Musings at Altitude

I’ve had the great fortune of scheduling several relatively large meetings over the last few months, and regardless of how far in advance I send a “save the date”, within seconds (it seems) someone has responded with, “Do you have an agenda yet?”  I always smile, because the agenda is the last thing that comes together, but the first thing that people want to know about.

I’ve come to the conclusion that most folks just don’t like surprises.  They want to know what exactly is going to be discussed, what exactly is going to be expected of them, and what exactly they need to do in preparation for that event.

I’m just the opposite!  When it comes to meetings, I want to know the agenda just far enough in advance that I can prioritize the preparation based on everything else that is going on in my life at that time.  I certainly want to block the date far enough in advance to allow deconfliction, but I certainly don’t want to start preparation well in advance when anything that I may need to do or contribute could be changed dramatically or eliminated completely with the strike of a pen against that agenda.

We live in an age where meeting attendance needs to be prioritized on macro understanding and then preparation (if any is needed) should be done on micro details.  The macro understanding (and thus the ability to prioritize attendance) can be done months or weeks out from the desired meeting date, thus allowing people to determine fairly easily whether that date should be blocked and protected.  The micro understanding however is best left till the last possible minute that allows all needed participants to get their piece of that phenomenally important agenda accomplished.

The really hard part is to make sure that those who have a desperate desire to prepare months and weeks in advance feel informed enough to start the preparation process while, at the same time, waiting to give the procrastinators the minute details just in time for them to get it done.

That information sharing dance is almost as thrilling as the meeting itself!

Comments Off on Surprise

Sunday’s are always special…always have been…hopefully always will be! 

At church today, our pastor joined the praise team on a guitar, and everyone in the congregation seemed to be looking at each other while saying, “I didn’t know he played the guitar!”  As we sang the songs, I kept looking at our pastor and watching his hands as he played, because it was completely out of character to see him up there.

The music as always was very inspirational, and when he put down his guitar and began to preach, he opened his Bible to Luke 11:37-52.  He talked about how Jesus criticized the religious leaders of that day for looking so clean on the outside and being so dirty on the inside.  He told us how they would position themselves in the important seats in the synagogue so everyone would be looking at them and they’d be looking at everyone else.   He told us how they would live to the letter of the law, but it was the law that they had created while neglecting justice and the love of God.  And he told us how the “experts in the law” of that day had made God’s law so hard to understand and even harder to practice.

He then told us that he bet we all thought he looked pretty cool up there playing the guitar, but he actually didn’t play a single note.  He certainly looked good, and he certainly had all of us in the congregation sitting in awe of what we thought he could do.

And that was his point all along.  He reminded us not to focus on image and status, but to instead be humble and willing to serve.  He reminded us not to mercilessly complicate following God, but to instead make it clear and grounded in God’s Word.  He reminded us not to be hypocritically clean, but to instead be generous and God focused.

I came away from church today with a smile, renewed in a sense, and inspired by the message.  My spiritual reservoir was indeed filled to overflowing, and I came away challenged to take what I heard and what I learned and make it relevant and meaningful in my life.  I sense that’s what God wanted us to do when He commanded:

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.  On it you shall not do any work.  For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.  Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.  [Exodus 20:8-11]

God gave us a day for revival and renewal, knowing that otherwise we’d be so engaged in this world that we wouldn’t take the time to fill our spiritual reservoirs.

And I’m thankful He did.

And even more thankful after pondering on the worship at church and enjoying the beauty of this day!

3 Comments »

Would you stay in an organization if you felt any or all of the following:

• you couldn’t make a difference
• you couldn’t get anything accomplished
• you couldn’t get anyone to smile
• you couldn’t positively affect change
• you couldn’t feel good about going to work in any two consecutive days
• you couldn’t say something good about the company or the people
• you couldn’t see any clear strategy to achieve a win

Most would say “absolutely not”.  But many people do.  Many people see no hope in their company, but no promise or excitement for anything outside of their company either.  Thus they’re stuck in a cycle of despondency, with no way to improve and no way to exit.

So, is this a problem with the company or the person?

I had a friend ask me a few years back, “With the problems you see in the company, do you see you personally addressing and potentially solving those problems?”

What a great question, because if we’re pissing and moaning to an extreme level, we may not be able to see any way for us to contribute in a meaningful way to make things better even if some path really did exist.  And if we can’t see a way for us to contribute, how in the world can we find solutions to the very problems that we may see?

The optimist (and realist) in me says that there is always that glimmer of hope, and when you find it, grab on and ride it for all its worth.  That glimmer of hope may very well be the spark that leads to smiles, and the smiles to passion, and the passion to progress, and the progress to eventual success.

Wouldn’t that be cool!

In fact, it is cool!

Comments Off on Quick Question

In football, the “red zone” is that area between your opponent’s 20 yard line and the end zone.  The statisticians track the red zone performance, and great teams will typically score at a significantly high pace if they move into the red zone.  The best teams score touchdowns and don’t settle for field goals.

In business, the “red zone” may very well be that pipeline level of greater than 50% probability of close.  Great capture teams will typically close at a significantly high pace if they enter that red zone, and the very best teams will close at or above the anticipated revenues and gross margins on those contracts.

Interestingly enough, great companies track their “red zone” performance at as anal a level as the fanatics for football statistics.  It’s not good enough to invest heavily in that drive to capture that revenue and fall short when you’re that close.  The red zone performance is heavily scrutinized and folks want to know every single move that occurred that got them that score, or more importantly, prevented them from scoring.

In looking back, I was so happy to win contracts that I really didn’t spend much time focusing on my red zone stats or the quest for the revenue…I was too happy just to have revenue.  Now, maybe from age or perspective or curiosity, I’m as interested in the path as the result. 

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing better than blowing that horn after a big win. 

But there’s something very magical about the journey to that win as well!

Comments Off on Red Zone

I’ve mentioned in the past that I struggle mightily in staff jobs.  It goes back to my military days when I learned the difference between mission and staff components.  Mission guys executed.  Staff guys organized, trained and equipped for that execution.  Both jobs were critical.  If the staff guys didn’t do their jobs right, the mission guys were poorly structured, inadequately trained, and grossly underfunded and thus under-equipped for their missions.  If the mission guys did their jobs wrong, battles and lives were lost.

It’s not much different in business.  The bigger a company gets, the more the line is drawn between those responsible for driving revenue and thus delivering profits and those that are responsible for organizing, training and equipping those revenue generating forces so that income can be created.  Staff functions in business do things very similar as the military – they organize for success; they train/develop the teams and the leaders so they can succeed in growing the business in the way and at the pace desired; and they equip the business with dollars and policies that lead ultimately to operating plan success.

The military has it down (even though most “line” folks don’t like it), because they rotate line officers out of the mission executing components of the military to the staff.  Thus, they always have mission experienced and mission empathetic people in those staff organizations actually then supporting the very roles and people they love the most.  In an ideal world, business would be the same way, with the staff being populated heavily by those that came out of the line functions and empathetic to the needs of those businesses that they are now destined to support.

Throughout my career I have been blessed in knowing very good military and business leaders that could mentally and emotionally shift between the two, mostly because they realized that staff roles were temporary and eventually they’d get back to the field where they wanted to be the most.  But I also realized that some folks were much better suited for one or the other.  And knowing where folks are best suited should ultimately drive where most of their career is spent.  That ultimately gets the most out of all the talent in the organization.

For me, I’m an operating company guy…that’s where I love and long to be.  Whether I’m good at it or not is for others to decided, but when I wake up in the morning and think about what I’m going to do for the business today, when it’s tied to revenue and income instead of strategy and policy, that stokes me…that gets me fired up…that gets me to launch out of bed rather than to crawl out of bed.

So, in a nutshell, here are the 10 things I love the most about an operating company:

(1) wins – nothing like winning that very important contract

(2) losses – so much learning comes from a loss

(3) hiring – getting that key hire that supposedly guarantees the win or greatly enhances the probability of success for the company

(4) firing – letting go of someone that acts like a cancer to the organization or is in some way holding back the team or the performance of the company

(5) alignment – rallying around a common goal with common purpose and common values

(6) planning – tactical; geared towards an annual expectation of performance; often times very tense

(7) tension – success is measured in days, weeks, and ultimately years, rather than decades, and thus the tension that comes with meeting expectations

(8) tears – when a very important part of the team leaves; when a very important customer rejects you; when a major milestone is not met; when the mission is not accomplished

(9) cheers – when a member of the team is recognized for doing something awesome; when a promotion occurs based on merit; when expectations are exceeded; when the contribution to the parent goals is extraordinary

and last but most certainly not least

(10) accountability – authority with great accountability; all eyes are on the operating companies because ultimately that’s where the revenue and income come from

Is it possible to feel that same intensity, same urgency, same emotion and same accountability at the staff level?  Probably, but it rarely happens.  Priorities tend to be different.  Time to close (any issue) tends to be different.  Expectations tend to be different.  Knowledge of the customer tends to be different.  Intensity tends to be different.  And unfortunately, accountability tends to be different.

Lots of reasons for that.  It’s the difference between a carrier and a cruiser.  It’s the difference between a B-52 and an F-16.  It’s the difference between a billion dollar company and a million dollar company.  One is big and lumbering and though it carries lots of fire power and has lots of resources, may take a long time to get to target.  The other is smaller, faster, more nimble and can deliver specific ordinance on a specific target with pinpoint accuracy.

I know that was a stretch…but not by much.  Smaller and nimbler allow quicker assessment of performance and greater urgency when that performance isn’t what was then expected.  That tension that comes from adapting and reacting is what makes an operating company very different from a staff.  That accountability that comes from ultimately winning the business battle is what makes an operating company very different from a staff.  That desperate desire to deliver above and beyond what’s expected is what makes an operating company very different from a staff.  That bond that is developed in the heat of battle when the mission is hard, the timing is urgent and the needs of the company great is what makes an operating company very different than a staff.

That’s why I love an operating company.

Comments Off on Things I Love the Most about an Operating Company

Once you finally get to a “yes” or “no”, how many more people do you coordinate with to confirm what you already know is the right answer?  And, in seeking that confirmation, is that coordination process for you to feel better about the decision or for the organization to feel involved and accepting of the decision?  My guess is that all that additional discussion is more for the organization than for you because the answer rarely changes once you get to a “yes” or “no”. 

One obvious way to speed up the OODA loop of an organization is to immediately announce the answer as soon as you know what it will be and eliminate all of those additional coordination and confirmation steps.  Those additional steps are what frustrate the components of the organization waiting on the answers, and any goodwill achieved by seeking additional counsel or input is quickly offset by the momentum killing affect of the rest of the organization waiting on that particular answer to move forward or adjust actions.

Momentum is so hard to build in a big organization, and its precious once achieved.  The path to a “yes” or “no” as well as the actual answer can have a dramatic affect on any momentum that is built.  A bureaucratic and senseless “no” may kill momentum, while a strategic and vectoring “no” can help drive focus and thus drive momentum.  An ill thought out and mindless “yes” may distract and distort momentum, while a strategically anchored and visionary “yes” could instead greatly accelerate growth.  Regardless of “yes” or “no”, if it takes an inordinately long time to get the answer, any possible momentum that could have been achieved will have been squelched long before the answer was given.

So, to optimize the OODA loop, minimize the decision making steps for both “yes” and “no”, and then confidently announce the decision once you know what the answer will be.  Eliminate all those meaningless, feel good steps that benefit the bureaucracy but kill momentum.  And then smile in knowing that whether “yes” or “no” is the answer, the organization is moving one direction or another and not waiting for answers to take any potential next step.

Comments Off on After Knowing “Yes” or “No”

We had a standoff this morning – 18 year old dog on one side of the street and a young looking, very frisky fox on the other side of the street.  The DGD (that’s dad gum dog) had sniffed her way down from the front porch along the edge of the grass to the far corner of the yard.  The fox had emerged from the trees and shrubs across the street, and she kept going back and forth into one of the bushes to rub her back and then back down to the street.

Seeing the standoff, I momentarily paused wondering if I should get my shoes on or rush down to the sidewalk in my socks and get between the two animals.  I decided to do the right thing and quickly rushed to that intervening position.  It was 20 degrees outside; the sidewalk was damp from a mist that hung in the air; and I had a hole in my sock.  My feet were freezing within seconds of getting outside, but I did indeed achieve the desired mid-ground between the two now staring beasts (ok…”beasts” is a stretch because our dog certainly wasn’t going to fight and the fox looked like it just wanted to play).

When I got there, I turned and faced the fox, and it stood there and stared at me.  So what began as a standoff between the DGD and a playful fox quickly became instead a standoff between that same playful fox and me.  And I was in no mood to play.  And my toes were going numb.

The DGD went about her morning ritual to sniff her way to that perfect spot to leave her load, and that fox after about a minute decided I was no fun and ran gleefully back into the trees.

In hindsight, there are two things I should have realized before scurrying down to protect the DGD:

(1) there is no way this dog would have been considered a threat or a plaything to that fox

(2) if indeed that fox did cross the street, one sniff or one nip of the dog and the fox would have scampered away howling

So lesson learned.

Next time wear socks without holes in them.

Comments Off on Standoff

It was cold this morning.

In the upper 20’s.

So cold that  when I took the dad gum dog out I wanted to sit down and get my feet (only had socks on) off the concrete front porch.

But when I went to sit down, I saw this:

It was accompanied by more webs between the arms of the chair and up to the top of the back of the chair.

Now I’m not typically one to be scared of spiders.

But the spider that made this web has to be a mongo spider.

And I really don’t want to find out how big he is.

Comments Off on Serious Web

After two days of monitoring the number of people involved to get a “yes”, I’ve come to the conclusion that bureaucracy (bad bureaucracy that is) is buoyed by the simple statement, “let me run that up the chain and I’ll get back to you”.  If bad bureaucracy was a 3-legged stool, one of those legs would certainly be coordinating up the chain, even when no such coordination is required and full authority to make a decision exists.  The other two legs could very well be ego and broad coordination.  All 3 legs are designed to slow the process down and pass the “blame card” on to someone else in the organization.

But I’ve found quite a difference in getting a “no”.  “No” is the banner of bureaucracy, because in saying “no”, the onus is back on the one wanting a “yes” to reframe or repackage the submission to potentially change that answer.  In fact, in many companies, “no” becomes the 4th leg of that bad bureaucracy stool.  “No” minimizes work on the bureaucrat.  “No” prevents blame being assigned to the bureaucrat.  “No” reinforces the authority of the bureaucrat.

So where it takes 6 or more people to weigh in for a “yes”, “no” can come quite quickly…with zest…with authority…with pride.

“Yes” takes courage.  “Yes” creates accountability.  “Yes” springs from passion, vision, and strategy.

“No” creates comfort.  “No” bolsters authority.  “No” springs from process over progress.

[Now some of you are smart enough to know that my comments above are aimed squarely at those that use “no” to deny and defeat progress and not to those who use “no” as a vectoring tool for the path of the organization.  Great organizations should and do say “no” quite often, because their success creates great options  and great excitement and those options create more opportunities that need to be assessed and responded to.  But those great organizations have ways to acknowledge, track and create accountability for “no” decisions.  For them, “no” and “yes” reside at a commensurate authority level, and both decisions are anchored on the strategic priorities of the organization; because of that anchoring, “no” can be as equally liberating and accelerating as “yes”.]

Comments Off on How many people does it take to say “no”?

As a business development guy by trade and a revenue creation fanatic by heart, I’m becoming obsessed with how many folks have to be involved in any path to “yes”.  That “yes” could be for a contract, or for a hire, or for a strategic decision, or for a lunch location.  It could be for anything, but it sure seems to be the most important indicator of bureaucracy and a significant contributor to the “time to close” for any deal or any decision.

I’m going to spend the next few days watching, listening, and tracking the number of people that need to be involved in decisions that I need to get things done – both inside and outside my own organization.  I’m curious as to how we stack up, and very interested in how my clients, partners, and peers rate.

I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say that at least one time in the next 3 days it will take a minimum of six people to get to a “yes”.

In the framework of an organization’s OODA loop (observe-orient-decide-act), if it does indeed take six steps to get to “yes”, the opportunity may be gone or the passion may be muted before anyone that can actually does give the go ahead to do something smart!

Comments Off on How many people does it take to say “yes”?