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.

Can Trust Transform Your Business?

I recently participated in a webinar run by Stephen Covey around the impact that Trust can have internally and externally in your business. He paints a compelling picture with his examples.

One involves a coffee and muffin vendor who doubles his business by setting out a change basket (with his own money in it) at the end of his counter. He had noticed that he was losing customers due to the long lines in the morning which were primarily caused by the slow payment process (taking money / giving change). So he put out the change basket, took / fulfilled the orders and allowed his customers to make their on change. He handled twice the number of transactions and his customers appreciated the trust he had given them.

But yesteray I actually heard another example of this dynamic on NPR. In a incredibly poor section of a city in India (3 square miles hold 500,000 people), the local CocaCola bottler was working through ways to increase their sales (whether you think this is appropriate or now, watch what happens). Traditionally, the Coke vendors stored the drinks behind the counter and required all customers to order them personally. One of the local sales guys convinces some of the Coke vendors to put a cooler outside the front door of their establishment allowing all customers access to review their options and pick their own drink. As in the example above, sales of drinks have doubled (10 fold in one case), transforming many of these vendor's business success. Their customers tell them that they are proud that they can be trusted.

Frankly I think most of us find this idea of trust with our clients to be revolutionary. And certainly scary.

I remember when some companies figured out they could give a money-back guarentee without risking much at all; and yes, most of us now know that there is no real benefit to us as customers. Its a huge hassle to deal with any vendor whose product doesn't work properly; never mind the cost of the product.

But that's not what is being offered here: these examples are saying that the business trusts the customer to protect the business's income if the customer gets appropriate trust upfront.

There's the pinch: many really don't trust their clients enough to allow the clients to determine what services should be provided (we often think we know better what our clients need), how they should be delivered (it might require our organizations/practices to change or evolve) and what compensation is deserved.

But its really worse that that: we really don't want to transform our business relationships, we just want to get paid more for being historically relevant. And for most, we will only consider change once we are in so much pain that we have no choice (ergo the 'burning platform' scenario).

OK, so read those two examples above and give yourself a moment to wonder if there is a scenario where trusting your clients could provide you with such a distinctive relationship that your clients would think differently about themselves and the business relationship because of the way you treat them . . .from the very start. Some very interesting math indeed (yeah I said indeed).

The Success of Strategy: It Isn't What You Think

The key to success continues to be a subject of wonderment to me. I study and observe over and over again the number of times great minds move in a direction with great conviction only to discover that they got lucky. It's as if moving with conviction makes you much more likely to get lucky . . . if you are smart enough to adjust.

I always enjoy talking with successful people about how they got where they are. And the most frequent response is that 'it was an accident' or 'there really was not any overarching plan' or 'the phone rang and I picked it up'. The serendipities of success seem to be the rule, however the fact remains that these people were looking for success and determined to find it. It's just that the path moved a bit.


Two examples:

Recently reading William Manchester's The World Lit Only By Fire, Manchester discusses how the great Spanish and English explorers found a new world while attempting to find a sea route to the east. Their ambition was to replace the land-based commercial routes (which produced a dozen different hands touching, charging and moving the goods) for a sea route with lower pricing and more predictable business relationships. In the end, the big win was finding a entirely new source of business, land and wealth. Ironically the Portuguese were more successful in attaining the sea route to the east (note: in fact they discover Brazil when one of their ships gets lost in an extreme storm rounding the Cape of Good Hope; sounds a bit far fetched, but that's the story), but in the long run lost the opportunity to redefine their and our world.

The second, more recent, example involves the founders of Microsoft and its genesis. One story has it that Bill Gates et al saw their future in the developing of software for computers. Certainly this viewpoint and its wisdom is unquestionable. However the critical moment, say some business historians, came when IBM needed an operating system for their new line of computers and the Microsoft guys bought one they had used in the past. They licensed it to IBM, thereby funding Microsoft's dreams. Gates was going after one thing; it drove him to seek something else which in the end enabled him to do exactly what he wanted. But let's be clear, the Microsoft kingdom was built on the success of the licensing of an operating system, not the fun, neat software they were building. There were and have been plenty of developers of fun, neat software who never made it out of their garage. The operating system license was the key to the success.

So what's the arithmetic here? Well, it seems that moving with conviction and even daring, gives one a chance to be successful; however having the ability to adjust as opportunities evolve along the way becomes even more a predictor.

Leadership Helps Their People Win

Although most of us get hired by companies, we excel by organizing, training and guiding teams of people. And those people follow us . . .personally. We lead and they follow.

These last two years forced many of us to evaluate tough, and in some cases, terrible, decisions in order to preserve and ensure the health of these companies.

However, our success is still dependent on the performance of these people, these teams . . .personally. Companies don't really perform, people do. We may need to measure a company and even make decisions about company strategy, tactics and resourcing, but things happen exclusively because a person makes it happen.

So as executives we move through 2010, watching warily the ebb and flow of our market and the demand of our clients. But in the end our leadership and certainly our company is most measuarable not by what we have done for our company, but how our people have won. If they don't win, our company doesn't win. And then it gets, or it should, get very personal for us as leaders.

Here's the math: this is not war and we are not Generals. Our call is to be servant leaders to people who are depending on us to show them the way to the professional life they want. It can be a strange path, but there is no doubt of the expectations for where that path should lead.

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.

Best Opportunity to Build Loyalty Occurs Around Problems

Interviewing a large key client a few years ago I ask him why they had become so loyal to our company.

Without hesitation he started, "Well you guys were handling a very important matter for us and it wasn't going well. I approached (the relationship partner) and let him know that I was displeased and that something had to be done. (The relationship partner) made the decision to replace one of your senior partners handling the matter with someone else. And the change worked and the matter's result was highly appreicated by us. In effect (the relationship partner) showed us that our relationship took first priority over any politics within your firm. From that time on we knew we would be taken care of and that we were partners with your firm."

I've seen this played out time and time again. When things get tough, we each have the opportunity to show what we are made of and develop a relationship with clients and teammates which speaks louder than all the good times.

The math says that Loyalty can be more a function of trust based on how we deal with problems than all the dinners and the wins . . .that client service is shown best in tough moments.

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.