Which mistake are you more comfortable with?

We often have great leadership and management choices these days. We research the options, calculate the potential returns, try to understand the downstream implications to each decision, identify the risks associated with each and then . . . we have to decide:

What's the best decision to make?

Here's a little tool that often works for me.

While I'm looking at what's most likely to succeed or sometimes even which option is more likely to get executed, I find that no real certainty emerges. In many of these day-to-day decisions I ask the following question:

If both of these are a mistake, which mistake am I more comfortable with?

In other words, and not to be pessimistic, but if this turns into a failure or a mistake, which would I be most comfortable with?

For me, if I'm going to lose in a situation, I would like to do it on my own terms. Sometimes that's about minimizing human damage, sometimes its about cultural pain and sometimes its about just wanting to aim high. But in any case, if there is a problem I know I have to stand up and take whatever fallout there may be (most times the winners have plenty of people with deserved credit; but the buck stops with me on the losers).

So given that I'm playing for big wins knowing sometimes the alternative will happen and I'll need to shine the light directly on myself, then I'll choose the option which I will feel best about failing at.

Sure I probably need more therapy and know that this isn't for all decisions, but sometimes the math dictates that the potential realities of a decision must be faced before the eventual outcome. When I choose using this basis, I find that I can be more aggressive, I am more at peace and I am much less concerned about things not working out.

There are few people, managers or otherwise, who are more impactful on their situations, than those people who are not afraid to fail. This may help with that.

The Leader Can Make All the Difference

"I rode him like he was a good horse." Calvin Borel

In the 2009 Kentucky Derby, Mine That Bird, a horse that had lost 31 of his last 32 races and left the gate as a 50 to 1 bet, won one of the longest shot, most dramatic races in Derby history. Mine That Bird was a distant last on the back stretch and not even in contact with the pack. And he wins by 5+ lengths . . . going away. In short, there was no expert who expected this performance and most had not even studied the horse due to his track record. When jockey Calvin Borel was asked about his ride that day he said, "I rode him like he was a good horse."

I've had the privilege to come into two different organizations to organize, reorganize or run their marketing / business development groups. Each time I've been given a warning that some of the individuals on the team would probably need to be let go. And each time, I've seen people, who were formerly unappreciated and whose capabilities were questioned, raise their game to a new level and become highly valued players.

For myself, earlier in my career, I can remember my performance and development being dramatically impacted by leaders and managers who believed in me and just as importantly, provided me with a role that, with their guidance, I could win in.

Just as in the Derby example above, one needs a leader who knows how to win, who has an approach that has been tested and who understands how to handle the various talents provided to him or her.

I've seen leaders who's teams were about the leader's success. Those team's success is dependant on the brilliance of the leaders. Not being brilliant myself, I've always thought success was dependant on the cumulative talents of the team, aligned and directed in a manner that played to their strengths and protected individuals from their weaknesses. That seems to work rather well.

So I'm curious:
What are your expectations for your team?
What are your expectations for each individual?
How do you train them to win?
Does each individual understand what is critical for them to do in order to win?

Cause the math of this is simple: Followers are only as good as their leaders allow/train them to be.

Strategy: The Cost of Great Decisions

Leadership and organizations have to understand the cost of getting to a decision and the organization's ability to execute those decisions.

On the one hand sit decisions that determine the strategic direction. These are inherently costly and time consuming. As they should be.

However once the strategic decisions are determined, every other decision should be about getting execution done which follows the strategy. And the cost associated with making those and the time those decisions take up should be minimized. In fact the determinating factor should be can those decisions be executed appropriately and how fast?

Once a strategy is determined: a decision that is 70% right/accurate/special that gets executed beats a 100% right decision that doesn't . . . every time.

Key Measurement of Strategy is Ability to Say No

Everyone claims they have a strategy.

One of the best ways for testing any person's or company's strategy is the organization's ability to say 'no' to opportunities.

Strategy should inherently focus an organization's resources and investments. And by definition, a strategy then limits what can be invested in.

So next time you are considering a strategy, ask yourself and your partners, what does this eliminate? If if doesn't eliminate much, then its pretty useless.

The arithmetic here is where there aren't easy and enforceable "no's", there won't be great "yes's" and will limit returns for the strategy.

Leadership vs. Representation

Leadership facilitates people moving forward.

Representation, at best, manages to the lowest common denominator or at worst, represents only the people who put him/her in position.

Leadership accepts the hard realities and shows a way through those, most times through their own actions.

Representation practices 'ole' management'. A tough reality comes to them and they pass it on to the next person down the line without providing any assistance at all. " . . . travels down hill"

Leadership believes that his/her highest calling is to enable the success of those who look to him/her.

Representation views their team's role as ensuring his/her well-being and success.

Often Leadership is unaware of its value because they concentrate on building the value of others.

Representation mostly sees their own value and anything that might build or threaten it.

Leadership builds an enduring path for its shareholders and team members.

Representation builds a path for itself.

Leadership is about others.

Representation is ultimately about itself.

What is real innovation?

Sometimes innovation seems kind of a beauty thing . . .in the eye of the beholder.

But more and more, I appreciate the innovation which helps us do and accomplish what we've set out to accomplish.

I hear of tactics and technology which redefine what individuals and organizations can do. But sadly most times, no one asks why we should ?

What makes an idea or innovation worth pursuing?

For organizations without clearly defined business strategy, its almost impossible to wrestle the myriad of wonderful innovations that come its way. Politics (loudest voice) and copying competitors can become the decision making norm.

Once again this is why doing the hard work of making a clear decision on what a firm's strategy (does this word even communicate anything anymore?), business model, culture, mission, goal is so critical.

We can accomplish great things, but not if we are spending the bulk of our time trying to accomplish objectives not consistent with the above or doing lesser things which eat inordinate resources and contribute below the highest rate of return that shareholders deserve.

Generally speaking, meaningful innovation returns inordinate returns to the shareholders and do so without violating the strengths and business model of the organization.

Have you communicated it 3 times yet?

If the work of marketing and business development centers around building and evolving relationships, both within the organization and outside (and it certainly does); then arguably the most important skill to hone is an understanding of communications.

For many who grew up focusing on advertising or sales, the numbers and the effect of those communication numbers are drilled into you (frequency, reach, sales calls, conversion, etc). However it seems many of these principles are getting lost.

Possbly the most important one revolves around understanding what it takes for a message to be heard and possibly understood.

What was drilled into me as a young marketing professional was that the research showed that messages must be sent a minimum of 3 times to expect anyone to hear it. And that the optimum number of communications was 6 to 9 times.

In other words, if its important,
> noone hears it before you've said it 3 times
> one should expect for people to have heard your message once you have communicated it 6 times and that
> there was probably less real value to communicating it more than 9 times. If it hadn't been understood or acted upon at that point, it probably wouldn't be.

So if you believe your communication's responsibility stops with sending an email or a white paper or because you left a message or gave a speech, you are extremely naive. Or maybe what you have to say just isn't very important.

So here's the arithmetic: if you are communicating something which requires perception and/or possible action and you haven't communicated your message a mimimum of three times, you shouldn't expect anything from anyone. Follow this rule and your life (both professionally and personally) will make a whole lot more sense . . .and you may become be a great communicator.

Avoiding the Flavor of the Month Club in Marketing Technology

I had the thrill of watching the consulting arm of Ernst & Young at the end of the 90's. They printed money working with the leading companies in the world around primarily putting in technology solutions to operational or system challenges.

However E&Y was always clear about what determined whether their technology solution would return value to the client: the technology had to be tied into an established business process. In fact a part of some assignments would include working with the client to develop or evolve a relavent business process which would require the technology solution in order to acheive the value goal.

Within law firms, this rule is rarely considered or understood. Its why CRM is a pipe dream in most environments and CRM software implementation is a vain exercise.

The question always has to be asked first? What established business proces is this supporting? For instance, if a firm isn't currently comfortable sharing its information with one another and there aren't truly functional cross-practice Industry Groups and/or Client Teams, what is the point of a CRM tool? Well, for many firms so far the point is to have a powerful mail list program.

The 'build it and they will come' orientation to organization evolution mostly fails. It only works when people are looking for a way or place to do something that they don't currently possess or their current way is broken. Better mousetraps are always more expensive and often miss the mark of the user's or purchaser's needs.

So as we are thinking about impacting our organization by investing the shareholder's monies in new marketing technology, we base our investments on how the organization is currently moving into the marketplace.

Otherwise the arithmetic on initiatives not conncected to current business process is that you have just bought into the flavor of the month club. These are usually good ideas that have no place to connect or grow within the organization. And they will not generate the value you desire.

Letting Ideas Die

Sometimes it seems that the bane of my professional existence are the all the new ideas that come my way. Hundreds and hundreds, all well intentioned, all sincerely expressed, and the vast majority expected to make a significant contribution.
The reality is something quite different.

For many of us serving people in professional services, our most significant challenges often revolve around communicating with smart people with limited experience in marketing and/or business development. And the process around that relationship often entails one of those professionals becoming intersted in or at least wanting to discuss ideas or problems which in no way coorelate to their established strategy or tactics. And the vast majority of these ideas become another rabbit being chased.

So what do we do? For me and my team it comes down to three things:
> Sponsorship: Is there an attorney/partner who will sponsor and head up the idea. Marketing will team with them, but we don't do execution that is not headed by an partner champion. No event, RFP, marketing technology tool, etc gets started without a partner champion.
> Budget: Is there committed funding for the idea? No money, no activity.

If the idea passes these tests and its still a problem, I encourage you to get out of the way of it and let it get executed ASAP or die a natural death. . .and often they will.

Accept the arithmetic: If the bad idea has sponsorship and budget, then get it done quickly and move on or you watch it die. And there's always a possibility that you are wrong and it needed to get done. It happens.

Win or Lose on Your Own Terms

Please note that I previously submitted this as a guest blog at Eric Fletcher's Marketing Brain Fodder blog (http://marketingbrainfodder.blogspot.com/). Eric has taught me the ropes in blogging and in social media, although is not responsible for my lame efforts. See what you think:

As servants of an organization and the leadership of that organization, we often find ourselves within a reactive mode of management and execution. Short periods of that are understandable, but overtime the value we provide is eroded and our personal energy often diminishes dramatically.

So each of us must take a careful look at our own organization and make some decisions and accept some arithemetic. What are its strengths/weaknesses, our own personal capabilities, our role, the organization's expectations and our relationships within the organization? From that information and in order to be professionally authentic, you have to make two decisions:

1. You have to choose what (strategy, targets, relationships, etc) is most important and focus your best self there.

2. With apologies to Gene Krantz, failure is an option in business and usually not a career ender. (In fact, most of us have needed failure to learn great lessons and go on to better things.) There's always a chance things will explode and you will lose. You have to choose on what basis you can be fine with losing. This decision will allow you to focus your energies more efficiently and not act/react like a spineless functionary.

Let me give you some of mine:

1. What is most important:

Growing my firm's Industry Group and Client Team revenue (note: this is separate from our Practice Groups and is consistent with our firm strategy.)
Supporting my team: individually and collectively. I'm responsible for helping them grow professionally and being a success.
Provide ideas, solutions and execution which further our firm's leadership's plan.
We don't do any project, RFP, idea, event, etc without preapproved funding and an attorney champion on each. Even if we think it’s the right thing to do. (My work must be subject to the interest, will and approval of my shareholders. If that's not enough for me, I cease being a servant of the organization.)
2. On what basis am I comfortable losing:

I can't please everyone. So I respond the best I can to the above priorities knowing it won't satisfy some people.
They decide they don't like me or I'm not a good fit. If true, this would be for the best.
I didn't play the politics correctly. I play the politics based on the priorities above. If that doesn't work, we let the chips fall.
Nothing sacred or holy about this list; just a place to stand and operate from. Make yours make sense for who you are and where your organization is.