It's back to business for Merisel--winner of American Business Awards Turnaround of the Year

and updating my blog... 

Last night the American Business Awards were handed out at the Marriott Marquis in New York City. I was a finalist in two categories and I truly am honored to have lost to the likes of Ford's Alan Mulally (Executive of the Year-Manufacturing).  

As many of you know, the American Business Awards --part of The Stevie Awards program--honors the achievements and contributions of US-based businesses and their employees.

Individual awards are never as meaningful as team accomplishments and I am privileged to report that Merisel won Business Turnaround of the Year at last evening's 9th Annual American Business Awards. As a member of Merisel's executive management team, I couldn't be prouder of this accomplishment. 

More updates to follow.

RIP Amy

My cousin Amy died earlier this week. During the late 70's and early '80's Amy was one of the few who could actually pull off the Farrah Fawcett look-alike style. Back then her eyes smiled and she could light up a room when she broke into a full facial smile. When she died this week she was alone in her apartment. The Amy I remember from when we were kids could have never conceived she'd have a mostly sad adulthood spent trying to find her meaningful place in life. I hope the Amy still had memories of the Amy that once existed. She was a young girl filled with potential. I'll never know if she died too soon or too late when her body was discovered earlier in this week; she was in her mid 40's.

On the day I went to Amy's memorial service I spent most of my time working with a couple of different cross-functional teams trying to solve frustrating operational problems and institutionalize improved cost-efficiencies. The teams were comprised of skilled professionals, highly knowledgeable in their craft, all extremely passionate about their work. The issues we were confronting weren't easy. Every time the stakes in our problem-solving excercises were raised or when we would get to oftentimes difficult truths, someone would invariably say "look, it's not like what we do here is life-and-death important" (or some similar version of that remark) as a way to let everyone off the hook.
Today I won't digress in to one of my rants or dissect the meaning of or implications of cross-functional team members letting one another off the hook. No, the real subject here is way too important as I think back on Amy's life not lived---considering that there are probably millions of people in the world who have said or thought the same ("it's not life and death") about the work they do.


If my cousin Amy had found her meaningful place in the world, had she found a fulfilling career in a field she was passionate about, where she had been respected for her knowledge, admired for her skill, I dare say she would still be alive today and those expressive eyes and the mile wide smile would still radiate life that was really and sadly extinguished long ago.

So, please, for your own sake and for my cousin Amy's memory, no matter what you do, no matter what your industry or career path, never ever demean yourself or the work you do by even thinking anything as absurd as "it's not life or death." I'm here to tell you, with Amy as a haunting image, what you do, how you do it, and the meaning you get from all significant aspects of everything you do is very much a matter of life and death.

Perhaps 49er Coach, Mike Singletary's "Getting-Results-Style" could be an example of how to succeed in business for 2010?

I couldn't have wished for a better end-of-year lengthy discussion than my lengthy session with Chris this week. He's one of the brightest, curious and most committed young professionals I've ever had the privilege to work with. As we get set to bury the truly God-awful 2009 reconnecting with Chris is the best reinforcement that better days are ahead because ambitious emerging talent always leads to a better future.

During our discussion Chris talked about a particular department he had been working with that certainly had issues but he said was thankfully comprised of "many experienced people." He reeled off a rather extensive list of issues, but the headlines were:
1. The department didn't have a true manager;

2. Each of the department employees did things their own way;

3. 2009 was a disappointing year for the company, revenues were off and although they had made great progress, costs were still higher than they should be. As he assessed it, the biggest cause for higher costs was waste due to breakdowns in the order entry-to-production cycle;

4. The department was supported by tools that were decent enough and although they were constantly being upgraded not everyone in the department thought it necessary to use them;

5. The company and its industry was going through radical and perhaps even painful changes but not everyone in the department was sensitive enough to these changes to adopt new methods.
So here I am with a wonderfully gifted individual who represents the future, fascinated by his apparent celebration of the past--one that was no longer working--who valued experience.

Clearly,"experience" can mean a great deal of many positive things, but in an environment that is defined by change, I'm rather certain that captivity to experience --for the sake of it-- is a guaranteed losing strategy. Of course Chris, like all of us, must respect and honor proven experience yet I believe it is just as important to keep in mind that experience is not a synonym for expertise.

Given the five isolated problems (listed above), does this seem like an expert group?

Shortly after speaking with Chris I found the time to finally check out the 2010 NFL Pro Bowl rosters. The first thing I noticed was, although named an alternate, NY Jets' Left Tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson didn't make the AFC roster. A classic case where voters confused experience with expertise because in his 4th year Ferguson played so expertly he deserved to earn Pro Bowl. But the selection that really leaped off the page was San Francisco 49er Tight End Vernon Davis earning the starting Pro Bowl spot for the NFC. That's the same Vernon Davis who wanted to do things his own way during the 2008-2009 season his coach, Mike Singletary, publicly blasted him, more than once. A year ago it sure looked like Vernon Davis was headed for the scrap heap of "uniquely gifted athletes never to be heard from again, destroyed by a lousy attitude."

Singletary, an NFL Hall of Fame player and a 10-time Pro Bowl selection himself cared enough about excellence, followed his convictions to push Vernon Davis, and one year after Davis was shocked by his head coach's tirades against him, undoubtedly was the catalyst for Vernon Davis becoming an NFL all star.

For Chris and his company and all others, I wish only the best things for you in 2010 and suggest it can be a wish-come-true by applying a bit of Mike Singletary's style of getting results to succeed in business climate more volatile, competitive and exhausting than the NFL.

Happy 2010 Everyone!

It's Time for Business to Focus on Meaningful Performance Standards: Let's Get Back to Inspiring and Teaching

In recent weeks I've heard from a surprisingly large number of you urging me to post a new column. This space is intended to share useful information and insights from my interesting business encounters and experiences; quite frankly I thought I was becoming redundant and not breaking new ground. So I've resisted the temptation to write for the sake of it and am now reappearing because I've got something worthwhile to share.
As the economy plods along, as adjusted real unemployment figures are estimated at nearly 18%, as companies struggle to compete, the great strains are showing in most insidious ways. Not enough managers are truly leading their organizations by inspiring them, teaching them, better equipping them and it's creating greater levels of fear and suspicion in the workplace. At a time where organizational strength is an imperative far too many employees are looking to play the hero; freelancing and pushing others away from what they believe is their turf. In many respects this stands to reason: the fear of being unemployed is now so powerful that otherwise capable and rational human beings are determined to prove themselves to be indispensable. It's happening at alarming rates and these misguided efforts are universally making bad situations worse. I won't go as far to say we're approaching organizational anarchy, but there are too many signs of it coming from too many companies to not put a spotlight on this dangerous trend.
Signs of this self-indulgent behavior are evidenced throughout society, whether it's the Henne's of Colorado or Salahi's of Virginia who aspire to fame through outrageous and no-value behavior that will earn them starring roles on (anything but) reality tv. Just as the Salahi's believe they're worth a few hundred thousand dollars so a television network can interview them, many in the workforce evidently believe crashing their organizational structure or undermining corporate unity of command will not only guarantee their continued employment doing so will earn them big bonuses. I find the seeds for the twisted logic were sewn well before this diabolical behavior became apparent.

In one case a senior executive had delegated virtually everything in his business to tenured staff, but over time both company staff and their customer base eroded. This is hardly coincidental; employees developed deep resentment for a leader that hadn't been involved for quite some time but ruled his business as an emporer so they left and took customers with them. His reaction was to further wall off access to his staff and customers as an attempt to be the hero to parent company executives that had lost patience in direct correlation to the control he had lost in his business. Even though steps have been taken to prohibit this senior manager from following a disastrous course of self and turf protection, it will be a constant effort to stay on him and manage the situation that will undoubtedly further drain corporate resources.

Another example is a sales person who recently closed a couple of deals; his first significant sales in roughly 18 months. Between 2007 and ytd 2009 this sales person's business was off by nearly 60%; of course he attributed this to "the economy" and nothing he had any control over. Emboldened by a couple of new deals he is now attempting to hold his company hostage by demanding no less than a 50% increase in his compensation. His rationale is that he's owed extra pay to compensate him for the tough couple of years he's had, never mind his company continues to lose substantial money or that his tough couple of years was a direct reflection of his poor sales performance.
It's as easy to make this a story of individual behavior as it is for me to cite other examples, but I believe the root cause is deeper. Any system that seems to have replaced merit with entitlement, achievment with grandstanding, is badly broken and must be repaired through compelling leadership and reinforced management. We've all let standards devolve over the years and as companies prepare themselves for 2010 I urge them to put an immediate and significant focus on meaningful performance standards.

Let's rebuild our businesses through the sincere efforts of the committed professionalism of top performers...

With Kirk and many like him still very much in my face and on my mind, I was thrilled to run into the Anti-Kirk the other day. The timing couldn't have been any better because focusing our attention on professionals that are part of the proverbial solution, rather than those who define the problem, is the ticket to creating and sustaining high achievement.

For many years I've commuted home on the 8:04 PM Metro North train out of Grand Central Station and it was on this ride I got to know Joe the Conductor. If Joe ever told me his last name I've long since forgotten it, but I've gotten to know him rather well and have always admired his work. When bucketed in to stereotyped categories, Joe (a proud union member working for the Metropolitan Transit Authority on the Metro North New Haven Line where the train cars date back to the 1970's), would seem to be a leading candidate for a horror story. But Joe the Conductor served as a nightly reminder that pride in workmanship, a keen sense of professionalism, and a deep understanding of customer service transcends even the most hardened stereotypes.

Over the years I learned a great deal by watching Joe; the way he handled belligerent drunks, resolved disputes between passengers, calmly dealt with the occasional rider who didn't see any reason to buy a ticket, kept order when trains broke down or were forced to endure delays. Whether it was a cold winter night where several cars didn't have heat or brutally hot summer days when the air conditioning didn't work, Joe stayed in calm control. From time-to-time he would tell me about MTA policies or management decisions that made no sense, occasionally observing that the New Haven line was in sorry shape. Like all of us he undoubtedly had his bad days, felt pressures from professional or personal challenges, but Joe was the rare talent who was able to rise above any of these forces. I never saw him have a bad shift, I can't ever recall him mishandling any situation (and on the 8:04 there were many tough ones, none of them could have been predicted), and he lit up every car of every train with his constant smile.

Joe retired earlier this summer and yet there he was the other night, kicking back as one of the passengers. Maybe it was his farewell tour or perhaps he simply missed being at his office, but it was great seeing him one last time. Seeing Joe the (retired) Conductor again was a much needed reminder for me that companies, industries and the entire economy as a whole can only be rebuilt through the sincere efforts of the highly knowledgeable, the deeply skilled, and the committed professionalism of top performers like Joe.

Continue to let Kirk Grow Into His Role ----How Does That Kind of Decision Impact Any Company's Growth?

For several weeks now I've had opportunity to work closely with a mid/high level manager we'll call Kirk. He's a sincere guy with a work ethic anyone would respect and seemed reasonably competent. However, it's often difficult to know this about Kirk because he fell into the nasty habit of rarely thinking before he spoke. If this self and organizational destructive behavior was limited to Kirk I wouldn't bother writing about it. However, we've all encountered any number of Kirk's so discussing how he is progressing can be quite useful.

Kirk's on-the-job behavior fit a very familiar pattern. Pick any subject and he'd instantly tell you he knew all about it, but went no further than that one-liner. Because he was an expert in every field he was extremely busy all day long, "putting out fires" (as he would say) --which is why he just didn't have time for anyone else or anything else especially in-depth dialogue! Of course, high on the list of things he didn't have time to evaluate was why his day was dominated by putting out fires in his areas of responsibility. But more insidiously, Kirk the know-it-all had mastered the art of delegating every decision up the ladder, which then relieved him of any accountability. One thing Kirk always seemed to make time for was to bemoan the fact that his boss made some really dumb decisions, which explained why he had to fight so many fires.

In truth and fairness, though, Kirk's boss and other company executives fed into this nasty cycle because they not only enabled him they created conditions that allowed Kirk to delegate decisions large and small to them while he escaped accountability for anything other than always knowing everything and always being right. Whenever Kirk presented an issue or problem up the chain of company command executive leadership quickly supplied answers, always putting themselves in the middle of the most mundane business matters. Kirk always had time to run into his boss' office throughout the day or send dozens of emails, always asking for instructions never even making any recommendations. Internally, Kirk was held in high regard because he was such an important employee, always incredibly busy, and to anyone's knowledge the single most informed human being on any subject. But I write in the past tense for a reason.

Slowly, the tables have been turned in a way that's benefitting all. due to his obvious brilliance, Kirk was asked to lead a very important company project. Because he had greater knowledge and experience than anyone else could ever imagine he was given full control for developing and implementing an action plan. However, in this case, whenever Kirk tried to delegate his project work up he was met with the same reassuring response: "I really trust your judgment Kirk, what do you think we should do?" Yes, Kirk's prior pattern of behavior was a great cover-up, a defense mechanism, for a managerial incompetent....and now it was getting exposed.

Early in the process Kirk tried to continue his charade by giving his recommendations. In every instance his ideas bordered on the painful or comical...I mean you could have picked someone at random off the street who knew nothing about the company, someone who had never even worked anywhere before, and that person would have come closer to offering a useful idea than Kirk did. Indeed, he went from not thinking before speaking by serving as a router to not thinking before speaking when he was thrust in the role of accountable leader. But credit to Kirk, in remarkably short order he checked his ego at the door and started to work better with others by sincerely talking to them rather than deflecting and talking at others. Over the course of the past week or so Kirk has done some of his most meaningful work because he is actually now thinking through his own solutions, doing his own research to figure things out, and making himself accountable. He even went as far as telling one of his direct report employees that he didn't know something! Interesting, but not surprising, the junior employee first reacted in stunned silence--Kirk had never made such an admission before. But that employee then flashed a small smile...yes, she knew Kirk was not the man he pretended to be all along. The two of them then spent 15 minutes diagnosing the problem and coming up with a solid business solution.

While it's nice to see these small improvements where real progress is being made, it begs a couple of key questions for me...one rather large, and the other as finite as you can get.

The larger issue is how many companies have allowed themselves to similarly get set back, particularly when confronted by the most terrifying business conditions in recent history, how do they quickly recognize and permanently change it?

On the smaller matter, this company's ownership now has to do some serious thinking of their own. They pay and treat Kirk like a senior manager, but he's not even close to being one. Do they continue to let him grow into the role or do they replace him with someone who is actually credentialed?

The National Review Calls Home: A Brilliant Move by the Team at National Review--social media at its finest.

Since my last post featured Teddy Kennedy, it's only right that I give equal air time and praise to the other political viewpoint. Just as the late Senator Kennedy's best attributes are useful for business people, so too is this example:

At a time when everyone seems to be planning "old media's" funeral, Jack Fowler--National Review's savvy publisher, is blazing new trails by integrating disparate media with a live and interactive event his publication is launching on Tuesday, September 22nd. Featuring some of NR's best and brightest minds--Mark Steyn, Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg--you can learn more about and even register for National Review Calls Home at: http://www.nationalreview.com/callshome/.

Certainly the publication William F Buckley founded in 1955 is not immune from the same dilemmas faced by other publications; the nearly 55 year old National Review assuredly has wrestled with changes forced by "new media".  But as a business leader, NR's Mr Fowler isn't throwing up his hands, shaking his head and asking for pity because the web changed all his industry's rules or because the economy tanked! Rather, Jack Fowler is a student of his field and is highly committed to his craft, thereby positioning him to be a true innovator. By the way, someone at NR (or?) should post an official Wikipedia listing for Mr. Fowler here soon.

The National Review Calls Home concept marries the magazine's strong brand with its extraordinary talent that has a loyal following. By extending NR's reach to now include intimate phone conversations, one can now interact with Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry and Mark Steyn in print, on the Web, TV, and radio--come September 22nd, like you would with your neighbor. In my view a truly brilliant strategy, one that other organizations in any field can emulate! Considering Mr Fowler is doing this at a time when most other businesses are focusing on cut backs, he's showing real leadership.

If nothing else, I would urge serious business professionals to sign up for National Review Calls Home on September 22nd just to see how it is done. My best wishes to Jack Fowler and his staff for their continued success!

Teddy Kennedy would not have been tolerant of lip synchers in his midst.

This last week, a top professional I know admitted to a guilty pleasure: She had been to the Britney Spears concert the night before at Madison Square Garden (she was a fan). Naturally, I had to learn more about what a Britney Spears show was like!  My colleague said she had a wonderful time; it was an exciting show, very entertaining, but that it appeared as if Ms Spears lip synched all but one of the songs and only twice did the pop star even bother to address with the audience.  Yet even after all that, yes, my business associate said she would certainly attend another “live” Britney Spears show in the future.
This last week we also all learned about Senator Ted Kennedy’s passing. Say what you will about his politics, the scandal at Chappaquiddick or anything else regarding his life, but by all accounts Senator Kennedy was passionate about his work, sincere in his beliefs, and truly genuine. Consider this one tribute from Edward Rollins, someone who certainly didn’t share many of Senator Kennedy’s views:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/rollins.kennedy.gop/index.html.

As I went about my day-to-day business affairs this past week I couldn’t help but connect what I unfortunately encountered to Britney Spears’ re-emergence and Senator Kennedy’s death (strange--but read on).

Edward M. Kennedy earned respect, particularly by his adversaries, because he held strong beliefs and was focused on driving results he thought to be important. He was at the eye of many legislative storms, but he built extraordinary working relationships over the course of a nearly 50 year career in the senate. Similar to the work team I wrote about back August 27th, he forced others to bring their best game and they brought out no less the same from him. By contrast, Britney Spears fans seem to not only tolerate the apparent lip synching portions of a live concert,  they enthusiastically cheer it.

The workplace remains dominated by too many people who physically show up to work each day, but who don’t bring the same intellectual or emotional commitment. I truly hope that we mourn the death of one man and not the passing of a much-needed approach to one’s work. To me, the best way to remember and honor Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts is by adopting the same principled, passionate, collaborative and results-oriented energy to our careers as he did and perhaps become less tolerant of the lip synchers in our midst.

Who would have guessed: August -- a prime time for engineering high rates of sustainable growth.

Although I’ve always been told that not much business gets transacted mid-late August because everyone is on vacation, I’ve always found August to be a particularly productive month. Not only has August 2009 not been an exception, my experiences this month tell me that there’s heightened focus and purpose in the business world…clearly a very positive leading indicator! I’d like to use the remainder of this space to relate my highlight for the week to the encouraging signs I’m seeing in general.

Presented with an opportunity to launch a new business line, a company I’ve been working with (that defines the word “conservative”) had the good sense to pursue the initiative with cautious optimism. The company assembled a project team that did more than simply evaluate the venture’s worthiness. This cross-functional team was comprised of members that brought subject matter expertise and a strong willingness to challenge every assumption. From day one it was clear that this was a highly capable group of professionals and it soon became even more evident that this team has uncommon maturity. Members didn’t make the process easy on one another, yet at no time did any meeting devolve into finger-pointing, egoism or turf protection. This team collaborated in a most impressive way: each member demanded goal-oriented excellence from himself and his peers.

Along the way, the project sponsor had moments of doubt—even thought at least one participant was going to do everything he could to kill the initiative. As it turned out the (apparently) most negative group member proved to be the driving force for transforming concept to reality. Had any member, particularly the project sponsor, lost sight of the business objective; had anyone reacted to legitimate business challenges in a personal rather than professional way; had they lacked individual and collective commitment to the absolute best work product theirs would have been abandoned like so many other excellent ideas unfortunately are in Corporate America. Without the sincere efforts of the team’s toughest critic, their high-potential initiative would ultimately fall short of its objectives. This team set a very fast pace, accomplished a great deal in a short period of time, yet all had to keep up with other job responsibilities. They never missed a meeting, none of the participants ever came unprepared, and none allowed other responsibilities to be slighted either.

As they practiced it, collaboration wasn’t pandering nor was it about compromise. Theirs was collaboration as I believe it is intended to be: each sum intensely driven to create a superb whole. Though they did ask the question that is on everyone’s mind these days, “is this the right economic climate to try something new?” They didn’t obsess on that ever present excuse in most business environments today and they also concluded that the best remedy for poor results is growth and growth will come from innovation. As more companies and project teams adopt the “We Must!” mentality, removing all vestiges of finding reasons why not to do something (always the easiest path) economic vitality will overwhelm anything that has ailed us.

I was privileged to work with this group and what they did, in August no less, is the model for engineering high rates of sustainable growth for many years to come.

Change the person or change the person.

Driving institutional change requires far more than executive buy-in to the concept, leaders themselves must set the fast pace through their own performance. Particularly when the stakes are high, when a company has urgent matters to solve, I know of no better method than: change the person or change the person.

This approach allows organizations to rehabilitate real talent that simply requires assistance yet also allows for terminating those who may be too myopic or incapable of professional growth. Either outcome also reinforces positive company attributes because transformed professionals are able to instill growth & development throughout a company while terminations become so obvious to all they can be conducted without friction, fear and raw emotions typically associated with a high-profile dismissal.

When properly conducted, changing the person or changing the person is anything but a long drawn-out affair. Driven by clear-cut objectives, evaluated through meaningful performance metrics and measures as a highly collaborative effort I find it’s rather easy to quickly get to the proper destination.

This morning I concluded a brief project for a company that has had significant problems in a small but once highly profitable manufacturing division. While the business unit VP had once been a rising star in the company, corporate executives were so convinced he was now their biggest impediment to restoring profitability they had apparently made up their minds to terminate him quite a while ago.

However, fearing nobody else in the organization could step up and not having a detailed understanding of the division’s daily sales and operations themselves, parent company executives allowed a condemned man to stay in his role until they could find the right time and figure out what to do. During my initial meeting with corporate leadership, I introduced the change the person or change the person concept and got the typical response: “Oh, you can’t teach this old dog new tricks…he’ll never change…”

Though I must admit the first couple of days were tense and this VP was highly suspicious about my stated intentions, it didn’t take long for him to distinguish himself. He was clearly a very bright, very motivated, very committed, and very willing top-tier professional who had encountered market conditions, competitive forces and performance pressures unlike anything he had ever before experienced in his career. He wasn’t unwilling to learn and change; in fact that was the furthest thing from the truth! He just didn’t know how, and because what had once worked for him was now failing he had lost total confidence in himself. Perhaps more telling, his initial distrust about my role was really about his now distant relationship with corporate executives.

By working closely together in this intense process we quickly discovered a number of revenue-building and cost-improving measures that were successfully instituted. August will be the division’s first break-even month in roughly 2 years and all indicators are they’re on track to eek out profitable months for the remainder of 2009. Though a far cry from the business unit’s best days they are on course to get there. And because the division’s leader has successfully transformed himself he’s now requiring the same from all staff which is why I’m quite confident they will once again be the parent company’s darling much sooner than anyone realizes. I’m equally certain that they would be much further behind, quite possibly on the road to eventual company shut-down, if we just focused on changing the person when the company already had its best VP in that role…he just needed help and direction so he could change.

Individual and collective commitment to excellence matters most.

I must admit that I had to be dragged kicking & screaming by Laurie Pehar Borsh (a truly top tier professional in her field, you can learn more about her business by visiting http://www.ecmgusa.com/ or http://www.personalprproductions.com/) to actually write this blog. Since its inception, I’ve often wondered whether or not anyone was actually reading it. Well, I’ve erased all these doubts thanks to the avalanche of feedback I’ve gotten over Saturday’s “Ted” entry. Maybe it’s the only interesting thing I’ve ever written, but as a result of the reaction I’ve gotten to “Ted” I will use today’s space to set several records straight.

First and foremost I will not allow this blog space (or anything associated with it) to be utilized by people who are trying to settle their own scores. Some people have attempted to post comments alleging someone they know is "Ted"…those will not be permitted here. I write about the situations I encounter because I swim in the deep end of the pool; not many are overly experienced in the deep end nor are they particularly comfortable there. If I can help others navigate their way through these treacherous waters it’s my privilege. In today’s volatile economy we are all better if we can learn from one another, share our useful experiences, and dig out (without the need for government intervention).

I’m amazed at how many people have contacted me to guess who "Ted" is.

I’ve heard from people I don’t know submitting names I’ve never heard of (thank you for reading this blog, by the way---I hope you find it interesting and helpful).

I’ve heard from former and current colleagues with their wild guesses.

Heck, I’ve even heard from at least one guy who insists HE IS "Ted" even though Saturday’s post doesn’t even closely resemble my involvement in his affairs (in this instance, I don’t recall the last time we had lunch or the last time we spoke for 2 consecutive hours…just for openers).

I am as shocked as I likely find it telling that everyone seems to know a "Ted," and some might even see themselves in "Ted." The point of this piece was not to publicly pick on an individual who temporarily re-entered my life after a long absence nor is it intended to provide rumor mill material for amateur Tom Ruskins of the world (another plug: Tom Ruskin is Founder/CEO of CMP Group, http://www.cmp-group.com/, a top-notch investigative and protection agency).

So why are so many people fixated on "Ted" and how do they seem to know far more of them than I ever conceived? I don’t know every motivation or detail, but I’m going to take a stab at it nonetheless.

It starts with one of my core business premises: FUNDAMENTALS RULE. There have been and there remain way too many businesses across too many sectors that are so lacking in fundamentals, in their desperation to get out of urgent trouble they make matters worse. "Ted" apparently hit a universal nerve because a not insignificant number of readers are either working with or for companies that are caught in the vicious cycle of fundamental-less businesses.

Keep in mind that "Ted" was written as part of my Blog Trilogy with August 6th’s “Cultivating Major League Talent” as the opening act. Much of the thinking here has been inspired by one of the most insightful and brilliant people I know, Rich Thau Founder/CEO Presentation Testing (http://www.presentationtesting.com/). Rich and his company do phenomenal work. You may have read about one of his most topical projects in the current Business Week edition. If not, here’s a link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/c4143btw375952.htm?campaign_id=rss_null. During a recent discussion with Rich he mentioned that an area he’s personally very interested in is education because it is the foundation for building and maintaining the nation’s competitive edge. EXACTLY!

An abandonment of fundamentals layered over a poorly educated workforce—at all levels—is the recipe for disaster that, I believe, conspires to create business conditions too many of you relate to.

An education is certainly what we get from attending school, but I find continuing and practical application of the many lessons we learn (best evidenced by serious ongoing personal/professional improvement) is most meaningful. The point is we can’t cultivate major league talent if organizations do not instill learning and doing cultures.

Companies can’t expect to post solid results if employees are ill-equipped to contribute, especially in the more competitive global economy. Economies will suffer if bankers stray from sound underwriting principles where the after-effects, among others, are lack of capital, available credit, and unacceptable rates of unemployment.

Undoubtedly stemming from Apollo 11’s 40th year anniversary last month I’ve heard the phrase“If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we….{fill in the blank with your favorite subject}?” more than I’ve heard it in quite some time. Perhaps an oversimplification, but the catalyst for putting a man on the moon was President Kennedy’s memorable phrase from his September 12, 1962 speech at Rice University: “We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” In other words, it takes a focused, educated, tempered-in-fundamentals effort to come close to achieving any goal.

My Blog Trilogy was intended to echo JFK’s words and apply them to business, at least among those who honor me by even occasionally reading my posts. As evidenced by the response I got to “Ted,” there are too many among us, in responsible positions or otherwise, who have unfortunately chosen the opposite path by doing what’s easy and looking for short-cuts.

Building and sustaining achievement is hard, but by following the right formula it's as achievable as it is rewarding. Trying to figure out who "Ted" is, in my opinion, becomes yet another example of obsessing on the easy and unimportant; what matters is our individual and collective commitment to excellence.

Toxic CEO Ted Provides a Lesson: How NOT to Run a Business

He said he really needed to speak with me about an urgent matter.

He said he needed at least a couple hours and would buy me lunch if I helped him work through the problem.

He said he had nobody else he could turn to and because we have totally different business philosophies he really needed me even though he knew I had no respect for him.

He said he needed a friend.

Maybe I was more curious than I was motivated to help, but I couldn’t refuse this invitation. So I met with this CEO for a privately-held firm, and for purposes of this post we’ll call him Ted.

Ted is one of naturally brightest people I know and at a very young age he built a formidable company. But Ted used his native intelligence to constantly scheme and find ways to make money by really bending the rules; reneging on agreements, overcharging customers in hopes they wouldn’t notice, and engaging in several other unethical and possibly even illegal tactics.

Ted is a lazy guy, he would much rather use his God-given brainpower to find the easy way rather than pushing himself to really build something. So Ted is probably the dumbest person I know. I will say this though, from time-to-rime, especially when he was caught in one of his schemes, he did try to clean his ethics and practices up. Although I hadn’t been in touch with Ted for a long time I was rather certain that these periodic spasms of operating integrity never lasted very long.

Ted has always believed he was able to make a great deal of money by always outsmarting everyone else. This also allowed Ted to not work very hard and because he had found a handful of employees that served as trusted accomplices Ted could enjoy a life of leisure funded by a steady stream of what I can only consider to be ill-gotten income. Ted had always said the reason he wanted to run his own company was it would allow him to “make a lot of money”. Furthermore, Ted created a company culture that was addicted to the same.

Ted’s willing accomplices extended to more than just low-skilled low-talent employees that would do his (literally) dirty work to draw a paycheck; a paycheck that was always far greater than anything any of them could have ever dreamt imaginable. Because Ted’s company routinely posted impressive top-line growth for most of this decade lenders were tripping all over themselves to give him money.

There are many excellent small/mid-sized companies that are being choked to death today because banks aren’t lending; the unemployment rate is indescribably scary because these cash-starved companies can’t financially maintain a workforce. In large part, Ted and others like him are the root cause. In larger part, the bankers who ignored fundamentals are really to blame for the mess. But that’s not what Ted wanted to talk to me about.

As a man who built a business based solely on short-term thinking and taking obnoxious short-cuts, current economic conditions have accelerated and highlighted Ted’s many corporate shortcomings. Dependent on equally short-term thinking bankers who were no longer there for him, some calling in major loans early, his business was being squeezed. Competitors were taking business away from him at eye-popping rates; some customers disappeared quietly, others have litigated. His company was bleeding at such a furious pace he had to significantly cut back on staff and when even that wasn’t enough to cover his growing financial shortfalls he had to impose radical salary reductions for remaining employees. His low-skilled low-talent staff hadn’t developed real professional capability; they were doing what the boss told them and drawing hefty paychecks in return…until now. But that’s not what Ted wanted to talk to me about either.

No, Ted’s urgent matter was that he had just uncovered a ring within his organization, comprised of the most trusted of his inner-circle staff, where his employees were selling his company data to competitors and, of course pocketing these ill-gotten gains themselves. Ted was angry about this but as I listened to him he was clearly more hurt. After all, how could they do this to him!?!? How could they not show Ted the loyalty due him since he had taken such good care of them all these years, especially at a time when he most needed them!?!?!??!

What he initially said he wanted from me was advice on what he should do. Should he prosecute all for industrial espionage? Or should he get some to turn over on others and just make examples of a few (the few would be those he liked the least anyhow)? But as Ted kept talking he then said, “But I can’t really do anything can I? They all know too much and they might get me in trouble.” In truth what he really wanted was a forum to rant and engage in one of his most common practices: self-justification and putting the blame elsewhere.

I gave Ted the couple of hours he requested and I don’t think I said more than 20 words the whole time. Yes, Ted said he wanted my helpful advice but he really didn’t, and if actually asked I wouldn’t have told him anything he wanted to hear. Of course we both knew this going in to that lunch meeting.

Ted was distressed because his employees were disloyal and did despicable things to him. It seems to me that in this case, these despicable employees showed themselves to be totally loyal to Ted: they acted exactly the way they had seen him and conducted themselves as he has. For a brief period of time Ted thought he had it all, thought he had figured it out better than anyone ever could. Forever, Ted will be toxic.

About all this new sales enablement technology---The MOST knowledgeable AND experienced sales person is still MOST effective.

Shortly after reading the brilliant Gerhard Gschwandtner’s most recent blog post, http://sellingpower.typepad.com/gg/2009/07/is-sales-enablement-just-lipstick-on-a-knowledge-management-pig.html, I received a follow-up phone call from a sales person trying to rekindle my interest in purchasing sales enablement technology. His pitch was the now-familiar “clone your top sales performers through our capabilities.” To support his value proposition, he cited several highly recognizable companies that had purchased his product. Naturally he was unable to furnish examples where his company had created an army of successful sales clones. Indeed, even his super-charged company apparently does not have a sales force of 100% top sales performers.

I’ve long believed that a highly knowledgeable sales person is a more effective sales person, something I covered in my July 27th post. To further illustrate my credentials on this subject, a CEO for one of the nation’s leading surgical device distributorships recently forwarded a copy of an email he sent to his staff. It so happens that this CEO once worked with me, and his recent companywide email included the following:

“The region I was a part of was led by Mike Berman. It was here, I learned the power and responsibility of leadership to create the culture that would drive their regional sales force to beat these industry titans. Berman regularly read 10 newspapers a day, continually educated us.”

Needless to say, he and I worked together several years ago and the “Industry Titans” he writes of are FedEx and UPS; newspapers have long been replaced by the Internet. As a longtime practitioner for knowledge-based selling, well before it was known as “sales enablement,” I’m no less enthusiastic about it than I was back then. In fact, I’m certain it’s even more critical to a sales person’s success than ever before. But the mere suggestion that a highly-researched sales person is destined to be a high performer is pure rubbish in my view.

So as I listened to this highly enthusiastic sales enablement sales guy talk about his product, and after I spoke to one of his company’s reference accounts, I could draw no other conclusion that this highly useful capability is being bought and sold as some kind of a one-size-fits-all short-cut to success. Ultimately, that always ends in disaster and I look forward to learning about client retention rates for the sales enablement providers in a year from now (and I am willing to take bets what they will look like so please contact me if you want in on the action!) I’ve always been in awe of and will forever be in awe of top sales performers.

Any true top performing sales person has to be offended by the very notion that their breadth of knowledge and skill can be replicated through a software application and companies that buy this premise are simply out of touch with the hard work and continuous effort required to reach, let alone maintain, top sales performer status. Sales enablement vendors lose credibility with me when they overstate what their useful technology can do. Again, rather than selling to help a (prospective) customer really succeed in their field, these suppliers are apparently intent on just posting another sale themselves.

Whenever I’ve challenged anyone from the sales enablement companies on this the typical response is “oh, you just don’t get it.” Well, the sad truth is as much as anyone, I do get it, always have! But rather than embracing the technology being offered I’m staying away for the reasons covered in my July 9th post: GET REAL! Undoubtedly, the calculator has been a CFO’s blessing--just as effective use of sales enablement capabilities can be a most useful tool for a sales person. Having worked with several excellent and not-so-excellent CFO’s in my career I am most confident the difference wasn’t found in the choice of calculator. The right professional with the right tool and the right commitment to her/his craft will always be a top performer and this is earned, never cloned. And if it were this easy, Cody Ransom would be in uniform for this weekend’s Yankee/Red Sox series.

Cultivating major league business talent requires more than natural gifts.

Prior to yesterday’s game the Yankees designated Cody Ransom for assignment. Now if I were writing a sports column, taking up space to report about dumping a journeyman player from a first place team that starts a critical 4 game series against their biggest rival would redefine absurd. But this isn’t a sports column and the 33 year old Cody Ransom who has spent the vast majority of his career as a minor leaguer is a relevant metaphorical business topic. I refer to Cody Ransom not as someone who has posted an anemic .233 lifetime major league batting average over 197 games played, but as Cody Ransom a truly phenomenal athlete….this Cody Ransom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqjUJJ86VV0

It’s easy to forget that even the most marginal professional ballplayer is a special athlete. To me it’s unfortunate that too many don’t recognize that cultivating major league business talent requires more than natural gifts.

Troubled economic conditions have a way of accelerating or shining a very bright spotlight on problems that had been there, but remained unaddressed during more favorable climates. These underlying issues were always there; all too often they were ignored or left unaddressed. As a result of my own professional focus I get to see this more than most, particularly the disastrous after-effects.

I’m more convinced than ever that the depths and dimensions of corporate volatility are created and solidified when conditions appear to be optimal. Rather than challenging the most gifted employees to continually improve, all too often, management makes excuses for their high-potential as well as their (apparently) high-performing employees.

In my opinion, instead of demanding excellence on all levels, most notably ethics and judgment, management—perhaps unintentionally— often fosters environments that encourage short-cuts and short-term action. As a result, knowledge and skill does not have the opportunity to become fully developed, especially at the levels required to excel in today’s more competitive and more educated, global economy.

It takes more than Cody Ransom’s awesome natural ability to make for a productive major league player just as it takes far more than having the right foundational components to develop an excellent business professional.

This past week I had two distinctly different and rather incredible experiences that compelled me to write about Cody Ransom getting cut by the Yankees and relating it in this highly generalized for business piece. My next two posts will speak to both these situations, each highly relevant to anyone in any business that intends to build sustainable high-performance organizations. Stay tuned.

Debunking and moving beyond the good old needs-based selling myth and more...

Everyone recognizes that growth is the best remedy for reversing sluggish performance, but I’m less certain enough business leaders really know how to inspire growth or exactly where their organizations might be lacking.

Continuing my “Fundamentals Rule” theme, I’d like to focus on sales excellence this week by summarizing a project I just concluded for a small business services company that has dramatically turned the growth corner by improving sales performance.

Because my sales strategies and tactics deviate from the convention, I’m used to the initial skepticism that always greets me in a new assignment! This latest project was no exception, but we were able to more rapidly transform the organization thanks to the commitment of the sales force and an executive team determined to fight for their company’s survival.

In less than 2 quarters they have gone from negative year-over-year growth to posting record sales months in June & July; the corporate pipeline shows August and September will shatter the prior month’s records!

Though there are several nuances explaining their great transformation I will focus on one aspect that typically causes the initial skepticism and because it is also a core point to creating these unsurpassed results: debunking and moving beyond needs-based selling.

At best, a sales force that “sells to the (prospective) customer’s needs” is selling to lagging indicators. By very definition, needs are determined by yesterday’s news--not nearly sharp enough or fast enough to truly solve a (prospective) customer’s compelling business issues! But in these turbulent economic times, a great majority of targeted customers (even at the most senior levels) have a difficult time figuring out where their business even stands in its competitive industry making it rather difficult to properly articulate needs.

Consequently, needs-based selling invariably leads the discussion to price and is a primary cause for commoditization. In practice, needs-based selling is purely a tactical exercise and as a process it is now so familiar to all that what should be a critical dialogue takes on a recognizable pattern between sales person and buying influence.

Fundamentally, needs-based selling is all wrong for today’s economy and in my view it’s the biggest culprit for poor sales performance.

I showed my client (as a company) how to replace the purely tactical lagging indicator needs-based selling with the more strategic, forward-looking method of selling to leading indicators.

This process focuses on the prospect’s current and anticipated business conditions. While it is collaborative and fully integrates all aspects of the prospect’s business, it forces the sales professional to take a leadership position.

My client’s sales force became so good at this so quickly they not only are growing a record clips they are also charging a premium for their services.

Working extremely hard and closely together, we also debunked a second myth: in recessions, customers will always buy on price.

My experience shows, and my client’s success further validates, organizations that create unrivaled value will always be in great demand--particularly when their targeted market needs help.

The last myth debunked (and one I hear all the time) is “you don’t know our sales force, they will never change the way they do things, we’ll try it and support it, but it’s tough to teach our old dogs new tricks.”

Respectfully, I find that an unfortunate number of senior management teams just don’t know their sales force and unwittingly institutionalize mediocrity by continually underestimating what can be achieved.

There was a time when the sales profession migrated from feature/function product-pitching to needs-based selling: the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. I don’t believe it’s coincidental that was also a period of great economic uncertainly and distress.

I preach what I practice and I am utterly convinced that companies must compel their sales forces to adopt a leading indicator style of selling.

My client did it so superbly that I’ve also achieved a primary project milestone: produce swift, significant & sustained results so they can carry on without me.

Congratulations Goldman Sachs (Employees)

Though I’m not the first in line to congratulate Goldman Sachs for their 2nd quarter earnings, I’m one of the loudest voices cheering them on because Goldman’s performance validates the principal business philosophies and convictions I write about in this space every week. And although I don’t want to appear callous or clueless about the need to effectively manage all stakeholders, it dawns on me that the great story about a great company’s great results is quickly turning into something ugly: compensation and bonus.

Clearly, Goldman’s employees identified and fixed problems in their business, recognized where they could grow to capitalize on current market conditions, set a course of action, and then superbly executed on their plans.

What’s not to like, what’s not to applaud, and what’s not to compensate?

Goldman is setting a standard, showing a way, superbly demonstrating that the right people doing the right job the right way will not simply overcome miserable economic conditions they will shine. This is production that deserves to be recognized and rewarded not tarnished by attention-seeking politicians or a battered public that has been rocked in every conceivable way the past year-and-a-half or so.

Goldman is an inspiration, a strong reinforcement that greatness is often defined by overcoming adversity and always measured by output. Handsomely compensating Goldman employees for their production should be the greatest encouragement for those who are struggling right now…something that should keep them going through these tough times because epic reversals of fortune can and do still happen.

Sure, Goldman benefited from government assistance, but isn't their ability to wisely use the monies they received, pay it back, and achieve as they have a “you couldn't have planned it any better” moment?

The people that made this happen each undoubtedly pushed themselves and made personal sacrifices to make Goldman Sachs’ 2nd quarter 2009 as stellar as it was. These people should be properly compensated for what they did and will likely continue to do.

Here’s one small measure of what I mean: each morning I commute into Grand Central Station on Metro North from CT on the 4:22. From there, it’s the 4 or 5 subway to Wall Street where my office is. There's a regular crowd on this early morning commute and, conservatively, I’d say at least 15% of the people I see every morning are carrying a Goldman Sachs emblazoned briefcase/laptop bag.

However Goldman Sachs decides to split 2nd quarter bonus money is their business and no matter how much gets doled out, their employees have at least earned every penny of it! It’s the proverbial ray of sunlight on this cloudy economic day and my best hope is that many more US companies will soon be faced with the same problems Goldman Sachs currently has: properly compensating their excellent staff for a job well done while motivating them to do even better going forward. Congratulations Goldman Sachs Employees--job well done.

Fundamentals Rule: Just GET REAL!

June’s unemployment figures are no less chilling for me a week after they were released as they were right before this nation celebrated Independence Day. I can’t think of a more important, complex, or daunting challenge than getting the country back to work…meaningful, productive, rewarding-on-all-levels employment that is best created by well-run companies.

Typically I solve business problems and introduce initiatives that create well-run organizations by focusing on the illness” rather than the symptoms. But I'll go against my own grain to briefly focus on what I believe to be the leading symptom creating today’s illnesses, in my view best captured in this CNBC news report: http://www.cnbc.com/id/31801817

Actually, the symptom can be found in the article’s opening 4 words, “Baseball legend Lenny Dykstra….” Baseball legend? Don’t get me wrong, Dykstra was a fine major league player who played on some of the more interesting teams in recent memory, but a career .285 hitter is no legend. It was only a few years ago that “Nails” Dykstra was hailed as the single greatest investment mind by the breathless media, but further inspection and longer-running results suggest this was all myth.

At minimum, creating jobs, building high-performance organizations, maintaining competitive edges all require hard work, great skill, real knowledge, and willingness to inspect-to-improve. However, the evidence shows too many would much prefer to skip past all this by finding some easy way with some short answers or slogans. Nationally, this is not “change you can believe in” but “delusions you can be scared by”.

To me, prematurely anointing Lenny Dykstra an investment savant or now branding him as a legendary player is in the same category as rating agencies rating their customers’ financial products, disclaimers where there used to be warranties, excuses where there used to be commitment, and much more. On several occasions I’ve reinforced my strong belief that fundamentals rule and of these the most basic as well as necessary is: get real.

Best to tell the Emperor he has no clothes before it's too late

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?

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.

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?