales is meeting people to find out what they want and need. If they want and need what your firm offers, you can help them make a good decision to meet their needs. That begins a relationship that lets you use your professional expertise to help them succeed.

If that's what professional sales is about, Herb Tarlek or Ricky Roma don't fit there. There's no need for "slick" or deception, no "con," no manipulation.

The people you meet aren't suckers, or victims, or prey - they're potential clients, IF they need what you offer. When you meet people who don't need what you offer, that's OK, and there is absolutely no need to persuade them that they do.

The challenges of professional selling are finding people who may need your services, meeting them, gaining rapport, discovering their wants and needs, offering to meet their needs, and coming to agreement.

Without any compromise to integrity, professionalism, role, or self-image, professionals can improve their comfort and results at every step.

And the first few steps happen through networking - which is the next blog.

Professional Sales as Habit - How Well Does It Fit?

2010-05-24T10:52:00.000-05:00

Had an interesting conversation with two principals of an accounting firm this morning, about embedding a business development (i.e., sales) mindset with those who never wanted to sell. Not easy to do - unless you change the frame.

There are many ways to think about selling, and some are much more productive and congruent with a professional self-image than others.

If the frame in which you think about selling is to focus on the numbers you need to post, it creates desperation and leads to behaviors that won't work and don't fit.

If your frame is that you have to hunt prospects, pitch them, overcome their objections and close them to win the deal, it requires an aggressiveness that doesn't come naturally or comfortably to professionals who didn't plan to be salespeople.

But if the frame is professional sales - that you provide a useful expert service that really helps current clients, and as you meet people you want to discover whether they may have a need for this useful service - it's a better fit. Your conversations are about discovery, not manipulation; you're not trying to convince anyone, but just understand whether there may be a need.

Because you're not "selling" anything, unless you make a connection and discover a need. At each step of the sales process, you only need to get permission to move along to the next step. And if a relationship happens and a need becomes apparent, you're only inviting the prospective client to act in their own best interest by getting your services.

This approach feels very different for professionals who become responsible for business development.

Why? Because it's honest. There's no manipulation, no "games," no deception. Metaphors of war and win/lose just don't fit, and are not necessary.

It's a professional approach to sales, with the highest integrity.

Making (fewer) Bad Decisions

2010-05-05T11:29:00.000-05:00

Today I'm on the Peter McClellan Radio show (AM1570) at 4 PM, talking about "Making Bad Decisions" - and of course, the subtext is "how can we make better decisions" and "how can we avoid the bad ones"

I based my comments on a couple of books I re-read for this, Robert Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" and Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational." I've included my mind-map notes on both books on my website, events page.

The one thing I really wanted to say that we didn't cover was about the critical importance of "reflection in action" in improving decisions. That's deliberately revisiting how you reached the decision, honestly searching for what part was logic, what was "gut" or instinct, what information you had and what you lacked, what signals of external influence were present, and so on.

Many people think we make most of our decisions rationally. Not so much. There's a rational component, and some decisions are best made mostly rationally. But we have a lot more brains than logic, and the unconscious, intuitive "hunches" and emotions are often bringing us important information that we haven't worked up to conscious awareness.

When we revisit our decisions to analyze them, we can better understand how we really made them.

Most people think of analyzing their failures, and of course we should.

But most don't think to analyze their successes. And which do you want more of?

Extraordinary Resource on Strategy

2010-04-21T10:08:00.000-05:00

One online subscription just yielded an extraordinary free resource that anyone even a little interested in strategy should download now, while it's free.

Strategy + Business (http://www.strategy-business.com) is an e-zine put out by Booz & Company. I've been reading it for years, and find it's usually very insightful.

But today's issue offers a free download of the latest book by Harvard Business Review. It's a series of articles (with "quick-read" summaries for those of us with tiny attention spans) that define some foundational ideas on strategy. They call it their "Must-Read" list, and I agree!

The articles in this 143-page compendium include Porter's "What is Strategy" and "Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy," Collins & Porras' "Building Your Company's Vision," Kim & Malborgne's "Blue Ocean Strategy," Mankins & Steele's "Turning Great Strategy into Great Performance," and several more.

Thanks to Booz & Company for subsidizing the free download of the whole book - well worth downloading before the offer expires June 15, when Harvard Business School will likely start to sell it.

Networking as Marketing Strategy - It's All Attitude

2010-03-25T16:57:00.000-05:00

This morning's micro-seminar "Networking for Increased Sales" reinforced some key points about the "why" and "how" of networking, and how the fundamental attitude drives everything else.

The why? Honestly, often to avoid cold-calling. Starting relationships at networking events is a lot more comfortable, and effective (when done well). One source has 60% of new business contacts come through networking, and referrals from networking are 80% more effective than cold calls. Choosing between attending 3 networking events to get 6 quality referrals and calling 600 strangers? Not a hard choice!

The how? Remember your purpose in networking is not to close deals, nor give out business cards, nor "pitch" to anyone who'll listen. Your purpose is to meet new people, learn who they are, and (when appropriate) start enough of a relationship to earn a follow-up meeting.

The attitude that's important in networking is to be real. Be curious, be genuinely interested in what the people you meet say and do, to learn all you can about them. Listening skills are much more important than presentation skills! A willingness to share your network, to give what you can without tallying the score, to make introductions even at the event - these eventually start to build relationships that matter.

Networking as Marketing Strategy - Efficient?

2010-03-22T16:35:00.001-05:00

Doing a micro-seminar this Thursday on "Networking for Increased Sales" spurs reflection on Return On Effort (ROE) for the many events I've attended, and where there are familiar faces and oh-so-familiar situations.

A colleague in the RAC network in PA told me that she now gets so many invitations to events (Business Networks Internationa; (BNI), Chambers of Commerce, BNI-emulators, Firestorm groups, Meet-Up groups, etc.) that if she could accept them all, it would be a 60-hour per week job. She finds that job doesn't pay well... Unless she improves the odds of success.

Can going to networking events be part of an effective, efficient marketing strategy?

Well, it depends.

If you go to everything you're invited to, it can be a "black hole" of time and resources. ROE for "shotgun" approach? Very low.

If you know who's in your target market, and know where they gather, and get invited? Better ROE.

If you know who you're looking to meet as a prospective client or a referral source, and find events where several people like that are present? Positive ROE.

And when you get to the event, and that moment of truth happens, when you get that one chance to make a first impression, some people launch their sales pitch. ROE for pitching? Very, very low. Can even do harm.

If you press to qualify, trying to smoke out if they're a decision-maker, have a need, and have money? Very low ROE - can do reputation harm and make people avoid you. Who wants their arm twisted by someone they just met?

If you are genuinely interested in the people you meet, curious about how their world works and where they find joy in it? Positive ROE.

Networking, randomly? Low ROE.

Networking, purposefully, with the right goals and attitudes? Better ROE.

More in the coming days.

Selling Strategy

2010-03-10T11:25:00.000-06:00

Last post mentioned that if sales isn't working, the rest of strategy doesn't matter. Since writing that, in conversations with dozens of entrepreneurs and small businesses, I'm hearing universal agreement - and concern.

A refinancer said whatever deal she puts together today might not be possible in a month. A mortgage broker said he expects his business to shift dramatically this year when interest rates start to rise. A fellow consultant said most are stuck in a "wait and see" mode, unwilling to commit. A banker said conditions for making loans are tighter than ever before, and he has to tell his prospects "No" most of the time.

Of course it's all true, and it misses an important point: No matter what happens with interest rates, with taxes, with credit, with unemployment, with rapidly changing rules and conditions, with the random fluctuations of Wall Street, an effective sales strategy has to do just three things:

Find willing & able customers
Offer help with what they experience as a problem/opportunity
Make buying easy and satisfying.

When a business offers a good solution to a priority problem, or the means to sieze a perceived opportunity, the sales strategy becomes getting it "out there" in front of those with that problem/opportunity and make buying a reasonable and easy choice.

How? Depends on the customer, and how they want to buy. The customer is in control; all a business can do is facilitate their awareness, confirm their wants & needs, anticipate and answer their questions, inform them of their choices in ways that help them decide -- however they decide.

And once a willing customer decides to buy, the rest of the strategy becomes important.

More on that next time.

Strategy - Learning As You Go

2010-03-03T11:07:00.000-06:00

The "Learning School" holds that organizational learning is how to keep strategy flexible and adaptive to rapidly changing environments.

"Walking the talk," I'm applying some practices of organizational learning to the sales microseminar series strarting on 3/11 (see www.effectivelearningforgrowth.com for details). Reflecting on what's been done before, challenging my assumptions about why and how, deliberately doing some things differently and watching for effect, cycling back through the reflective process.

(I'm noticing that organizational learning in an organization of one is, well, different, yet the same because it's quite practical. At least, the discussions are shorter.)

Microseminars are one component of my marketing strategy, which is in turn one component of my own overall business strategy for Effective Learning for Growth.

The marketing strategy - how one attracts clients - may be the most essential part of any overall strategy, since no clients means no business. Even if every other part of the whole strategy works beautifully, if this part doesn't, it's "game over."

Challenging the why - these are primarily to help other entrepreneurs, who often struggle from not knowing how to sell. But they're also to showcase the content of sales training for potential corporate clients and individual coaching clients. The why stands, but changes the how because the intended results from last year's sessions were less than anticipated.

Changing the how - Have marketed these through social media, primarily using Linked-In Chamber of Commerce and other groups. This time, continuing what worked, but adding two elements: cold-calling businesses in Chambers, and (thanks to a great idea from Tom Majewsky) started a Meet-Up group, as well. Also adding in social media more actively.

Real-time strategy adjustment through reflection-in-action - how might it translate for larger organizations?

Learning for Flexible Strategy

2010-02-24T13:40:00.000-06:00

Mintzberg describes a "Learning School" of strategy that offers some neat possibilities for how to make strategy flexible.

The "Learning School" incorporates various elements from the last 20+ years to offer a radical approach to that flexibility problem: What if an organization's strategy included organizational learning? What if organizational learning actually drove strategic change?

That is, what if the organization focused time and attention on

questioning strategic assumptions,
scanning the environment for emerging threats and opportunities,
engaging in dialog about the complexities and confusion in the environment,
learning in an emergent way, and
coming together about new directions based on a new shared understanding?

Emergent learning? Maybe the right way to deal with the environmental emergent-cies we all see smashing over-considered strategies?

And, with the whole organizational learning opus on the table, what if an organization were smart and bold enough to combine a few things, as a test? Specifically:

Action Learning
+
Executive small group
(chartered to find and recommend strategic modifications)
+
New technologies for virtual group work
=== === ===
An agile, adaptive, approach to strategy revision

Could be a game-changer...

How Flexible Is Your Strategic Plan?

2010-02-09T08:32:00.000-06:00

Strategic plans are based on analyzing the environment and prescribing a direction, a series of activities to create the future the organization wants.

Strategic plans limit choices of action to that path that the planner foresaw when the plan was made. Some are more flexible than others. If they’re not flexible, they’re doomed to be SPOTS (Strategic Plan On The Shelf).

How flexible is yours? These 3 questions will tell you.

What metrics tell you if you’re heading for the results you want?
What assumptions are the foundation of your plan – and how do you know if they’re still true?
What contingencies are built into the plan?

Metrics tell you whether your plan’s working. The best ones provide a “dashboard” of key indicators that are sensitive and future-focused.

Assumptions list out the environmental factors – stable or changing in some predicted direction – that are necessary for the plan to keep making sense. Thinking them through, writing them down, and checking them periodically keeps the foundation of the plan rooted in reality.

Contingencies are a series of “what if” scenarios about the assumptions changing or the metrics going badly. They include at least the early steps of diagnosis and a direction for recovery.

A problem you anticipate can be halfway solved – which is what flexibility in strategy provides.

"Strategy is dead" RIP, and long live AGILE strategy!

2010-02-01T09:43:00.004-06:00

Last week, the Wall St. Journal featured an article saying “Strategic Plans Lose Favor” with larger companies (read).

The article reports that companies like Home Depot, Spartan Motors, and (surprisingly!) Accenture think “Strategy, as we knew it, is dead.”

I say “Rest in peace!” -- for the sort of strategic planning that Accenture has specialized in, and that most larger companies have practiced.

Strategic planning can be, and has been, a massively analytical undertaking. Large consulting firms, like Accenture, can spend months of effort and hundreds of thousands of dollars developing an exquisitely detailed strategic plan based on massive analysis. Sometimes they’ll deliver it in nice leather binders so it looks great on the executives’ bookshelves.

In an economy with lots of surprises, such strategic plans can be obsolete before they’re printed.

One manufacturing company spent months developing a plan to achieve ambitious growth over a 3-year period. Within the first 2 quarters, sales dried up and they went into survival mode. As for the strategic plan? “Well, we haven’t looked at it in quite a while.”

So does that mean that strategic planning is dead, killed by the accelerating pace of change?

By no means! But the analytical behemoths may go extinct, while more agile approaches will flourish.

To be useful in turbulent and difficult times, strategic plans need to be flexible and adaptive, open to rapid learning from the environment.

If a strategic plan is not agile, it’s dead, worthless, money very poorly spent for “SPOTS” (Strategic Plan On The Shelf).

So how can a strategic plan be agile? See my next blog.

How to map to the future

2009-12-16T10:18:00.002-06:00

Once your future’s envisioned, the harder work begins. Envisioning the future state as powerfully, vividly, viscerally as possible is creative, inspiring fun. (If it’s not, you’re not doing it right!)

This step’s much harder, and comes with a tide of hard questions. The first and hardest is, where are you now, really?

To get to that envisioned, inspiring future, you need a cold hard look at exactly what your present reality is.

That assessment includes (but, as a lawyer would say, “…is not limited to…”) –

• What’s your product and service mix? What do you do now to make enough money to pay the bills?

• What’s your brand, and how’s it doing in the marketplace?

• What are your financial resources and liabilities?

• What’s your current inventory, equipment, licenses, productive capacity…?

• What skills, talents, gifts does your staff currently have – and use?

• How well do they understand how their current roles fit the current reality? How engaged are they?

• What is your competition, and how’s the contest? When they win, how do they win?

With a little imagination, these actually apply to individuals as well as to organizations.

They’re hard questions that need honest answers, and these take a little time and wrestling to realistically assess.

But until you do, you can’t go on – because you can’t build a useful map based on any delusions. You have to know where you are, first, before you set your course to your future.

Next blog post – How to get there, from here...

How can you create your future?

2009-11-18T21:54:00.006-06:00

Previous entry left with “Plan your future to create it. Envision the future you want, map how to get there, set goals and achieve them.”

It’s not really as easy as that sounds. If it were, everybody would do it, all the time. As is, very few do. Both organizations and individuals are more frequently reactive than planful.

But those that are actively engaged in creating their future are more successful and satisfied than the rest.

Step 1 is to envision the future you want.

When operating reactively, under stress, just coping, that can be a great challenge.

It requires a decision to put the present “on hold” for short period, to disconnect from the stress, to recognize that the all-consuming crises will have to wait a bit.

The important work of envisioning the future has to take priority over the urgent, if only for a little while.

Is "a little while" all this takes?!?

Well, that depends – on how many people need to be involved. When an individual creates her own vision of the future, is can be pretty quick, with guidance and attention.

When a small organization envisions its future, those various views need to be reconciled to a meaningful consensus. That takes longer, but still can be achieved in a morning.

When a larger organization does this, more people need to be involved and engaged, and it becomes an ongoing process. The senior leadership creates the vision, and then needs to engage the rest of the organization. While more time on the calendar will pass, it’s still just a very few hours at a time, spread over several weeks.

Is it worth the time and effort?

When you consider that the alternative is staying reactive, and what that costs, it certainly is.

5 problems with reactive mode

2009-11-10T07:35:00.003-06:00

“Failing to plan is planning to fail.” We all know, intuitively, that if we don’t make and follow some sort of plan, we get stuck in a reactive mode.

Operating reactively has five specific disadvantages or risks.

1) Progress is unknown. If we don’t know where we’re going, how would we know if we’re getting closer, or farther away?

2) Satisfaction is elusive. Absent knowledge of progress, the best that can be said of a day might be “Nothing went haywire that we couldn’t fix!” While that can be an expression of relief, it’s different from satisfaction.

3) Decision quality is at risk. Without the context and guidance of a known strategy or goal, there’s no way to be sure we make right decisions. We may guess right most of the time, but it’s riskier.

4) Attention is scattered. By necessity, we focus on the urgent – and that may not be what’s most important. Operating without plans or goals leads to more - and more varied - things becoming urgent, until we’re overwhelmed and barely coping.

5) Stress levels rise. Productivity in organizations is at a very high level, as members cope with a long season of “do more, with less” as the guiding principal. When members leave, survivors take on as much of their jobs as can’t be left undone. But how long is that sustainable?

So, what to do?

Plan your future to create it. Envision the future you want, map how to get there, set goals and achieve them.

Is it that simple?

See my next blog for that.

First Blog post - on radio about strategy and engagement

2009-11-04T09:42:00.001-06:00

On Wednesday, November 4, I'll be on the Peter McClellan radio show from 5-6 PM on AM 1570, streaming online at business1570.com.

Being there, and posting this, and cross referencing it in Twitter and Facebook, is my foray into the new world of social media marketing.

I've held back from doing this for a while, with the nagging question in my mind "Does the world really need another blog?"

But I've come to believe that there are a few things that are well worth talking about, putting out there for public dialog and interaction, holding up for examination from a critical and maybe unique perspective.

So tomorrow what Peter and I will be talking about will be getting ready for the recovery with strategic planning and alignment. There will be other topics, including sales force development, employee engagement, assessment, and (following the Scottish theme of the show) haggis...

The last season in the economy has been hard on a lot of companies, large and small. Some have shed employees to save costs, some have retrenched, some have gone under; nearly all have struggled.

There's reason for hope - the news today reports some increases in manufacturing, and estimates of when the recovery will start to pick up get closer and closer.

At some point in the future (hopefully the near future), demand for the products and services will start to pick up. The pace of business will accelerate as the economy rebounds.

But there's a real risk at this moment, I think - one that reminds me of those old "Road Runner" cartoons where Wile E. Coyote's gone over the cliff, still spinning his legs, not falling... until he looks down.

For some companies, that have gone through layoffs - with the resulting burnout and changed culture among the "survivors" - there's a potential crisis of confidence among the best performers. If they are not engaged, if they don't know why they're coming to work in the morning, or what difference their own job makes in taking the company where they want to work toward where it needs to go.

People need to know why they come to work - beyond just collecting a paycheck and doing what's required.

They need to understand where the organization is going, feel a part of a worthy endeavor, and see the connection between their contribution of talent and effort and organizational goals that are worth it.

If the strategy hasn't changed in several years, or if it's unknown, or disbelieved, or clearly not working, people won't buy into it, and they won't give their best. Having no strategy, or one that doesn't fit reality, leads to cynicism and lack of faith.

And burnout, cynicism, skepticism about the organization's future may have a very bad (and not widely expected) impact: The best people in the organization will start looking for other work exactly when they're needed most.

What if, instead, organizations can muster the wisdom and focus to re-engage in a systematic strategic planning process? What if it's clear to all that the leadership is planning to take the organization in directions that its people can believe in? What if they take the strategy throughout the organization, so that everybody knows where the organization's going, and wants to go along?

Maybe that will be a key difference between the companies that are able to step up to the coming recovery, with their people engaged and giving their best, and those that get surprised by the loss of key talent at the moment they're needed most.