There is an old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.“ 2020 was a difficult year, surreal even. We were challenged in ways we never imagined. Without a doubt, we have been living in interesting times.
Suffering life challenges can be difficult, notwithstanding your financial situation. Issues of life and death are a primary example. The burden of many challenges, however, is relative to one’s financial situation. One’s ability to easily navigate adversity depends upon how you have structured your life and prepared for predictable challenges. Share on X The more resources available, the better you can weather a surprise. You can mollify a crisis or avail yourself of opportunities. Do you have enough physical and financial resources available if required? It is good to have options.
This past week I was confronted with a non-life-threatening situation which is, nevertheless, a disruption. I learned that my favorite ride, my Nissan 350 Z Roadster is kaput. It is a sad situation as it is a well-maintained, clean machine. The body is in excellent condition, with no dings or scratches, and new tires all around. I must admit, it was fun to drive, and it complemented my image.
The problem is the transmission. It requires repairs that cost more than the fair market value of the car. To be honest, this wasn’t a total surprise as it is a 2005 model, with 175,000 miles of drive time. Other components need to be replaced, as well, including a new AC compressor, and a motor for the retractable top. I am happy that I deferred those repairs. They would have been a total waste, throwing good money after bad. Even so, I expected to enjoy the Z a few more years. After all, as a two-car family, it was driven less than 11,000 miles per year.
If this had occurred earlier in my life it may have caused greater concern. Fortunately, I have flexibility and options. Neither my wife nor I must commute to a job requiring each of us to have a car. We are both entrepreneurs managing home-based businesses. That fact alone moderates the temporary loss of one car. Yes, we need transportation to meet with clients, vendors, and colleagues. However, as we control our schedules, we can work around that issue. We do not have children at home, especially teenagers who need transportation. If so, I would be a bit more stressed. Today, we have additional options such as Uber and Lyft. I can even contract a short-term car rental. Clearly, I have options to cope with the situation.
The loss of my Z is a minor inconvenience. We have a lifestyle that reduces our dependence on automobiles, and the resources to recover. It can be instructive, however, for businesses and families especially with the Covid-19 pandemic fresh in our minds. We have heard about companies hammered by the lock-down because their business models could not adapt. Conversely, other businesses were perfectly situated to thrive in the lock-down. Still, others adapted with minor adjustments. Understand, the pandemic and related mitigating factors were not a complete surprise. Prominent people had predicted that a pandemic was an imminent threat. Even so, I have not heard of a single company that took the warning seriously enough to develop contingency plans.
As you have deduced by now, this post is not about the loss of my Z. It is about the way we organize our personal and professional lives to cope with risk. Life’s challenges are unavoidable and come at you fast. Fortunately, most are predictable. Given recent experience, you may want to perform a risk assessment. Maybe even segregate risks by time frame, i.e., one to three years, three to five years, and over five years. Then, determine the actions required to minimize those risks and their associated costs. With that information, you can determine the funds to set aside. If the risk is insurable, you will know how much insurance to buy. At the end of this process, you will have the framework of a disaster recovery plan.
It is good to have options! I will miss my Z. Life goes on.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
Art and Bart were college buddies at the University of Georgia (Go Dawgs!). They both graduated from the school of Landscape Architecture and went on to work at various companies to gain experience and knowledge. In 2014, they each embarked on opening their own Landscaping business, Art on the Northside of Atlanta and Bart on the Southside of Atlanta. Each started slowly, but by the end of 2018, through hard work and talent, they had each established very successful businesses with the following financials at the end of 2018:
ART’S LANDSCAPING
BART’S LANDSCAPING
Revenue 2018
$4,800,000
$4,800,000
Number of customers 2018
500
500
Revenue per customer /month
$800
$800
net adds / churn per month*
0.5%
0.5%
At the beginning of 2019, a large landscaping company, Grass R Us, established 4 new franchises in the Atlanta area with a heavy advertising campaign and an initial price offering 10% lower than Art and Bart. This resulted in a change of net adds/churn to -2.75% per month. Through the end of June, Art and Bart had each lost about 75 customers and over $60,000.
Art felt confident that he knew his business and knew the market. He had anecdotal information from some of his crew that the lower prices offered by Grass R Us was the issue. So, as of July 1, Art lowered his prices across the board by 10%. This did have an immediate effect of decreasing net adds/churn to -1.5% per month. The overall result for Art’s business at the end of the year was a loss of about 114 customers and over $90,000. He wasn’t happy about the outcome, but by swiftly lowering his prices, Art believed he had averted a much larger hit on his business.
On the other side of town, Bart was faced with the same issue. But Bart remembered another old friend from UGA, Suzanne, who was in the Master of Marketing Research (MMR) Program. Suzanne was now working for a small research agency in Atlanta. Bart called Suzanne and asked her if she could help him with his problem. Suzanne designed a marketing research study for Bart to identify the core issues causing his customers to move to Grass R Us. Although the cost of the research was $30,000 and would take 6 weeks to complete, Bart felt that having good information would help him make a better decision.
The research was executed by Suzanne’s company, and the results indicated that the most important issue was NOT cost. Bart’s customers were satisfied with Bart’s service and pricing but were drawn to Grass R Us by fancy marketing and a highly promoted 100% guarantee. Bart decided, that, unlike his friend Art, he would not lower prices, but started to promote his own written 100% guarantee in September. Not only did the loss of customers stop, but net adds soared to +4.0% per month! By the end of the year, Bart had lost only about 32 customers and just over $25,000. Including the cost of the marketing research, Bart lost about $15,000 less than his buddy Art!
Projecting out to the next year, if everything remains equal, Art will continue to lose customers at a rate of about 5 per month and will lose an additional $50,000+. Bart, on the other hand, will gain about 20 customers per month and increase revenues over the year by over $200,000!
Although this is a hypothetical example, we are left with two important lessons. First, the cost of doing marketing research is justified by the savings in cost or increases in revenue experienced through better, data-based decisions. And second, whenever possible, hire a graduate of the UGA MMR program to lead your marketing research!
Carl Fusco
Carl Fusco is an accomplished Marketing Research Consultant who helps businesses more effectively solve problems by applying research techniques and data-based insights. For more information, email him at carl_fusco@yahoo.com or call him at 770-364-7160.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
“Truth is like the Sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t goin’ away.” Elvis Presley
Dr. Stephen H Dawson
Ah, the search for truth. I see the term truth as a singular term. There are parts of the truth we understand, but never all of the truth. If someone understood all truth, then they would be omniscient. We covered our understanding of truth last week when we considered the linear connection of worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue. Today, let’s talk about how to assess the folks who have applied to work in your organization to help accomplish the strategic planning work that you need to be accomplished by your organization.
I have encouraged during our time together that appropriate research be accomplished when considering all things. I shared research is part of how I have worked for years in a research-before-action mode. I provided examples of this belief. I cautioned against analysis paralysis. I described the differences between looking and reading. You now need to read through the applications submitted by the folks who want to come work for you. Let’s go through some of the facts you face, and see how you can best identify some qualified candidates.
ROLE CONSTRUCTION
The means to define a role in your organization begins with the job analysis. Work is performed to understand what each role needs to accomplish, how each role needs to accomplish the work, and the resources used by each role. The job analysis work is then finished and termed as the job analysis asset. A subset of the job analysis asset then forms the job definition asset. A subset of the job definition asset then forms the job announcement asset. A person is then sought to fill each role in your organization to do the job required by each role.
APPLICANT TRACKING
An applicant selected for consideration to fill a role you have in your organization is then called a candidate. The applicant tracking system is valuable for keeping track of applicant information. It alone is not valuable to evaluate applicants for their match to any role. A resume or CV can be padded with loads of terms, matched with a fake cover letter, only to waste much time. I have found no resume parsing technology worth using. The screening call must occur by telephone to know with any degree of certainty if a candidate is a potential match to a role. The screening could occur in person, but it has been my experience this screening step best occurs by telephone conversation. Meaningful applicant screening cannot occur until after the screening call when a qualified subject matter expert can speak with the candidate and find out how much truth resides in their application package.
Now, all of these laws, requirements, and guidelines can be averted with ease. Person A has a job to fill. Person B applies for the job to work for Person A. Person A tells Person C to read through the many social networking options available to accomplish research on Person B. Person C then tells Person A verbally what they found out about Person B.
This plan has been around for millenniums. It provides plausible deniability to Person A that they have not violated an employment discrimination law. This plan also introduces the possibility of improper research occurring along with the possibility of incorrect interpretation of either the proper or improper research. It also furthers the possibility Person B did not maintain the necessary confidentiality of Person A. The hassles here are not worth the risks. I do not endorse this plan. My linear connection of worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue would not consider this plan, but the plan is possible for anyone to perform.
THIRD-PARTY TESTING
The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator and the Strong Interest Inventory are workable options to help meet your needs to understand the personality held by each candidate. The ProfileXT assessment includes an assessment of candidate’s cognitive ability. A suitable personality assessment helps to understand a candidate, but personality testing alone is insufficient to understand the potential match between each role you need to be filled and each candidate’s ability to fill each role. This testing could be used in combination with other applicant evaluation methods. I am leery of using a third-party test alone to evaluate anyone or anything. I hold this concern because there are still too many gaps in the picture to get to the truth of an applicant’s ability to join my organization and do the work I need to be accomplished.
I look at the pile of job applications and wonder if it is possible to find a candidate suitable to meet my needs. I get tired from reading the applications. I get overwhelmed by the work I need to be accomplished by my people getting further behind. Sound familiar? I experienced this pain for years. I finally said enough to this way of working and decided to gain the help of someone who is qualified to meet my needs by paying them to fill a short-term role in my organization.
COUNSELED RESULTS INTERPRETATION
A podiatrist is someone who I do not need all of the time in my life. However, should I need work performed on my foot, then I want to talk to someone who knows how to help solve my foot problem. I also want someone qualified to work on my foot. Do you remember our discussion about heavy equipment operation? The same principles from that discussion hold true to your need for help to find suitable applicants to consider.
I do not see a straight line to finding a suitable applicant for any role in today’s world. There are too many changes occurring in global commerce, social, and political landscapes to plan for an organization to have any worker remain their entire work career with any organization. I cannot afford to endorse any candidate for a role unless I have credible research supporting my endorsement.
I do see the need for strategic foresight. I am both a scholar and practitioner of strategic foresight. Anyone can do some meaningful form of strategic foresight. Just ask a single mother who raised her kids to graduate from school, stay off alcohol and drugs, and stay out of jail. She is living proof strategic foresight can exist at all levels of society.
I do see the need for succession planning. I am both a scholar and practitioner of succession planning. Ask anyone who lived through the changes that occurred during 2020 to tell you their version of succession planning. This planning has a lot to do with contingency planning. Sometimes these planning efforts also benefit from the help of strategic foresight, should strategic foresight be accomplished before it was needed.
What you are trying to avoid is more problems coming to you. You cannot escape the truth your linear connection of worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue combination must have a suitable overlap with the linear connection of worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue combination held by everyone you bring into your organization. Furthermore, that overlap must also be suitable for those in your organization now to have the inclusion effect occur productively across the linear connection of worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue found in your organization’s culture. Remember, your organization includes any matrix-supplied folks involved in doing work with your people, your customers, your strategic partners, and your supply chain network.
What you are hoping for is the reality of truth helping you both find and select a suitable job applicant for each role you need to be filled in your organization. You are hoping one candidate will stand out among the rest, or at least find you have no appropriate candidates. Light helps with eliminating darkness, yes?
My recommendation to help you find some qualified candidates from the job applicants you have now is to evaluate their personality and worldview. This consideration will help to diversify your organization by walking out the linear connection of worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue held by everyone involved in working with each role you need to be filled by your selected job applicant. You are going to face their personality and worldview eventually. It is best to understand both of them during the assessment process.
You do not need a counselor to help you interpret the skills held by an applicant. The skills form a clear set of credentials. If applicant skills are not clear, then they are not qualified to become a candidate.
A match by personality to a role is realized by also matching skills and worldview. An espoused worldview is the most straightforward means I have found to understand more about a person. Their personality and skills may help me understand their worldview, but it is not a guarantee. Personality may be situational. Worldview is often continual. Skills are often temporal.
I urge keeping the screening call bound to a list of predefined questions prepared by you. This approach will help assure the person conducting the screening call does not attempt to interject an interview approach you do not approve of. It will also help assure all applicants are evaluated fairly.
If I were you, then I would select someone who can prove to me they can help me accomplish the candidate assessments and interpret the results of each assessment by their provable work history along with the education and certifications they hold. I would check their references. I would ask for examples of their already accomplished relevant work. I would also take their assessment of the first person they assess and run it by some other qualified professionals. I know the second person will want to do their own assessment, but it is worth an objective review by an objective person. If the second person refuses to interpret the first person’s work results, then I would not ask for any further help from the second person. I know my family doctor and podiatrist share their research and findings. So, other qualified professionals can do the same sharing of materials they are qualified to interpret.
I recommend you take time this week and consider how you desire to gain a deeper understanding of the personality and worldview of each applicant you are considering for each role you need to fill. The best means I have found to understand a person’s worldview is to ask them the following question: what is your worldview? I also recommend you select some third-party personality testing sources to use with your applicant after they pass their first interview with their potential boss.
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
Dr. Dawson has served in the technology, banking, and hospitality industries. He is a noted strategic planning visionary. His pursuit of music has been matched with his efforts to lead by service to followers. He holds the clear understanding a leader without followers is a person taking a long walk alone.
Stephen has lived his life in the eastern United States, visiting most of the United States and several countries. He is a graduate of the Regent University School of Business & Leadership. Contact him at service@shdawson.com.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
“We cannot become what we need to be by remaining what we are.” Max De Pree
Stephen H Dawson, DSL
There is only one person who matters when defining what must be done in any situation. That person is our self. The reality of our impact both now and tomorrow is the challenge of living what we believe by doing what we believe. This impact is the linear connection of worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue.
We are working to resolve your delay in accomplishing your strategic planning work by swapping out some folks in your organization. You have decided to become what you need to be by not remaining what you are now. You are completing your materials summary, your Love Action Items list, and scheduling the first meeting with your boss based on the plan we covered recently. Today, let’s cover what I, in both a dignified and proper manner, call…the stuff. The stuff is the linear combination of worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue. Think of them as indispensable blocks to build your life, your organization, your society, your country, and our world.
I held off discussing the stuff with you earlier, as I did not want to overwhelm you with too much to process at one time. You are growing as a healthy leader by going through the process we are working out together. We are not late discussing the stuff, as you are now working on completing your materials summary and your Love Action Items list. Now is the time to discuss the stuff, to help round out your writing and prepare it for your first stop: your boss reviewing your written forthcoming leadership plan.
I will not bore you with the background of the Greek philosophers who became famous from their perspectives on worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue. They did not invent the terms, they do not own the terms, but they did much to help people understand the terms. I appreciate their help in my learning these terms. Yet, we do not answer to them. We answer to reasoning that can withstand scrutiny.
Here is how I see the stuff: No one cares about what I care about in life unless they are willing to pay me for what I care about in life. Their payment to me can come through countless options. I urge you to adopt a similar perspective. I will now teach you all there is to learn about the stuff in less than five minutes, holding our shared understanding that it takes a lifetime for everyone to do the stuff to prove to our self’s we know our stuff.
WORLDVIEW
What a person believes. It is a singular term. It is the list of items a person believes. The listed items do not need to be defined clearly to the person believing them. There is no mandate to one’s self to prove what that person does by self-debate. Worldview defines the subset of truth to the person but does not define truth entirely. Share on XOne does only need to believe something for it to be a part of their worldview. Worldview is nothing more than what a person believes.
ETHICS
What a person does. It is a plural term. It is the list of items a person does. The listed items do need to be defined clearly to the person doing them. Each ethic is performed both consciously and purposely. There is a mandate to one’s self to prove what that person does by self-debate. Ethics are nothing more than what a person does.
MORALS
What a person must do based only on their worldview. Morality defines right and good. It is a plural term. It is the list of items a person must do as the subset of what they could do to fulfill their worldview. The listed items do need to be defined clearly to the person doing them. Each moral is performed both consciously and purposely. There is a mandate to one’s self to prove what that person does by self-debate. Morals are nothing more than what a person believes they must do.
VIRTUES
The items at the top of a person’s morality list. It is a plural term. It is the list of items a person must do as the prioritized subset of what they could do to fulfill their worldview. The listed items do need to be defined clearly to the person doing them. Each virtue is performed both consciously and purposely. There is a mandate to one’s self to prove what that person does by self-debate. Virtues are nothing more than what a person believes they must do before doing anything else.
Congratulations. You just mastered understanding the terms worldview, ethic, morality, and virtue. I hold the worldview more folks in this world should master what you just learned.
Please understand it is not my intent to trivialize these terms. It is my intent to keep them from causing you harm. You have been doing the stuff since the moment you took your first breath. You will continue to do the stuff until the moment you take your last breath. It is best, as with all doing, one knows what they are doing after a suitable period of learning occurs. We talked about this consideration when I asked if you wanted me to use heavy equipment before I learned how to operate the heavy equipment.
A common phrase in social and political circles today is moral responsibility. I struggle to find a meaningful definition of this phrase as a term, so I do not identify this phrase as a term. A moral can only be held between two people when they perform similar ethics based on their similar worldviews. What the verbal assailant is doing with this phrase is attacking your virtues, not your morality. It is a form of intellectual cowardice, as they refuse to learn the terminology they use in their statements.
I encourage you to remember the linear relationship between worldview, ethics, morality, and virtue the next time someone tries to push you around with their demand that you supply them your morality as they see fit. Think back to our discussion on power when you hear them place such a demand on you.
CONCLUSION
I know we covered some heavy topics this week. Fear not, for indisputable facts help strengthen your leadership ability. Take the stuff for what it is: your stuff. Remember, there is only one person who matters when defining what must be done in any situation. That person is our self.
I encourage you to spend time this week completing your materials summary, your Love Action Items list and schedule the first meeting with your boss based on the plan we covered recently. Also, consider how your followers speak and act in light of what you have now learned about the stuff. Finally, consider how much of an overlap there is between each follower’s worldview and your worldview by considering what they do…their ethics. We will look at their morality and their virtues during future discussions.
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
Dr. Dawson has served in the technology, banking, and hospitality industries. He is a noted strategic planning visionary. His pursuit of music has been matched with his efforts to lead by service to followers. He holds the clear understanding a leader without followers is a person taking a long walk alone.
Stephen has lived his life in the eastern United States, visiting most of the United States and several countries. He is a graduate of the Regent University School of Business & Leadership. Contact him at service@shdawson.com.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
Standing in the spotlight can be a scary experience. The focus is on the person or persons in the spotlight, while many others view using some form of judgment. Many people in the world today are prepared to attack anyone in any spotlight. It is becoming more and more popular to be nameless and faceless while seeking fame. This combination results from group thinking, not individual thinking, leading to group identity serving as individual identity. This combination is not only silly, but it is also impossible.
Leadership is achieved by people who lead. Group leadership is a flawed concept resulting in a toxic leadership style. It is flawed because the leader-follower relationship involves specific people following a specific person serving as their leader. Team leadership is a viable means to build an organization, either small or large. The definition of team leadership is not the same as the definition of group leadership. Furthermore, both the team and group leadership constructs eradicate the power of signing paychecks. The power is lost because people work for a mysterious team or group definition, not a boss in whatever form a boss exists in the organization structure even though wages are paid every pay cycle. Neither the team nor the group leadership condition forms the employer-employee relationship. Leadership is only successful when a productive leader-follower relationship is present.
We have been working on resolving the impediments suffering the accomplishment of your strategic planning. We concluded you have a people problem, not a worker skills or workspace problem. We have covered many topics preparing for the action item necessary to resolve your most significant impediment: your need to get different people assigned to the work. We talked about the definitions of love. We considered a concept for how to harness the energy supplied to you by love so you can combine the topics we have discussed to help you form a plan to evaluate the candidates you have as you consider offering them a role in your organization where they will help complete your strategic planning work. We acted last week to capture your action items for how you will deliver love to your followers in a table called the Love Action Items list. Today, we will review your work from last week and further prepare it to be understood by those who will report to you in the operation of your organization’s future structure.
YOUR BOSS
Your Love Action Items list requires the support of your boss to be enacted successfully. You require their support and approval for the following reasons. First, you report to them. They must know what you are doing to run your organization. Second, if you hold a similar worldview as the rest of the world that values reason, then you would do well to honor your boss by coming to them for their input, support, and approval of your efforts to run your organization. Third, their role can help provide you access to more resources to develop further your Love Action Items list than the resources you had access to when you built the list you hold in your hand now. Finally, they may shut down your entire effort to run your organization by way of your Love Action Items list.
It is probable your boss will ask how each HOW item matches the organization’s objectives to accomplish the organization’s goals in pursuit of its mission statement. Have a direct match connecting each HOW item to your organization’s objectives presentable in a flow diagram. The diagram can be as simple as boxes with connecting lines and arrowheads showing flow directions. A picture states a thousand words, so use your flow diagrams to your benefit.
It is doubtful your boss will be willing to step through the detail of the materials we have covered up to this point. You will need to summarize in writing the materials we have covered for them to understand better what you are bringing to them. They will most likely need to take some time to step through your materials summary and your Love Action Items list. The best-case scenario is they meet with you a few times to cover your materials summary and your Love Action Items list.
TEST IT OUT
Take your Love Action Items list and run it by some people who are not in your organization. Take it to people who will not share the Love Action Items list with anyone in your organization at this point. This anonymity empowers both you and them to be as transparent as possible in your discussions with them. I am not saying they must agree 100% with everything you have contained in your Love Action Items list. I am saying listen to their reasoning and modify your Love Action Items list by further development as appropriate.
If your Love Action Items list does not contain wording sufficient to satisfy all cognitive levels present in your organization, then you must wordsmith your Love Action Items list to the point all members of your organization can understand clearly the message of each HOW item, understand how each HOW item matches a specific love definition, and why they will benefit by doing the items on your Love Action Items list. The items are your words stating your leadership plan. This Love Action Items list is work you must accomplish without outside writing assistance. It is understood you will use outside editorial assistance to refine your Love Action Items list after you have written it as a draft.
You testing your Love Action Items list also involves discussing your list with your organization’s general counsel and then with your organization’s human resources after you complete discussions with your general counsel. This strategy assurances all codified requirements match the construct of your Love Action Items list by those who are qualified to make this interpretation. Then, your time with human resources assures their support both to you and to any follower of your leadership who feels they are not being treated fairly by the HOW items in your Love Action Items list.
My strategic partner David Daniels shared with me his input on dealing with the people problems at this point in the process. “Every organization has an IN group and an OUT group. NO company avoids this dynamic. Diverse input, can be sidetracked by those that are perceived to be in control. Share on XOften, when this attitude prevails, many employees feel isolated and not included. The result: you get the prevailing wisdom from those who already maintain the dominant position in your organization. This critical part in the strategic process gets derailed and the CEO loses the ability to surface great ideas that could move the company forward.” David went on to say, “Engaging the GC & HR lead is important, but they may be part of the IN group and will resist giving up their power and influence. The CEO needs an extremely competent Chief Diversity Officer who reports directly to the CEO. This person can identify the IN group to guide them to a much better place demonstrating how to include all relevant voices. Please remember, Diversity is far more than race, gender, sexual preference, etc.”
David and I agree on the central point of your role in your organization. You run your organization. You are seeking the input of the general counsel and human resources. You, after gaining their input, then must make the decision to run your organization.
LIGHT IT UP
You are now ready to take your Love Action Items list and write the job announcements for each role replacement you need to be filled to help accomplish your strategic planning work. Your efforts to this point will connect all of the materials we have covered with the focus of using love to energize the light to shine on these job announcements. Plan to post the job announcements in as many ways possible that are suitable for your organization’s privacy requirements.
It is then time to accomplish communications with your organization’s members of the changes you have decided to make. The communications must include you teaching your people the four definitions of love. It is best you do not accomplish these communications before posting the job announcements. You are the leader of the organization. You are acting appropriately to resolve some people problems in your organization that impair the accomplishment of your organization’s strategic planning. There is nothing about your people replacement decision needing the approval of your followers at this point.
The best-case scenario is anyone who does not want to follow your leadership by way of your Love Action Items list will complain about you as a person, not your leadership. This complaint is a misdirection effort to hide the fact they do not want to act in accordance with the items you have listed in your Love Action Items list. The good news here is you are now able to see clearly who no longer wants to follow your leadership, you see perhaps a bit more of why your strategic planning work is not progressing as you prefer, and you have the opportunity to discuss with the complainers why your Love Action Items list is written as it is for you to lead your organization.
If this discussion, not discussions, is not successful for the complainer to understand fully the future of the organization you lead, then the complaining follower will need to leave your organization. Your single discussion, combined with the well-written contents of your Love Action Items list and associated communication materials, serves as more than enough for any adult worker to understand how your organization will now operate. The time you spent with your boss, your general counsel, and human resources sharing the material we have covered and your work to develop your Love Action Items list will pay off for you immensely. You may be a bit rattled by either the person or persons who complain, but there is no place for either you or them to stand on the same ground anymore. You made the decision for how you both need and want to run your organization. It is now time for you to fulfill your leadership decision.
This review effort may take some time to accomplish. Do not be discouraged at the time and effort necessary to accomplish the review effort. We have other actions we need to accomplish before you start interviewing applicants, so we will be working in parallel with your review effort to achieve these actions as you wait for your reviewers to step through your materials summary, your Love Action Items list, and meet with you.
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
Dr. Dawson has served in the technology, banking, and hospitality industries. He is a noted strategic planning visionary. His pursuit of music has been matched with his efforts to lead by service to followers. He holds the clear understanding a leader without followers is a person taking a long walk alone.
Stephen has lived his life in the eastern United States, visiting most of the United States and several countries. He is a graduate of the Regent University School of Business & Leadership. Contact him at service@shdawson.com.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
In my last article, as part of my series on conducting “good” Marketing Research, I discussed the importance of asking the “Right” Questions, and some of the perils of not doing so.
In this article, I’m going to delve more deeply into the importance of choosing the “Right” people to include in your survey.
Since it is usually impossible (or impractical) to survey ALL of the people in a population, the critical issue in selecting the “Right” people is the sample design. When designing a sample for research, it is critical to watch for and avoid 5 types of errors.
Sampling Error – Sampling error is unavoidable. Whenever you take a sample of observations from a population to estimate that population, you will grapple with sampling error. The sample is never exactly the same as the entire population. However, the good news is that statistical theory provides a method to estimate and minimize the degree of sampling error.
Sampling error is affected primarily by the size of the sample drawn from the population. The larger the sample, the lower the sampling error. Designing an effective sample for a study is balancing the size of the sample with the budget you have for the study.
For example, a random sample of 400 from a large population will yield an estimated sampling error of +/- 4.8% at the 5% level of confidence. This means that you can be 95% sure that the data you generate from your survey will be within +/-4.8% of the population parameter. Of course, a sample of 500 would reduce the sampling error to +/-4.3%. Conversely, a sample of 300 would be less costly but would increase the sampling error to +/-5.6%. Considering sample error only, the sample size decision is based on your budget and your tolerance for error. Does a 0.5% reduction in sampling error justify the additional cost for a sample of 500? Can you accept a 0.8% increase in sampling error with a less costly sample of 300?
You also need to account for any sub-groups that you wish to analyze in your sample. A total sample size of 400 may be adequate for total sample analysis, but if you want to compare results by particular market segments, you may need to increase the total sample size to provide enough observations by segment.
The other four errors are referred to as Non-Sampling Errors. Unfortunately, these errors cannot be measured statistically, but they can be mitigated through careful sample design and selection.
Population Specification Error occurs when the population from which the sample is to be drawn does not match the objectives of the study. For example, I once managed a project to identify the key factors driving the purchase decision of a type of industrial equipment. We interviewed a sample of Purchasing Managers from our target industries who were thought to be the decision-makers for this category. But when we completed the study, the results were inconclusive. Price emerged as the only attribute that was perceived to be important. Further investigation revealed that while the final purchase decision was indeed made by a Purchasing Manager, it was the Plant Engineer who determined the specifications and vendors. The Purchasing Managers only negotiated prices and contract terms and executed the transaction. Repeating the study among Plant Engineers, the more relevant population, identified the key technical specifications that were driving the purchase decision.
Sample Frame Error is similar to Population Specification Error. However, instead of choosing the wrong population, you choose the wrong subgroup or groups from within the population. This error is commonly encountered when a survey is conducted without any quota controls. For example, very often women are more willing to answer consumer surveys than men. Without any controls, your data may be improperly skewed toward women. Setting a minimum quota for men in you sample plan can limit this error. Likewise, if a key constituency of your research is the Latino segment and your survey is programmed only in English, you will likely under-represent the Latino segment.
Self-Selection Error occurs because you can’t force people to answer your surveys; people have the option to respond or not. The results may become biased if those who do select to respond differ substantively from those who do not. This happens a lot in customer satisfaction surveys. People who tend to be dissatisfied are more likely to respond to such a survey to voice their complaints about poor service, introducing a negative bias to your results.
Non-Response Error occurs when there is a practical difference between people who respond and those who fail to respond to your survey. For example, if you are conducting a political poll and the members of one party generally refuse to participate in the survey, your results will be skewed to the opinions of only one party.
Self-selection and Non-response errors are extremely common in almost every type of marketing research. You can’t measure these errors and therefore don’t know the impact on the data you collect. There are ways that you can reduce the impact of these errors by encouraging a higher, more random participation rate by:
Offering incentives (cash, coupons, prize drawings, information) for completed interviews
Utilization of respondent panels made up of people who opt-in to surveys
Short, simple, neat, and clean survey design that encourages participation
A distinct and credible promise of confidentiality and anonymity
A clear description of the purpose of the survey and assurance that it is not a sales pitch
Follow-up with reminder invitations to non-responders
In summary, to interview the “Right” people:
Keep focused on the objectives of the research!
Make sure that you clearly know the identity of your target respondent
Optimize the size of your sample within your budget to minimize sampling error
Clearly identify the Population and Subgroups that define your target respondent
Mitigate self-selection and non-response biases by providing incentives, using opt-in panels, good survey planning, and survey design, assuring confidentiality and anonymity, clearly describing your purpose, and sending reminders
Look for the final installment in this series, Asking at the “Right” Time, next week.
For more on this and other Marketing Research topics, follow me on LinkedIn or reach out to me at carl_fusco@yahoo.com if I can help you in any way.
Carl Fusco
Carl Fusco is an accomplished Marketing Research Consultant who helps businesses more effectively solve problems by applying research techniques and data-based insights.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
I have what is called the tea-tip theory. This theory was established by me in 1985. It helps determine food server gratuity. The theory works as follows:
Keep my tea glass filled, and there will be a tip. Otherwise, the tip remains a theory and no reality.
This theory was formed based on my realization I must not have held the same belief system as the food servers of my past who were unable to understand my consuming a beverage during my meal is what I meant when I asked them to keep my tea glass filled during my meal. I did not want further misunderstandings to occur between seller and buyer by way of a foreign concept. So, I take action since then to assure there is no doubt present in how I ask to be served.
This theory helped lead me over the years to learning there is only one of me. Furthermore, there is only one of each person. We are each one-of-a-kind. Now, I am a big fan of uniformity. There are times when it is both fitting and necessary in life. Over the years, I have come to realize there does not have to be uniformity among all things with people to get what I want in life. So, living with my being a foreigner who lives with foreigners is fine with me. This acceptance is nice since this is the way it is for all of us one-of-a-kind creatures.
We have talked at length about your strategic planning work not being accomplished as you prefer. We know it is not a skills problem, nor is it a workspace problem. We know we have a people problem. We have looked at diversity along with inclusion in researching who you need to consider joining your organization to do your strategic planning work. We are not sold yet either some or all of the people doing the work now need to either stop doing the work or leave your organization. All we know for certain now is you need more people to join your organization as full members, not on loan by way of matrix-supplied labor.
Uniformity seems to be multiplying in the cultures of the world. I see it is driven by the Internet interconnecting us to each other through smartphones. We are forming into groups of binary viewpoints of right and wrong on almost every topic imaginable. It is a combination of groups with clear formations in ideologies and structures. These groups have those who consider themselves right by their members, while those who do not hold the same view are considered wrong. I addressed some of this topic last week and also recently. I am talking much more than global workers, immigration, and refugees. I am talking about our neighbor next door and our towns, regardless of their citizenship and work permit. I wonder if we can have a culture anywhere that does not harm one another based on the justification attempts for right and wrong. I am not sure this is possible much longer, as I am watching many in this world become quite angry and hedge on the edge of great violence.
WHO CARES?
Claudia Fontes’s work caught my eye with how she views the concept of foreigners. I have never met her, but her viewpoint resonates with me to encapsulate how this people problem you are facing can be resolved effectively by consideration of diversity and inclusion. The term foreigners seems to be used more and more as a pejorative. Meaning, it is bad to be a foreigner. You are looking for new people to join your organization so you can pay them to do work for you. Do you want them to feel any form of discrimination as they are a part of your organization? If not, then they must either be a good foreigner or not a foreigner at all. Allowing them to be harmed by either discrimination or as a pejorative target are examples of the evil I spoke of last week.
SO WHAT?
I doubt anyone today will have a job until they die. I hold this belief because of how fast technology is changing the world. You, as a leader, will also most likely need to change jobs at some point in your career. What if your culture’s political system changes to the point where you either decide you need to leave or are asked to leave? Dr. Yuri Andreyevich Zhivago went through this exact scenario. I encourage you to learn about his story if you have not already. It is a story of a nation about a century ago that decided they would discard many things about their nation to form a new culture based on force. This learning should also help prepare you for the discussion we need to have soon on the topic of love. Besides, a local person who feels like they have to obtain either a literal or metaphorical work permit to be a part of your organization is already feeling like a foreigner. Leave the difficulties of encouraging people to join your organization aside, but focus on the skills the candidates hold and how those skills match your organization’s needs.
David Daniels wrote an article about bias occurring during the hiring process. Dave shared recently with me, “Most companies today are using some form of an assessment in the selection process. How most are using this tool is often illegal but more importantly, fraught with potential bias.” Dave and I agree about requisite skills being present among organization members based on their role in the organization. Dave went on to say to me during our recent conversation about diversity and inclusion, “No D & I expert worth their salt would ever suggest hiring and/or promoting a person who is not the most qualified person for the position.” It is reasonable to say there are no viable means to know skill levels without conducting an objective measurement process.
WHAT IS NEXT?
Rebecca Knight shared all candidates are imperfect. I add all candidates are also foreigners. Getting comfortable with the fact there is no applicant having all you need for any role is a good move at this point. The best next move I recommend to you is understanding differentiation. The new member or members of your organization most likely will want to fit into the organization, but they are coming to help change the organization for the better. They may want to look the same as others, but they will not. They will stand out and be in the limelight for a good while. They will either be liked or disliked by your organization’s members. Positioning them for success means helping your existing organization members understand why the new members are needed. Then, you are able to begin the work of differentiating your strategic planning work to accomplish both new and more significant outcomes. It is at this point you are giving to your people what they are craving to receive from you: love.
Remember, our initial meeting started with you asking why your strategic planning work is not going as you prefer. The work of leading an organization successfully requires a servant’s mindset to be held by the leader. Leadership is not about achieving fame or fortune. Those outcomes may arrive after success in a leadership role, but doing the work of a leader day after day is what you are faced with now. This work never ends until the day arrives when you stop leading. Perhaps you should stop leading this organization where you cannot plan your strategy. I brought up this point for you to consider a few weeks back. Rest assured, the larger the role, the larger the work required to accomplish the role. The opportunity you have now to move people around in your organization is a key component of leading. Needing to move some people around is not a direct sign of failure. Not doing whatever it is you need to do both is and always will be a clear sign of leadership failure.
I encourage you to spend time this week working on more of your research to determine who you need to remove from your strategic planning work, what you need in terms of skills to do the remaining work, and see who you have for qualified candidates. Next week, we will begin the work to look at those candidates. Next week starts the part where most leaders quit on the servant part of leading. I will wait until next week to show you why this is the case.
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Dr. Stephen H. Dawson, DSL
Executive Strategy Consultant
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
Dr. Dawson has served in the technology, banking, and hospitality industries. He is a noted strategic planning visionary. His pursuit of music has been matched with his efforts to lead by service to followers. He holds the clear understanding a leader without followers is a person taking a long walk alone.
Stephen has lived his life in the eastern United States, visiting most of the United States and several countries. He is a graduate of the Regent University School of Business & Leadership. Contact him at service@shdawson.com.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
Business owners working on exit planning and maximizing the value of their company for sale often take a wrong turn. Litigation is a nightmare. When we work with owners to sell their companies and advise on the value-building process, we find they are sometimes destroying business value without realizing the extent of it.
We are human beings – we get into disputes. This is America – people sue people. If you have been through business litigation of any sort, you know it is not pretty. In the end, it’s rarely worth it. You may be in the right, there may be real damages or loss of money, and darn it, they should pay!
Certainly, there are situations in which you cannot avoid the dispute dragging on. It may be a substantial amount of damages or it may be a more complex situation tied to other potential liability. Often, however, the relentless, unending fighting – especially going all the way to court – can reduce the value of your company. If each year over a few years you are paying $100,000 in legal fees and your net income takes a hit of $100,000, the reduction in business value can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Revenue Decline: There is no question that you will be distracted by the process. Even with your attorneys handling much of the work, it will always be on your mind. Stress grows and you will have a less-than-100% focus on growing your business, exit planning, and building value for a sale. Revenue will suffer.
Bad Decisions: You will – consciously or subconsciously – adjust the decisions you make away from your best course of action because of the ongoing dispute and its implications.
Attorney Fees: They add up very quickly – quite possibly ending in more money than it would have taken to just pay the *$*&* and get it behind you to focus on value growth.
Brand Damage: The longer the fight continues, the more likely this will get out to hurt your brand and image, even if you are right!
36 to 53 percent of small businesses are sued in a given year.
So just forget it?? Well, sometimes, yes, as much as it pains you. Work with your attorney to make a fair offer, even go a little higher to get it settled! The investment can be worth it!
There are great attorneys who know that doing right by their client is to quickly come to an agreement. Make sure your attorney is not encouraging you to fight without considering all options, the financial implications, and the effect on business value. Consider the options, despite your frustration. You may be on the right side of the dispute but don’t reduce the value of your business any further.
Don’t let one of these issues delay or derail your exit planning, value-building, and the sale of your company. Resolving these issues quickly will help you maximize value and move through the business transaction process more smoothly and quickly.
Call if we can help you think through your specific situation. Always happy to have a conversation to provide some guidance on the business sale process, business value, exit planning or building value for sale.
David Shavzin, CMC, Exit Strategist
David Shavzin
Transactions, Value Growth, Exit Planning, Succession Planning
“War is a grim, cruel business, a business justified only as a means of sustaining the forces of good against those of evil.” Dwight Eisenhower
My maternal grandfather came over from Germany to the United States in 1926. He saw what was shaping up in Germany, concluded it was not good and decided it best he leave. He died when I was in grade school. I heard him often say, loudly, he was an American. I asked him how he knew things were going to go bad for Germany at such an early point in the events. He told me he saw people standing on others. This response is all he would share with me for his answer. I knew he was not talking about a cheering squad standing on shoulders. I liked him, but he was a stern man at times. He was nice to me. I miss him. I have learned over the years standing on others always goes bad. Standing on anyone is called oppression. A more accurate term for oppression is evil.
Dwight Eisenhower never served a day in combat. I am not sure how he rose to be the head of the effort to win World War II. Eisenhower worked for Douglas MacArthur about a decade earlier, but he ended up being MacArthur’s peer and boss even though Eisenhower was much junior in tenure to MacArthur. Life has no shortage of surprises when it comes to work promotions, demotions, and terminations. Eisenhower traveled across much of Europe after World War I to observe the terrain of the battles that occurred there. This first-hand information served him well in his role as leader. It seems to me he knew he would one day need this information gained by direct observation. It turned out to be part of his research for the strategic planning he did not know he would be forming in his near future. I wonder if he knew during his walks across the European terrain then how many people from such a diverse group would want to be included to help eradicate evil at Normandy.
We have found your effort to accomplish your strategic planning work is not going well for you. We determined you have a people problem causing your work not to be accomplished as you prefer. We are considering if this problem can be fixed and, if so, how to best fix it. You are looking to swap out some of your people by either changing their work assignments or having them leave your organization. You are looking for some new faces to do the work you need to be accomplished. Let’s see if working to keep evil out of your organization will help you find new faces to work for you.
EVIL
The definition of evil is simple: death. Evil always causes the result of death. There are times when death is welcome, necessary, even good. It is a matter of how each death occurs. I am saying evil is not good, and good is not evil. If I cause death to help my organization, then I am doing evil. Destruction is not death. I could raze a building to put up another building at the same site. If I harm anyone, then I hurt the organization I lead. This anyone list includes those who work for me, any matrix-supplied folks involved in doing work with my people, my customers, my strategic partners, and my supply chain network.
HOW MUCH HARM?
Anger is a prelude to violence. Violence is a prelude to conflict. Conflict is a prelude to war. I talked about abuse last week. It has been my experience strategic planning work that is behind schedule in any organization does not help form tranquil conditions in either those organizations or for anyone external to the organization who needs the strategic planning work accomplished. Tension among work relationships is often high when work is behind schedule, to the point of anger being more frequent among members of the organization. If these attributes are not the case, then the workers do not care about doing the work. The answer to resolving this condition is simple: get rid of those who do not care about doing their assigned work. They may pretend to care about their work, but what evidence do they provide to you to prove their assertion? They have contributed to the work delay by hiding their work values from you as their leader. They have enabled the conditions to happen in your organization. There is neither a viable reason nor means for them to continue to be a member of your organization. Reassignment is not an option. Their actions are an example of evil. It is best for the organization to end their membership, and do so promptly. Then, you have to consider how you let this happen in the first place.
THAT BAD?
If evil is bad, then how much bad do you want in your organization? Can you afford to have any form of evil occurring in your organization? How can you stop all evil? The answer is you cannot. What you can do is not allow it to continue once it is realized. I shared recently people conditions change, so they must be measured frequently. Frequently can be a matter of seconds.
The events of US Airways Flight 1549 ending up in the Hudson River show a good example of the work progress matter we are discussing. There was a clear plan: fly from New York to Charlotte. An in-flight accident occurred. The pilots landed the aircraft on the water where the aircraft would float. The flight crew then had the passengers disembark the aircraft by standing on the wings in an orchestrated manner. Boats arrived at the aircraft, taking the passengers onto their boats. Here is the key to the success of their collective efforts: no one panicked. The aircraft captain made it clear within seconds of landing what will happen next. If panic would have occurred, then it is probable at least one death would have occurred. It is also probable the aircraft would have sunk within seconds. I encourage you to watch the film Sully to gain a deeper understanding of these events.
How about you? How do you foresee you would have responded to these events as a passenger, as a member of the flight crew, or as captain of the aircraft? I will go out on a limb here and say I do not see evil occurred by either the flight crew or the passengers. I make this statement because I do not see evidence of it. I cannot imagine how anyone on that plane felt during that experience. I can say, for certain, a leader must be ready to handle such events in the minutia of their work. Planning, training, scenario concepts, and…here it comes…a strategy for what to do in your planning, training, and conceptualizing efforts. Meaning, you must live as a leader performing continuous strategy development to stay out of whatever conditions you define as bad.
David Daniels and I discussed the best practices of inclusion in the concept of diversity. Dave shared, “Tangible mission statements and values allow successful organizations to align diverse ideas while creating an environment that allows everyone to bring their best by inclusion. Inclusion, bringing the best out of everyone, is one of the critical strategic imperatives in any successful organization.” My experience with successful organizations shows those organizations determine how to achieve inclusion well before they face difficult circumstances. They overcome the difficulties by having their people placed in roles that suit them well, thereby structuring the organization to be focused on the same mission by living what they value.
CODA
I am averse to conflict. I am no longer into violence. I, for many years now, would much rather walk away from being ill-treated than to respond with like-kind behavior. Having made these statements, I both have fought and will fight tooth-and-nail to defend those who I love. I will define the term love to you in a forthcoming column. I speak in both the literal and metaphorical for the term fight. I would rather suffer harm defending them than have them suffer harm. I am fortunate I have only had a few life-threatening events in my life. I hope you never have one in your life.
You as a leader are asking your people to trust you in many ways with each second you serve them as their leader. I have no interest in risking either harm or experiencing any form of evil if I can avoid it. Any leader I chose to follow must have a good reason as to why they would need to subject me to harm in my followership of them. I will not, repeat…will not…allow any leader to expose me to any form of evil by their choice, whether their choice is planned or unplanned. The point here is their choice. We, they as my leader and I as their follower may face evil on the journey we are taking together. It is then a matter of what we allow to continue.
How about you? What are you asking your people to do for you? What conditions are you asking them to experience as they do whatever it is you have asked them to do for you? How much productive work output do you expect your people to accomplish as they work either with or in any form of evil you allow to exist in your organization? What is the quality level estimate you foresee for the work output your people deliver to you while working either with or in any form of evil you allow to exist in your organization?
Read the letter from Eisenhower to his people dated June 1944 to see if you have the same level of commitment to your followers. Then, decide for yourself if Eisenhower was serious about his commitment to his people. Then, read the radio announcement from Roosevelt to the United States to decide for yourself if Eisenhower had the support he needed to execute the planned strategy. Finally, read the note Eisenhower wrote to Roosevelt a few hours before the execution of the planned strategy. “If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.” These words are evidence of a leader.
If you view your job where you serve as a leader as too small to come close to the colossal events experienced by Eisenhower, then you would not be alone. I suspect your followers view your role as their leader as quite important to them. Lead them by serving them as their leader, holding the scale of your leadership work to give it the respect it is due. Then, see how fast things improve for your strategic planning efforts.
Please spend time this week watching the Sully film to see how Chesley Burnett “Sully” Sullenberger III, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and you line up in your work today as a leader. Think about the present status of your strategy work effort. If the result of evil is always death, then what form of evil do you see in the midst of your organization?
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Dr. Stephen H. Dawson, DSL
Executive Strategy Consultant
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
Dr. Dawson has served in the technology, banking, and hospitality industries. He is a noted strategic planning visionary. His pursuit of music has been matched with his efforts to lead by service to followers. He holds the clear understanding a leader without followers is a person taking a long walk alone.
Stephen has lived his life in the eastern United States, visiting most of the United States and several countries. He is a graduate of the Regent University School of Business & Leadership. Contact him at service@shdawson.com.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
I was being recruited in 1994 by a big-name record label out of Nashville to serve as bandleader for an up-and-coming country music guy. The deal terms proposed to me were pretty good, but I did not feel good about the deal in my gut. I passed on the work for one reason: they had not heard me play a note. They knew of my education and experience credentials but did not know too much about me as a person.
I recommended last week a short film for you to watch. I hope you watched it. We were going to talk about how your viewing experience of this short film went for you during our time together this week. The part about the whole person we covered last week is key to both this week and all things going forward. We will discuss the concept of inclusion as we meet now to go through how you felt during your viewing experience of the short film.
INCLUSION
I, for lack of a better way to say it, was in the band of this up-and-coming country music guy in 1994 without accepting the offer. My customer was going to be out in a sea of lights. They would be nameless and faceless to me. I would be paid bi-weekly if two things occurred. First, the new material we were going to record into an album sold where the record company was happy with album sales. Second, concert tickets supporting music material the guy had going on before me and supporting the pending record album sold. I would be replaced in an instant if both of these conditions were not happening consistently. I was okay with this criteria combination, as it is the nature of the work. Not everyone sees it this way. The album Centerfield is the third solo studio album by John Fogerty. Fogerty played all the instruments on this album himself. I guess John did not want to have the collective risk of some people problems anymore at that point in his career.
The identified people problem suffering your ability to have strategic planning work accomplished was compacted into a few minutes during the Most film. The older main character realized the problem, considered it, and acted on it. He had to act, one way or the other. He acted under duress imposed on him from the circumstances, not any person or persons. All options presented to him hurt him. It hurt me to watch the film. It is probable resolving your people problem is going to cause you some hurt, one way or the other.
The definition of inclusion is simple: included. Included, in the form of being…in. The degree of in is another topic. The fairness of being in or out is another topic. All I am saying to you now is a person who is included in your organization is in your organization, period.
A recent discussion with David Daniels had Dave sharing more of his wisdom with me. “Inclusion as part of the D & I equation revolves around people feeling like their voice is heard while leadership supports this concept because they believe it produces better solutions, thus better results, both financially and with higher commitment levels of employees i.e. the ability to attract the best of the best in their industry.” I agreed with Dave. I see people providing their input as many rivers coming together in a pool to feed a tree. The tree, in this example, is the work the people need to accomplish. It is tough to remain distinct when mixed, but this condition is similar to a cake. Add the ingredients, mix them, bake them, and there are no more ingredients. There is cake. Altering ingredient amounts and types means a different tasting cake. A structural approach to strategic planning for the who part and when they get involved part helps to accomplish a preferred result.
HOW MUCH IN?
Remember I wrote a few paragraphs back my customer would be out in a sea of lights? Well, those people were to be a part of my organization. I needed them to be happy by spending their money for me to keep my band leader job. I was not sure I could deliver the collective satisfaction the folks in that sea of light were after, as the big-name record company out of Nashville had not heard me play a note. There had to be a stronger connection to know if we would make it to success by a probability calculation.
Your strategy work is not getting accomplished as you prefer. We pushed off the option it is not a time or skills problem causing the work delay. It would be best if you now changed who you include doing your strategy work. This change does not mean they need to leave your organization; only stop doing this work. If you realize they do not have the skills to do the work, then you have a separate set of staffing actions to accomplish. Additionally, you have to take a hard look at if they should have done the work based on the time allotted to them to do the work combined with the workspace resources where they perform their work. Again, as I said a few weeks back, you have to call it for what it is.
Thelonious Monk made a strong point without saying it. One must first be in the band before one can lead the band. Franklin Roosevelt made the same point: “You are either with us or against us.” Today, we are faced with how to best recover from the 2020 global pandemic. It is clear the definition of work for many roles has changed forever. So, who is in your band, so to speak, for your organization going forward?
Richard Florida and Adam Ozimek addressed some of the challenges with remote work going forward. “Before the pandemic, a number of communities developed strategic initiatives to attract newcomers—some aimed at high-tech workers but others open to anyone who commits to moving. Many include the lure of cash incentives, akin to the moving expenses paid by companies to new hires.” This criterion is no longer valid for many industries and companies. “To lure and support the growing ranks of remote workers, communities will need to build out more complete ecosystems for them to live, work and gather.” Meaning, the ability to do remote work effectively as a whole person has changed the workforce forever by establishing suburban life a primary regardless of distance from the office to home locations.
Nataly Kelly wrote about the complexities of having inclusiveness in a global organization. “While it might not be immediately obvious why an employee in Tokyo should learn about the history of slavery in the United States, if we want our global teams to work together, they need to understand one another’s realities.” Going deeper, the concept of data is still not managed well at the executive level. Data, in the form of understanding the facts for how we as humanity got to where we stand today.
Thomas Davenport and Randy Bean found in their survey executives are excited about implementing artificial intelligence in their organizations, but they do not have reliable data leadership skills and leaders based on “nascent and evolving” leadership roles. “The executives are usually pretty bullish about technology but quite bearish regarding whether their organizations are becoming more data-driven.” The survey shows the role of data officer at the executive level is not agreed on by a high majority of executives.
The pattern playing out is clear. The leadership’s proverbial music is not making the audience (the organization) happy enough for them to want to keep listening. The organization cannot understand how data, being facts, interrelates because the leadership does not have a strong enough grasp on the data lifecycle concept themselves. Bad data, either incorrect or insufficient, feeds into both inaccurate and ineffective data analysis. This combination destroys efforts such as the planning of strategy.
REFRAIN TO CHORUS
My work as a bandleader was to play acoustic guitar, sing harmony, arrange much of the music after songwriters derived a melody, set the performance tempo, and develop musicianship in the band members. It is not easy to hide during a live performance of music. Strumming the guitar only goes so far, as we say in the guitar business. One must play the guitar, in my case, with the other musicians to have a band. Add in the singing aspect, and the sound is either is or is not pleasant to the paying customer. Your role now as a leader is to use a refrain to help get your people either to or back to productivity.
You could swap guitars, swap guitar amplifiers, move the musicians to a different location on the stage, or any number of changes to help improve the sound of a band. Say you needed to pick out a chair for you to sit down in for whatever reason. You could pick from many different seating options to meet your need. If you need strategic planning work accomplished, you will need to keep making changes to find the mix that results in productive work output. You are looking for, as an analogy, both applause and continued funding from your audience for your strategic planning work. There is a time constraint to almost everything. The older main character in the Most film was under an explicit time constraint. Staying focused on the scope of the strategy you are trying to plan is a viable means to knowing if you are either spending too much time getting the work accomplished or if you are indeed not getting work accomplished.
I used the words of James Taylor to help me walk out most of my musical journey. “I believe musicians have a duty, a responsibility to reach out, to share your love or pain with others.” The older main character in the Most film made the same choice as Taylor: sharing love or pain with others. Both this older main character and Taylor are leaders in their respective lots of life. Leading is not easy, but I never said it was easy.
Take time this week and consider the topic of who you need and want to include in your organization. Think about the associated time constraints, the money constraints, and the pains of having people come and go either moving around or out of your organization. The world population reached 7.8 billion people as of March 2020. There is no shortage of people for anything. Clearly, you cannot pick everyone in the world because you do not have enough money to pay everyone in the world. Besides, you would get so big along the way you would be identified as violating antitrust. Selecting irrevocable choices…this is the harsh reality of accomplishing strategic planning. Perhaps playing some music you like to hear during your consideration time will help you go through this thinking easier.
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Dr. Stephen H. Dawson, DSL
Executive Strategy Consultant
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
There is an old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.“ 2020 was a difficult year, surreal even. We were challenged in ways we never imagined. Without a doubt, we have been living in interesting times.
Marketing Research is Simple…
Business owners working on exit planning and maximizing the value of their company for sale often take a wrong turn. Litigation is a nightmare. When we work with owners to sell their companies and advise on the value-building process, we find they are sometimes destroying business value without realizing the extent of it.
