Archives For June 2012

If you’ve been following LDRLB for even the smallest amount of time, you’ll know that we love research. We’re all about injecting a little evidence-based practice in leadership, innovation and strategy. However, not everyone shares our love for the empirical. I suspect one of the primary reasons is that most research is quantitative…it’s thick with numbers. For this reason I was excited to check out Randall Bolten’s book Painting With Numbers: Presenting Financials and Other Numbers So People Will Understand. Bolten’s thesis is that presenting numbers is just another communication skill, alongside writing and speaking. I’m not sure if I agree with that taxonomy, but I do agree that the skill set needed to present numbers in clear language can be learned.

In Painting With Numbers, you’ll find a wealth of information on just how to learn that skill. Bolten shares rules and best practices to create clear and meaningful numerical presentations. He lays out the three levels of mastery needed for quantation – his newly coined word for the act of presenting numbers. Bolten even covers how to present numbers inside common computer programs such as PowerPoint (or Keynote) and Excel (or Numbers).

Overall, Painting With Numbers offers a needed perspective on the quantitative. It’s not about how to better understand numbers (although you will), it’s about how to better present them to others. For those who share the mission of LDRLB, those who want to amplify the empirical, Painting With Numbers is a great place to start.

The Hustle Strategy

John Bell —  June 27, 2012

I’ve read a lot of books on strategy. The best ones influenced my mode of operation as an executive of Jacobs Suchard, the maker of coffee and chocolate brands, JacobsNabobTobleroneSuchard and Côte d’Or. I was devoted to master strategies and “big play” innovations that ideally positioned a company to dominate their chosen market(s) and enjoy sustainable competitive advantage. The philosophy begins with a mindset obsessed with the competition. It worked well for me in my 17 years at Jacobs Suchard, although I am the first to admit that we managed just two blockbuster strategic innovations over that time period – both were technical in nature, and thankfully, both were well-marketed. In hingsight, two big, game-changing plays was a damn good record.

Big plays are the stories business journalists love to write about. In today’s world, AppleGoogle andFacebook are the poster boys of transformational innovation. But, should every company be striving for this type of strategic advantage? Not necessarily. At the other end of the transformational spectrum are firms that have made the conscious decision not to fuss over competitive rivalry. They set their sights on another perfectly good strategy – the strategy of hustle. In short, they get things done by concentrating on the operational details and operating within a quick and nimble modus operandi. The “get it done” strategy can be effective in a vast number of industries.

Successful private label manufacturers have been operating this way for years. Mother Parker’s Tea & Coffee is a premier North American private label manufacturer. This company is content to let the “branded” players develop new products, new forms of packaging, and new manufacturing processes: they’re not bashful about replicating advancements to ensure their customers aren’t disadvantaged. In cases where ”get it done” companies such as Mother Parker’s do unleash innovations in systems, processes, products or services, the innovations seldom qualify as transformational innovations. The innovations are incremental, and often easily copied. No big deal.

Hustle is a strategy that delivers superior results to thousands of retailers, restaurants, and service companies. I can’t think of a better example than California-based In-N-Out Burger. Unlike so many other fast food restaurants, this one has earned the word “fast” within its category nomenclature. Hustle companies obsessively work at reducing costs and improving products and service. They don’t use their precious time to strategically hypothesize or intellectualize. They map a course of action and just do it. From top to bottom, everyone knows the rules of the game. Even recruiting is affected by the strategy; guess who they hire? People who hustle.

This is not to say these companies lack vision. Make no mistake; visions needn’t be so narrow that they are repressive. They are broad enough that employees who thrive on hustle are given the scope to seek new opportunities. When all is said and done, regardless of whether a company is a master strategist or a proponent of the hustle mindset, superior execution is critical. In the case of the “get it done” companies, superior execution is imbedded into a culture that thrills customers and shareholders.

Think Before You Plan

Max McKeown —  June 25, 2012

[This is a guest post from Max McKeown. Max is a consultant, researcher and writer focused on innovation and strategy. The following is excerpted from his new release The Strategy Book.]

Strategy is about out-thinking your competition.  It’s about vision first and planning second. That’s why it’s so important that you think before you plan. And that the thinking part of what you do is given a priority. Strategists who don’t take time to think are just planners.

Mark Zuckerberg, while at Harvard, built a web site called Facemash ‘for fun’. He built it over the weekend. He built it without permission. It allowed visitors to choose who was ‘hotter’ from photos of two males or two females. It was a copy of an already existing idea. And it was shut down. He decided to build something better and launched Facebook from his dorm room. Thinking came first – what fun stuff could be done – then the planning. Even today, Facebook believe that ‘done is better than perfect’. And that’s how strategic thinking works best.

Unfortunately, if you start the planning before thinking, you can end up with the wrong solution to the right problem. Or perhaps the right solution to the wrong problem. Or the least imaginative solution to a really important problem. You might miss out on all the creative ways you could have grabbed the very biggest opportunities.  Your objective should be to make sure that imaginative, open, playful, passionate thinking happens before the serious work of planning begins. Your objective should be to stay as open as possible before you get down to the realistic business of planning. You’ll find that it’s just as easy to plan something amazing as it is to plan something obvious.

Strategy is about the shortest route between means and ends. It’s either about out-thinking the competition – or – even better – about finding new, even greater opportunities. Opportunities the competition hasn’t found yet. Or opportunities the competition doesn’t understand because it has done the kind of thinking that you have.  This is the kind of thinking that The Strategy Book encourages you to develop.

There are lots of reasons that organisations don’t think before they plan.  The most important given is probably the lack of time. People say they are so busy planning, organising, doing and coping with problems that they don’t have time for thinking. Thinking is a luxury they wish they had but don’t have. Some people feel thinking is an unnecessary luxury. For action oriented individuals, it may seem obvious what they should be doing. The more pressing questions are how efficiently they can organise the work and how effectively they can get people to do the work.

Successful organizations try to have a healthy balance between thinking, planning, and doing. They spend time learning from what it has done before and how well it’s plans have led to the results that they intended.  They also just explore their world without specific plans in mind. It’s worth asking a few questions: How much time have you invested in thinking about strategy? How many options have you considered before the plan was written? How have you ensure that the thinking behind the plan is challenged? How much time do you spend exploring trends, possibilities, and cool stuff?  How much time is spent playing with ideas, hopes, and dreams?

0306 | Max McKeown

David Burkus —  June 22, 2012

Max McKeown is a a new breed of business guru. He works consultant, researcher and writer focused on innovation and strategy. He is the author of two recently published books: The Strategy Book andAdaptability. In this interview, we discuss both books and why the best strategy for the future might just be adaptability.

Play

Going Off The Rails

Guest —  June 20, 2012
This is a guest post from Betty Bailey, Ph.D from Reliant. LDRLB has partnered with Relient to offer a FREE Leadership Development Assessment to our readership. To take the assessment, click here.

On any given day we can pick up a newspaper, read an email or listen to news about what leaders are doing well or not so well. It seems that we hear more about leader’s missteps than successes. Lately, countries, companies, and currencies have fallen based on a lack of strong and constructive leadership. We’ve seen leaders derailing too often.

As leadership became important with the earliest formation of countries and companies, so it is today. Business groups cannot succeed without leaders. That’s why we pay attention to what leaders are doing. Leaders make a difference in our lives.

The Globe Project, a group of scientists from 62 countries, defined leadership as: “…the ability of an individual to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (House, 2004).

But what makes the person able to influence, to motivate and to mobilize others? “It appears that neither traits nor situational attributes alone are sufficient to explain leader behavior and effectiveness.  It is the interaction between traits and situations that counts” (Hackman and Wageman, 2007).” In addition to this interaction, the outcomes a leader produces makes a difference. Constructive traits, situations that play to a leader’s strengths and positive outcomes are the Trifecta of leadership.

The Leaders We Most Want to Follow

To better understand different types of leaders, a model of leadership is illustrated in the diagram below. It shows three types of leadership and is a spectrum ranging from great leadership to toxic leadership.

Consider those leaders we would call great, those we think are absent or Teflon-like, and toxic leaders we would run from and choose not to follow.

Great leaders are the ones that we flock to. These are leaders who set superordinate goals, which we aspire to achieve and who we know we can trust because they are predictable and stable. These leaders are likely the ones who reach out and connect with us. They show that they value our opinion and career because they ask about our aspirations, our goals, they listen and support us. In business, they promote situations where we collectively strive to come up with new ideas to innovate, where customers know they are valued, customer’s needs are met and their problems solved.  Their greatness is evident by the outcomes produced; followers are very engaged and will promote the organization with successful results (Best Companies Group, 2011).

Great leaders tend to produce results which have a long shelf life.  Their followers are very loyal, are confident in the leader and a spirit of joint cooperation toward goals is evident.  These leaders may change a culture and produce change written about in history books. We can think of Gandhi, Jefferson, and Steve Jobs when we think of greatness. They are leaders known for seizing the moment, who not only see situations clearly but have a vision of the future.  Their outcomes are transcendent across generations.

Absentee leaders tend to be laissez faire and are like Teflon. They tend not to stick out their necks or face a tough situation unless they have too.  They are Teflon because they brush off decisions rather than make them. The absentee leader often hides behind a shut door, avoids tough choices and doesn’t ruffle feathers. They chose not to “seize the moment” or accurately perceive situations where they could make a difference. They tend to lack focus, lack ability to build common goals and build an espirit de corps.  You know you have one of these leaders when someone asks about them and the response is, “They are ok, they leave me alone”. If people are competent this type of leader is not necessarily a subtractor from their performance, but an absentee leader will not gather a large group of followers. Their followers will be fickle, not have the unity to build great products, processes, communities or countries. They often derail because they lose talent and don’t produce results.

Toxic leaders are ones who can bring down an organization or a country and are predictable for their negative qualities.

A leader on this spectrum may garner followers, but the question should be posed, to what ends? Lipman-Blumen (2005) views toxic leaders as:

  • Ones who do more harm than good to followers
  • Violate basic human rights of their own supporters
  • Feed illusions to their followers that play on the followers fears and needs
  • Mislead followers with lies
  • Stifle criticism of themselves
  • Engage in unethical, illegal and criminal acts
  • Cling to power
  • Scapegoat others
  • Ignore or promote incompetence, cronyism and corruption

Some examples (Bass, 2004) of toxic leaders are those full of narcissism, one unfortunate, but all too common, executive flaw. Chainsaw Al Dunlap was known to say he could cure any dying business. He tried to cure Sunbeam when he was appointed the CEO in 1996. He laid off 60% of the workforce. Next he blamed his predecessors for not laying off people before he did and then he ran the company into bankruptcy.

When reflecting on the Arab Spring, ongoing world crisis and rebellions we’ve seen many leaders who are toxic leaders, narcissists, abusive and corrupt.  Ironically, these leaders can mobilize a significantly large group of followers who are large enough to be armies that can overrun cities and countries. The extreme negative nature of a toxic leader will lead to their derailment.

Leadership Derailers

Many consultants and consulting firms have written about derailers. The word derailer even evokes a powerful and destructive image, that of a train coming off the tracks. When it’s moving fast the damage can be immense in the loss of life or property. The word, when associated with leadership, connotes a leader whose career has come off “the tracks”. According to the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) a derailer is not solely a weakness. Rather a derailer must be improved if a leader can realize their potential. A leader with significant derailers will impact the effectiveness of an organization and their relationship with followers. Some noted derailers from CCL include:

  • Inability to change or adapt during a transition or to a new boss
  • Poor interpersonal relationships with characteristics of:  insensitivity, manipulation, being critical, self-isolating, demanding, authoritarian, aloof,
  • Failure to build and lead a team, staff the team, poor team leader skills, lack of team performance (think of leaders who fail to produce)
  • Failure to meet business objectives; ( think of the many leaders who didn’t make their numbers)

Development Dimensions International (DDI) list of derailers include being: impulsive, arrogant, micromanaging, self-promoting, volatile, defensive, lack of self awareness and social awareness, defensive and suspicious. Some of these words associated with derailers bring to mind an explosive or unstable leader while others bring the image of a leader who is “asleep at the switch”.

These leaders don’t bring a constructive approach to a situation. They are flawed in their traits and can’t keep followers or sustain progress to have outcomes that are noteworthy. We can surmise that leaders with significant derailers are ones who have difficulty having the social awareness, personal traits and ability to “read the situation” so they can choose to adjust quickly enough to create strong business outcomes and to maintain their followers over time.

If a leader is toxic or has significant derailers’ ongoing success as a leader, is not possible.

As Forest Gump’s mother said, “Life is a box of chocolates; you never know what you will get”. Our world is influenced by the leaders in our lives. If we choose to follow a leader, a great or even constructive one, we are happy with the chocolate we picked. When the leader turns on us, then the chocolate can quickly become bitter. Therein lies the intrigue about leaders and why they are so important to us.