Musings at Altitude

Friend:  “How’s it going?”

Me:  “Very good.”

Friend:  “Really?”

Me:  “Yeah…really.”

Friend:  “I didn’t expect that answer.”

Me:  “Really?”

Friend:  “Yeah…really.”

When I think about a dialogue like this, I wonder what I say that causes my friends to expect something other than “very good”.

Business can certainly beat you down.

In fact, in many cases, business can feel like you need a long time to recover after one of those very bruising meetings.

But how we respond to the sometimes brutal combat in business is really a choice on our part.

Obviously, I’ve responded very differently than I should in the past.

Otherwise, I wouldn’t get the “really?”

I need to work on that.

“Very good” should be the answer all the time.

Yeah…really.

Comments Off on Dialogue

I attended a two day conference this week, and for the first time in a long time, I was pleased with the content, the speakers and panelists, the questions, the answers, and most importantly, the audience.  That almost never happens.  In fact, I can’t remember the last time I was this satisfied.

That got me thinking.  If every meeting is “satisfaction guaranteed”, what would we do differently to ensure we lived up to that?

The first thing we’d do is look at that meeting from the perspective of the participants.  If their satisfaction is what we’re guaranteeing, we certainly aren’t going to assume that we have the exclusive clue as to what will please them.

The second thing we’d do is hold the agenda, the topics, the presenters, and the participants to a much higher standard than we would otherwise.  Good enough wouldn’t be acceptable if we have to meet the standard of “satisfaction guaranteed”.

The third thing we’d do is accelerate our learning process and put sensors around the organization that would feed back to us the satisfiers and dissatisfiers for those individuals most likely to participate in our meetings.  At times, we’d have to make assumptions, but those assumptions would be based on some experiential evidence and a broad net of intelligence, and guesswork wouldn’t be tolerated.

The fourth thing we’d do is adjust any specific component of the meeting if we have any inkling that the customer isn’t satisfied.  We could not risk continuing down a dissatisfying path if satisfaction is truly guaranteed.

And finally, we’d emphasize big time communications – creating and delivering an effective message and thinking about that message before delivery from the perspective of those participants that deserve satisfaction.

I wonder what staff meetings would look like and how long they’d be if satisfaction was guaranteed?

I wonder what planning sessions would entail and who would be presenting at those sessions if satisfaction was guaranteed?

I wonder what preparation would be done and what specifically would be delivered at a decision brief if satisfaction was guaranteed?

I’d like to try this.

It could very well be bureaucracy smashing!

Or, at the least, it could create greater meaning in the bulk of today’s meetings that leave most participants wondering if anything was accomplished.

Comments Off on Satisfaction Guaranteed

What would we do if everything had to be done in 3 minutes or less?

Any issue addressed at a staff meeting was limited to 3 minutes.

Any pitch made as to why someone should want your product or service was limited to 3 minutes.

Any presentation that led to a decision was limited to 3 minutes.

Any phone call seeking or providing an update was limited to 3 minutes.

Any interview was limited to 3 minutes.

Any break was limited to 3 minutes.

How much better would we be at providing information, asking questions, delivering relevant data, optimizing our time if everything we did was limited to 3 minute windows?

As I think about the number of things that require action in any form on any given day, it seems like very few of them actually require lots of time for review and decision making.  Most of them have been pre-framed through other sources of information or other events, and that lengthy time spent reviewing what has already been done rarely changes the already seemingly smart answer or action.

If new information came in or a new read on an old situation was needed prior to that decision being made, a “3 minute rule” would certainly make that an intensely relevant 3 minutes.

My premise is that most senior decision makers use lengthy meetings to confirm or affirm what they already know the decision should be.  In cases where they don’t, it would change the pace and value of the meeting tremendously to limit the background discussion and key data presentation to only 3 minutes.

I wonder how much money would be saved and efficiency gained with such an approach?

Comments Off on 3 Minutes

Is it just me or is business a lot like running a crime lab on the CSI series?

It seems to me that enormous amounts of data come in amidst a tidal wave of information.  When the wave clears, business leaders need to follow the trail of evidence, filter out the fog on the business battlefield to get a clear picture of what’s going on, and then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (ok…prove to some degree of confidence) what happened or what the current situation really is so the right decisions can be made, the right next steps defined, the right teams deployed, and the right outcomes achieved.

It really is a lot of forensics because the conflicting data and the confusing evidence clouds reality many times.

The best business leaders are great at asking the right questions to get to the right answers.

More importantly, they act in the right ways on all that they learn!

Comments Off on CSI

On the plane ride home today, I pulled out a spreadsheet that I created a year ago to try and objectively evaluate leaders.  I canvassed several of my very wise friends and advisors, and we categorized the characteristics of leaders that we felt were critical to organizational success.

We divided the assessment into 4 categories:

(1) Leadership

(2) Management

(3) Strategy

(4) Values

Then we broke down each one of those major categories into specific traits.

We ended up with 24 that were measurable, and then we defined a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “well below expectations” and 5 being “outstanding”.

As we looked at the traits and did some sample evaluations, it became obvious that if anyone had a “1” in any of the categories we should seriously question why they were in a leadership role.  We also decided that absolutely no one was a “5” in every category.  In fact, we found lots of realism in the ratings, and we saw clear indications where we needed to offer assistance to people when they were otherwise outstanding but struggling in any particular areas.

As I looked at this again today, I couldn’t help but wonder why it’s so hard to have honest discussions with those serving in leadership roles to help them learn and grow.  None of us are perfect, and all of us have areas where we need to learn.  In learning and seeking that help in improving, we’d send a powerful message to the rest of the organization that all of us should be working on those areas where we’re not “outstanding”.  In fact, not only would we send an awesome message, but the entire organization would see us working on things that ultimately would benefit every single employee in our companies.

What we’re really missing in most organizations is candor – complete honesty about how we’re performing and what we need to improve on.  Those conversations are actually occurring, just not directly with those individuals that desperately need that feedback in order to improve!

I wonder how much could be added to the bottom line by forcing that candor?

Comments Off on Leadership Assessment

At the end of a summer intern program several years ago, I asked one of our interns to give us some honest feedback on our organization.  She said, “You guys need to learn to communicate.  Communications is active.  It’s more than just sending messages.  There needs to be a dialogue, and it has to be sustained in order for real communications to occur.”

Hmmm.

I thought about that one for a while.  I had a launch and leave mentality.  I certainly sent a lot of messages, and I received lots in return.  But she was right.  There was no sustained dialogue and no meaningful advancement of thought that would truly benefit the organization.

The toughest of issues require the highest levels of “sustained dialogue”.  It’s not acceptable to throw the issue out into the morass of information in an organization today and then sit back and hope that it will somehow be pulled out of the frenzy of discussions that are occurring.

If you throw it in, you are responsible for the sustained dialogue!

Comments Off on Sustained Dialogue

I was taken aside and counseled a while ago by a consultant helping us with change management.  She said, “You need to learn to listen first, ask questions second, and then respond with whatever wisdom you may have.”  I was shocked first, and then stunned.  I thought I was a listener, and she was bluntly and very clearly telling me I had work to do in that arena.

I’ve thought about that many times since then.  In fact, I carry a card in my wallet that’s visible when I pull it out.  It says, “STOP-THINK”, and it’s my attempt to slow my path to spewing down just enough to listen.

I’m still not good at it.  In fact, as I watch others around me, most folks aren’t good at it.

Leaders tend to give an answer or at least get to the answer as quickly as possible, thus allowing them to get on to the next most important priority.  Many times, that zest to keep things moving defies the whole idea of listening.  And not listening, denies that leader the chance to hear the whispers, to get the pulse of the organization, to hear the other side of the story, to get all the facts and the background, or to simply assess the ideas and recommendations of those trying to present the information or options.

After years of trying, I can tell you from firsthand experience that it’s not easy to listen.

I can also tell you that there are consequences – sometimes severe - to not listening.

Listen first.  Then ask questions.  Then respond with your years of experience or current inside knowledge.

You’ll be a better leader and person because of it.

Comments Off on Listen/Ask/Respond

Which would you choose?

Sports car or family vehicle?

Hard cover or audio tape?

Wine or beer?

Ruth’s Chris or Golden Corral?

Long email or hand written letter?

Mow your own lawn or lawn service?

Fly or drive?

Functional executive of a large company or big boss of a small one?

Rock or country?

IMax or home theater?

Cloth napkins or paper towels?

Diamond or cubic zirconian?

We’re defined by the choices we make.

We become who we are  based on the choices we make.

We end up living with the perceptions formed by others based on the choices we make.

Just when you think the choice doesn’t matter, someone will comment on the choice and prove to you once again that the choice did indeed matter.

Each choice defines who you are.

Each choice attracts others based on the perceptions they have of you because of the choice.

When you make smart choices in life, you’ll most likely make equally smart choices in business!

Choose wisely.

Comments Off on Choices

It’s an understatement to say people are busy today.

Most companies have cut back.

Staffs are at a minimum. 

Doing more with less is normal.

And yet the requirements to report, explain, justify, defend keep growing.

Those up the chain can do those doing the bulk of the work a big favor by asking very specific questions and seeking very specific answers.

Folks down the chain can minimize the time answering up and maximize the time doing meaningful work by understanding specific questions and providing very specific answers.

Companies all across this country are asking teams to do more with less, reduce the cost structure and focus even more on profitability.

Those in overhead positions can do their part by asking smarter questions and seeking specific answers.

Then everyone benefits…and contributes to the bottom line.

Comments Off on Min/Max

After unprecedented success in his 3 years as the head coach of Butler, 33-year old Brad Stevens accepted a 12 year extension this past week, putting an end to any rumors that he might be jumping ship and heading to one of those arguably higher profile jobs at a “big name”, “big conference” school. 

He was undoubtedly the hottest coaching prospect perceived to be on the market. 

He was also undoubtedly one of the few coaches today who show loyalty to those who give them a chance, open that door, put them on a big stage, and typically, conventionally, more expectedly, pave the way for them to advance quickly by choosing some other path towards whatever greatness they may be seeking.

Others fit this category too:

• that great athlete that stays in school instead of leaping at a chance to be a certain first rounder in whatever sport they show such great talent in
• that husband or wife that experiences great success, great excitement, great visibility, and great temptation on a big stage at work and decides to stay faithful and stay committed to their family
• that politician that’s an up and comer in service to their state, mentioned constantly as an obvious choice for more responsibility at a national level, yet stays focused and purposeful, fulfilling the mission for which they were elected
• that superstar in business who is given that once in a lifetime chance to do a once in a lifetime project that leverages the cheers and the resultant wave of opportunities to instead take that next tough step on the learning path to success at a much bigger corporate level

There don’t seem to be many of these folks around anymore.

Brad’s one of the few.

I applaud him for doing the unconventional and unexpected thing.

Wouldn’t it be cool if lots more followed suit!

Comments Off on Unconventional, Unexpected