Leave it to The King Of Pop's ex-wife to put meaningful perspective on this just-completed strange week when she revealed her then-husband confided he'd probably end up like her father, The King Of Rock & Roll.
Of course this makes me wonder if South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford had similar premonitions that he'd wind up like another once-powerful southern politician, Wilbur Mills, whose career was also derailed by a relationship with an Argentinian--Fanne Foxe. Between the onslaught of news about Michael Jackson's tragic death and the unfortunately shrinking coverage of the comical Governor Sanford I had time to read an email from a former employee who was excited about a new career opportunity because he really liked his prospective boss and is certain he'd "learn an awful lot." Nice to see Chris is still committed to learning because when I wasn't doing all this reading, I was once again immersed in meetings at a company that apparently prefers to pretend rather than really make the necessary changes in its business.
Michael Jackson had some of the smartest, most sincere, loyal advisors ever assembled. As far as the public has been concerned, Elvis' 1977 death was a summer stunner, just like his future son-in-law's summer 2009 passing is. But apparently those who were "on the inside" are not overly surprised. Similarly, you can't tell me that a state governor can actually disappear for an extended period of time without anyone knowing it. I wouldn't have believed this before the Internet and I certainly am not buying it in this day and age.
So....how!??! And why is it that few actually attempt to or even do learn????? I'm truly convinced "History repeats itself" is a true cliche thanks to the stupid, lazy and gutless.
Reinforced by the company I referred to in the 3rd paragraph--one that will die a tragic death which will be greeted with the same shock for its suddenness as Michael Jackson's was last week or Elvis Presley's was 32 years prior--otherwise smart and capable people lack the courage to do their jobs.
Instead of telling executive management about all the company problems and screw-ups they are presenting news executive management wants to hear in a way they want to hear it. They're all convinced the company is perched for a wonderful rebound "when the economy picks up" (which, by golly, they're all certain is happening right now!). Meanwhile they're rotting from within and are unlikely to see Labor Day.
When will serious minded professionals really learn that the embarrassment is not telling the Emperor he has no clothes, but in allowing senseless repeat performances of untimely and unnecessary mistakes?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Fundamentals Rule
At this point I’m not sure which is harder to get a handle on: Where the economy really is? or Which of the expert opinions are accurate? I’m no economist nor do I have radical breakthrough theories, but based on my business experiences I at least have a credible viewpoint that is consistently applied. Fundamentals rule.
The current economic mess and events leading up to it was created by individuals and organizations convinced they had figured out ways to either ignore or redefine fundamentals. Of course the most notable of these modern-day business Icarus’ initiatives was sub-prime mortgages. In this interconnected global economy even sound businesses have been crippled by the residual effects of “Corporate Camp Run A-muck”. However, not every company ignored fundamentals which is why there remain glimmers of good news that are roundly reported and featured by the popular business press.
I’ve had the benefit of working across a wide range of business/professional services sectors and also consulting for some of the world’s largest manufacturers. And while I respect that each company and every industry has certain nuances, the driving fundamentals are always the same. Organizations that have stayed true to these fundamentals are more than holding their own even under the direst economic conditions while those that are renewing their commitment to sound business principles are inching their way back. However, companies that have not yet fully (re)discovered fundamentals do so at their own peril.
As always, there’s an interesting and useful conflict that must be managed. While sound fundamentals always ground and drive a business, companies that operate in an extreme mindset may also become less innovative. Progress and growth is fueled by innovation; management’s most critical responsibility is to foster innovation yet honor fundamentals by not allowing a company to become mindlessly reckless. Icarus may have been a tragic Greek mythology figure, but at the same time his story didn’t deter the Wright Brothers.
Innovation, guided by fundamentals, creates sound, secure and sustained success. The mixed signals we’re getting about where the economy currently--“The Worst is Over,” “We Haven’t Hit Bottom Yet,” etc.—reported on a daily basis is my cue that the struggle between fundamentals and flying too close to the sun continues. But in the end, fundamentals always rule.
The current economic mess and events leading up to it was created by individuals and organizations convinced they had figured out ways to either ignore or redefine fundamentals. Of course the most notable of these modern-day business Icarus’ initiatives was sub-prime mortgages. In this interconnected global economy even sound businesses have been crippled by the residual effects of “Corporate Camp Run A-muck”. However, not every company ignored fundamentals which is why there remain glimmers of good news that are roundly reported and featured by the popular business press.
I’ve had the benefit of working across a wide range of business/professional services sectors and also consulting for some of the world’s largest manufacturers. And while I respect that each company and every industry has certain nuances, the driving fundamentals are always the same. Organizations that have stayed true to these fundamentals are more than holding their own even under the direst economic conditions while those that are renewing their commitment to sound business principles are inching their way back. However, companies that have not yet fully (re)discovered fundamentals do so at their own peril.
As always, there’s an interesting and useful conflict that must be managed. While sound fundamentals always ground and drive a business, companies that operate in an extreme mindset may also become less innovative. Progress and growth is fueled by innovation; management’s most critical responsibility is to foster innovation yet honor fundamentals by not allowing a company to become mindlessly reckless. Icarus may have been a tragic Greek mythology figure, but at the same time his story didn’t deter the Wright Brothers.
Innovation, guided by fundamentals, creates sound, secure and sustained success. The mixed signals we’re getting about where the economy currently--“The Worst is Over,” “We Haven’t Hit Bottom Yet,” etc.—reported on a daily basis is my cue that the struggle between fundamentals and flying too close to the sun continues. But in the end, fundamentals always rule.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Hiding Behind Voicemail. An Alarming Trend in Business?
It could be that I’ve been ridiculously slow to make this connection, but I’ve now pulled together enough evidence from a broad enough range of sources where it has finally dawned on even me: the tools designed to facilitate interaction, improve service, and further connect companies and employees to all stakeholders are having quite the opposite effect. Though we’ve all rolled our eyes when yet another of our calls roll to voicemail or have experienced the frustration of an unanswered email, the problem is worsening and my analysis shows it’s costing companies real revenues in a market that’s not particularly inviting.
Most recently one of the absolutely finest professional service providers I know, someone who has a distinguished track record producing instant results for his clients, is a man of uncommon character, and has real solutions for companies that are struggling, reported that the vast majority of his outbound phone calls are disappearing into the black hole of voicemail. He typically deals only with senior executives and his experience is telling him that a growing number of people he’s trying to reach are, in his words, “hiding behind voicemail.” One of his indicators is the timing and volume of calls he gets back, especially when compared to history (this is someone who keeps detailed statistics on everything). It’s closely related to my experiences in other areas.
I’ve spent my entire career in business/professional services, and I get up close and personal looks at many different companies in this broadly defined industry. And while every company’s mission statement and annual report gives passionate lip-service to a commitment to service, what’s happening on the front lines is anything but. Undoubtedly the nervous-wreck of an economy has everyone more on edge and customers are putting more bite into their calls to (vendor) customer service lines, but on a regular basis I am finding “hiding behind voicemail” is routine. Most damaging is that when I dig deeper into situations where a client service/sales/customer service employee dodged a call, I’m finding they are taking cues from more senior management; an alarming trend. At a time when companies can strengthen their relationships by standing up in the face of adversity they are allowing themselves to be more vulnerable to competition because throughout the ranks employees are shrinking away or hiding.
Here’s a contrast:
As a way to fix a business that was fast losing credibility in its market I had to terminate several unsavory sales people, each having questionable business practices and ethics. One of the sales people I terminated responded to losing his high-income position by posting untrue and really demented stuff about the company and me personally on the Internet. Of course this individual used a pseudonym to excoriate me in what amounts to one of the most incredible role reversals of all-time (it’s kind of like Bonnie & Clyde accusing the Texas and Louisiana officers of murder). My way of dealing with it was to reply to this post by using my name, putting my entire contact information out in the public domain and asking anyone who wished to speak with me to please call; I never got one inquiry and the brief moment of stupidity quickly faded away. Now compare that to this scenario.
Senior management at a company I’ve done business with had to communicate a very sensitive message to their end-user customers; something so critical that executives personally spent a great deal of time on this matter. I know these executives extremely well and they have always passionately stated their strong belief that, though theirs might be a national company, it’s as personal and community-based a field as there is. This company happens to be a technology leader, has all the customer data imaginable, and despite all the tools at their disposal, despite their planning for the critical communication, and despite their stated deep commitment to something deeper than “mass customization”, they sent out a letter that was unsigned and opened with a “Dear Sir/Madam” salutation! Needless to say, they have lost control for the situation…but I guess their silver lining is none of the executives involved will have to hide behind voicemail because, other than a general customer service number, recipients wouldn’t even know who to call. Now if you were the customer service rep getting a call from a frustrated/confused/angry customer who got a letter like this, knowing how your executives hid from their responsibilities, how would you handle the flood of calls?
Most recently one of the absolutely finest professional service providers I know, someone who has a distinguished track record producing instant results for his clients, is a man of uncommon character, and has real solutions for companies that are struggling, reported that the vast majority of his outbound phone calls are disappearing into the black hole of voicemail. He typically deals only with senior executives and his experience is telling him that a growing number of people he’s trying to reach are, in his words, “hiding behind voicemail.” One of his indicators is the timing and volume of calls he gets back, especially when compared to history (this is someone who keeps detailed statistics on everything). It’s closely related to my experiences in other areas.
I’ve spent my entire career in business/professional services, and I get up close and personal looks at many different companies in this broadly defined industry. And while every company’s mission statement and annual report gives passionate lip-service to a commitment to service, what’s happening on the front lines is anything but. Undoubtedly the nervous-wreck of an economy has everyone more on edge and customers are putting more bite into their calls to (vendor) customer service lines, but on a regular basis I am finding “hiding behind voicemail” is routine. Most damaging is that when I dig deeper into situations where a client service/sales/customer service employee dodged a call, I’m finding they are taking cues from more senior management; an alarming trend. At a time when companies can strengthen their relationships by standing up in the face of adversity they are allowing themselves to be more vulnerable to competition because throughout the ranks employees are shrinking away or hiding.
Here’s a contrast:
As a way to fix a business that was fast losing credibility in its market I had to terminate several unsavory sales people, each having questionable business practices and ethics. One of the sales people I terminated responded to losing his high-income position by posting untrue and really demented stuff about the company and me personally on the Internet. Of course this individual used a pseudonym to excoriate me in what amounts to one of the most incredible role reversals of all-time (it’s kind of like Bonnie & Clyde accusing the Texas and Louisiana officers of murder). My way of dealing with it was to reply to this post by using my name, putting my entire contact information out in the public domain and asking anyone who wished to speak with me to please call; I never got one inquiry and the brief moment of stupidity quickly faded away. Now compare that to this scenario.
Senior management at a company I’ve done business with had to communicate a very sensitive message to their end-user customers; something so critical that executives personally spent a great deal of time on this matter. I know these executives extremely well and they have always passionately stated their strong belief that, though theirs might be a national company, it’s as personal and community-based a field as there is. This company happens to be a technology leader, has all the customer data imaginable, and despite all the tools at their disposal, despite their planning for the critical communication, and despite their stated deep commitment to something deeper than “mass customization”, they sent out a letter that was unsigned and opened with a “Dear Sir/Madam” salutation! Needless to say, they have lost control for the situation…but I guess their silver lining is none of the executives involved will have to hide behind voicemail because, other than a general customer service number, recipients wouldn’t even know who to call. Now if you were the customer service rep getting a call from a frustrated/confused/angry customer who got a letter like this, knowing how your executives hid from their responsibilities, how would you handle the flood of calls?
Friday, June 5, 2009
Successful Companies MUST Depend on a Fully Functioning High-Performance Organization
Last night the local CBS News affiliate (Channel 2 in NY) Consumer Reporter ran a fascinating story regarding “sneaky and persistent debt collectors”: http://wcbstv.com/consumer/debt.collection.federal.2.1032181.html
I’m all for protecting individual rights, especially privacy, and especially obeying the laws, but at the same time exactly why are collectors resorting to any means necessary to do their jobs and collect money owed to their companies or clients?
In recent years I’ve worked with several companies that have outrageously high and unfortunately growing open accounts receivables and there’s a detectable pattern: Rather than owning up to delinquencies or trying to work with creditors, too many delinquent customers are either hiding from their obligations or becoming belligerent.
Look, I know good people and good companies are victims of a horrible economy, overwhelmed by events they can’t control, but I just can’t look at this as some “Attack of the Relentless Debt Collectors” either. Whether consumers or businesses have unintentionally taken on more debt they can handle, are they still not accountable for decisions they made? And if a collector isn’t able to engage the borrower in constructive dialogue is the collector supposed to abandon her/his professional responsibilities?
I’m sure there are collectors and collection agencies that go way too far, but this CBS Channel 2 report reinforces what I believe lies at the heart of so many of today’s problems: an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility and professional accountability.
The same people that make their unpaid debt more an issue of “relentless debt collectors” than the fact that collection agencies collected an astonishing $40 billion in debt show up at work with the same distant attitude about contributing to their company’s success.
Sadly, I see this way too often and one of the toughest parts in any of my assignments is reorienting these people to a performance/production imperative. Though apparently disconnected, I see same the root causes and story lines being applied in the public outrage regarding “overpaid executives."
It’s much easier to single out a CEO or a handful of executives in a struggling business, but successful companies depend on a fully functioning high-performance organization. A company is a collection of its parts and it’s impossible to cultivate a successful whole when sums don’t accept personal responsibility and professional accountability.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Can someone do a truly awful job by doing a good job?
It will probably take me many beers and many years to find an answer to the question that has been troubling me these past few weeks:
“Can someone do a truly awful job by doing a good job?”
Because the subject of my question is me and a team of people I’ve worked closely with, it’s led to many a sleepless night. Let me explain, and by all means if you can help me come to grips with this I’d really like to hear from you.
As you may or may not already know (and if you read my bio you will now), I work with and in businesses that have issues. In one particular case a naturally gifted entrepreneur quickly grew a privately-held company that set new records for having issues. Pick a discipline, function, legal, structural, financial, strategic or any tactical matter and you would have found severe issues in this company.
My role and mandate was and still is to engineer swift, significant and sustainable results and against this mountain of problems I (once again) had the benefit of working with a small team of highly focused and competent professionals that systematically resolved and reversed the bad trends plaguing this company. Because these matters needed to be dealt with urgently and expertly, recognizing company ownership would not be well-suited to actively participate as they were given status updates, progress reports, and ultimately the results everyone was looking for. By all accounts and measures, a good job by all!
However, rather than learning invaluable lessons that would serve the company and its stakeholders well into the future, and instead of recognizing the good fortune of a re-engineered healthy business where there had been dysfunction, a company ownership’s conclusion from the many corporate near-death experiences was sequentially: (a) the problems must not have been that bad because they were fixed quickly and apparently easily, (b) there would always be a capable clean-up crew available to instantly fix anything that might confront the company, (c) the company is simply blessed, (d) the company is better than and smarter than everyone else and is therefore invisible, indeed bullet-proof.
Consequently, ownership not only reverted to the business methodologies that got it into trouble in the first place they did so with an exaggerated vengeance. A truly horrible job, because what had been built proved not to be sustainable and in my world Harry Truman’s “the buck stops here” sign/slogan makes me fully accountable that we successfully climbed a huge mountain and then watched a corporate suicide leap.
Reflecting on it, had we failed along the way with one or a few of the initiatives and, had the company felt real pain at an interval or more, real lessons would have been learned and this would be a thriving company.
“Can someone do a truly awful job by doing a good job?”
Because the subject of my question is me and a team of people I’ve worked closely with, it’s led to many a sleepless night. Let me explain, and by all means if you can help me come to grips with this I’d really like to hear from you.
As you may or may not already know (and if you read my bio you will now), I work with and in businesses that have issues. In one particular case a naturally gifted entrepreneur quickly grew a privately-held company that set new records for having issues. Pick a discipline, function, legal, structural, financial, strategic or any tactical matter and you would have found severe issues in this company.
My role and mandate was and still is to engineer swift, significant and sustainable results and against this mountain of problems I (once again) had the benefit of working with a small team of highly focused and competent professionals that systematically resolved and reversed the bad trends plaguing this company. Because these matters needed to be dealt with urgently and expertly, recognizing company ownership would not be well-suited to actively participate as they were given status updates, progress reports, and ultimately the results everyone was looking for. By all accounts and measures, a good job by all!
However, rather than learning invaluable lessons that would serve the company and its stakeholders well into the future, and instead of recognizing the good fortune of a re-engineered healthy business where there had been dysfunction, a company ownership’s conclusion from the many corporate near-death experiences was sequentially: (a) the problems must not have been that bad because they were fixed quickly and apparently easily, (b) there would always be a capable clean-up crew available to instantly fix anything that might confront the company, (c) the company is simply blessed, (d) the company is better than and smarter than everyone else and is therefore invisible, indeed bullet-proof.
Consequently, ownership not only reverted to the business methodologies that got it into trouble in the first place they did so with an exaggerated vengeance. A truly horrible job, because what had been built proved not to be sustainable and in my world Harry Truman’s “the buck stops here” sign/slogan makes me fully accountable that we successfully climbed a huge mountain and then watched a corporate suicide leap.
Reflecting on it, had we failed along the way with one or a few of the initiatives and, had the company felt real pain at an interval or more, real lessons would have been learned and this would be a thriving company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)