THERE REALLY IS NOT A CONE OF SILENCE

Do you remember the Cone of Silence from the 1960's spy spoof Get Smart? The idea behind this transparent sound-proof "Cone" was that once it was lowered, hovering over the individuals immersed in secret conversations  others (particularly members of Kaos) would not be able to hear what was being said.  This "cone" was fictional, and in fact didn't work most of the time,  yet somehow in this era many people talking in public places  seem to believe that their conversation is somehow private. This is particularly the case with cell phones.

Today I was in a lobby waiting for a colleague of mine and there was only me, the receptionist and a woman present. Well the latter, takes out her cell phone and places a call and then gets into intimate details about what seemingly is the split from her husband...how she told her daughter that this man, the girl's father, was a jerk and a miserable piece of work and that it is good that she wasn't seeing him. She also relayed in detail the arguments, how she was going to take him for everything he was worth and so on. This conversation went on for over 5 minutes, as I was standing there listening to every word.

This conversation made me feel uncomfortable, but I had no choice to listen to every painful word. I didn't know this woman, but she doesn't know if for some reason I did, or perhaps I'll meet her at some event and so on. She doesn't know if her husband (or I'm assuming soon to be ex-husband) had sent some person to listen in on her conversation, to determine her strategy or whatever. But beyond that, this is really personal stuff, that I shouldn't be expected to listen to.

I find the lack of etiquette with  electronic devices appalling, both in business and when in a social setting. If you are having a meeting with me, stop checking your PDA. I would like to believe that the discussion we are having is important enough to warrant your full attention. And please, don't answer your phone (always with an apology of course...Oh sorry, I need to take this). We seem to have devolved into an ADD (attention deficit disorder) society...we can't focus on any one thing more than a few minutes

But whether on an electronic device, or just having a business discussion in a public place, like a restaurant, be aware of your surroundings. You don't know who may be near you who might have a vested interest in what you are discussing. And when on your laptop on an airplane or at a Starbucks working on a presentation or reading a confidential document, don't assume that whoever is near you isn't taking the opportunity to glance at your work. I have seen more business presentations that I should never have on an airplane, as the person next to me was working. I know you are saying "why are you looking?" Well, because it's there and who knows what I might learn. Am I supposed to sit just ramrod straight because someone else isn't being prudent? Should I carry ear plugs, so I can't hear certain conversations?

This will sound odd, but I got some of my best business intelligence from the smokers in my teams because when they were out having smoke breaks, it was amazing what people would be discussing. I never encouraged any of my smokers to quit, because the information they brought back was golden.

So remember, just like in Get Smart, the Cone of Silence doesn't really work, and I really don't want to know that much about you or your business. So wait until you are in your car, in your office or somewhere alone, because you never know who might be listening.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WEREN'T AFRAID?

What would you do if you weren't afraid is my favourite quote from the Who Moved My Cheese book, written by Spencer Johnson. For me this speaks to the unwillingness of many to change, not because they don't know it is time to initiate a change in either their personal or professional life, but because they are afraid.

Let's face it...change is difficult. As Anatole France famously said: All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another. 

Perhaps a little dramatic but it is true. I like change, always have, but even I go through a bit of a grieving process when the change is finally upon me. However, I prefer to move forward as opposed  to being stuck in the today.

This week, I met with two former employees and their stories couldn't be more different. One had just been told that his job was being eliminated at the end of the year, and the other whom I met  the next day had, after 8 years at the firm where I hired him into, accepted a role with a different company. Both of them were comfortable where they were, but the former waited until things happened to him, whilst the latter took fate into his own hands and found a new role. 

And surprisingly the gentleman who is starting a new job on December 10 is about a decade older than the one who will shortly be out of work.

So what makes people stay, beyond what I guess I'll call a natural expiry date? Comfort and fear of the unknown. Every person who I know or who I have encountered, who have been relieved of their duties, didn't quite like the environment or work anymore, but stayed because, well I guess it's "the devil you know." Even though they were no longer passionate about their work, they stayed, and well, then the "fates" as it were caught up to them.

You spend more of your waking hours at work than you do at home, so if you think you should settle for comfortable, I say really? Aren't you just dying by inches if you aren't getting charged up every day you go to work, knowing you have a great culture, a great group of people you are working with, you are making a positive difference and you are having fun? 

I need passion in my life -- doesn't matter if it is professional or personal. Just settling is not in my nature. It has resulted in me making many difficult choices in my life, but I made them before a) they were made for me; or b) before I settled into a "good enough" mindset.

So back to my tale of two former employees. I know the one who is losing his job, will find another within the next six months. I also know that when he does, he is going to think back and say why didn't I do this sooner. Because this is the story that I've heard over and over and over again from many. And the other? Well, good for him, willing to take a chance on change in his mid-fifties!

Don't let things happen to you, make them happen. And ask yourself, What would you do if you weren't afraid!

GOING OFF THE COUPON GRID

There is an old adage "once bitten, twice shy." And quite honestly I wish I was a one-trial learner. Most often I am, but in the case of these coupon sites, not so much.

There is a proliferation of these coupon companies lately -- Groupon, WagJag, TeamBuy, Living Social, and the list goes on and on and on. I have now had three instances (yes, I wasn't even a two trial learner) whereby I have either not been able to claim the service or the quality of the product was so poor, that you could have bought it in a dollar store for less.

Furthermore, once you've spent the money, the coupon company owns it. There are no refunds, nor even much of an apology for not getting what was advertised. They just say well, we'll give you a "credit" which you can use on a further purchase. What happened to me once, was with the credit, I bought something else and then couldn't get that service either. 

So why is this happening? I don't know what the business model is between the coupon companies and the service providers, but it must be a tragic loss leader for the latter (of course the product providers which sell the dollar store products -- they must be making a mint). They think they can drum up business, but offering these two for one, or 75% off deals and then they find that they can't support the volumes of buys on their deal. Why wouldn't the providers put limits on the number of "deals" available? My guess is that the coupon companies don't allow it because remember, you never get your money back. Furthermore, they've already taken a commission off the top of the provider who is now unable to provide, and so when you take this credit to another supplier, well the coupon companies get more commission...and so on and so on.

I know the local providers of services are thinking well, this might be a loss leader, but I'm going to get repeat business, so it's worth it. There has been research though that people who are motivated by price are always going to be motivated by price, so when you look to have them come back at the regular fees, well, they've already gone on to the next "like" company, which is offering the next great deal. 

And what happens if you end up being inundated with requests that you can't fulfill?Well, firstly, you've now taken a hit to your reputation, because no one like a company who promises and doesn't deliver. Secondarily, you may actually lose business, because you can't service your regular clientele.

And don't get me started on the substandard products that are being offered, that were probably made in somebody's garage in China!

So I'm going off the coupon grid. I'll stay with the providers that I know will deliver, and deliver quality, when I want it.

Thrice bitten, never to return..oh, except of course to use up that stupid credit.

EXCUSES MASQUERADING AS REASONS -- YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

What is it about some people (many people), from every walk of life, that makes them want to portray themselves as "victims of circumstance"? It doesn't matter what role they play -- could be politician, colleague, friend, family member, etc. they keep on making excuses, trying to rationalize their choices and trying to make it look like they didn't have a choice at all? 

Let's first differentiate between reasons and excuses. 

Reasons are rational explanations given for thinking in a particular way or for doing a particular activity. They are basically logical justifications in accordance with some motive.

Excuses excuses are an attempt to convince oneself or others about the difficulties involved when a promise is not kept or there is lack of progress, or simply, when something is not done.

Or as it's been said "An excuse is a skin of a reason stuffed with a lie"

I guess I started this rant the other day when watching a slice of the US political debates, watching excuses and sometimes reasons making their way to the forefront. A lot more of the former than the latter I must say. And I'm not taking sides here, each side of the political spectrum is equally guilty. 

It's Ok to outline reasons -- reasons mean you are taking responsibility, but excuses usually start with something like "I'm sorry, but....(fill in the blank)"

Everyday we make hundreds of choices. Your day starts with a choice as to when you wake up.

If you are late to a meeting saying "Sorry, I got hung up on a call", or "My last meeting went late", well that isn't good enough. You made a conscious choice not to advise those on that call or those at this last meeting that you had another commitment you needed to attend to. Own it, don't excuse it. With you coming late to the meeting you are disrespecting your colleagues and their time commitments (and I've usually found that these latecomers start with something like "What did I miss?" Arrrghhhh)  And shame on you if you are the boss. What you are saying is that your staff's time isn't as important as yours and guess what it is!

Or what about the people, who all of a sudden find themselves tossed out of a job, haven't bothered to keep up their network and reach out only because they need something? (LinkedIn makes this really prevalent these days) Bad idea! Usually you hear the excuse of "Yeah, I know I should have connected with you three years ago, but life ran away, and I got so busy, so sorry about that. So can you help me out now?" 

OK, so let me get this. Because you were busy for a few years, and now you need something and aren't "busy" anymore, I should drop everything and help you to achieve whatever you need because I of course don't have a life and should be available for you now? And then you can ignore me again for whatever length of time after you get back on track?

My response to this? Karma is a bitch.

I hear a lot of people complain about their jobs....a lot! So why do they stay in the jobs? Why don't they take action to start the process of looking elsewhere? "I just don't have the time because they are working me so hard", or "Well, not right now, maybe it will get better." And if it doesn't? Blah, blah, blah.

You can choose to be a victim or a victor. I don't like victims. I don't like whining. I like action. If you don't like your life, whatever it is, then change it. Start looking for another job, another home, another  (fill in the blank).  "Proactiveness"  is  highly underrated in out society. Too many people sit back and wait for things to happen to them, as opposed to making things happen. Of course if the former happens they can bitch, moan and whine (BMW). If they took action, well, they couldn't make excuses anymore...nor complain. 

I could go on and on about this topic. I guess lately I've just been inundated with too much of these excuses and it has gotten in my craw. 

I will leave you with one of the best moments in political history when the issue of choice and excuse came up. It was the John Turner, Brian Mulroney debate in 1984. I was never a big fan of Mulroney, but he shone in this moment in the debate (and inevitably went on the win the election and obliterate the Liberals). John Turner had made some patronage appointments which he excused by saying that he had no "option" because they were already somewhat in play by the former prime minister when he took over the PM role. Mulroney's response?

"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir — to say 'no' — and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."

Ask yourself, how many choices do you make each day, and how many of them do you try to then whitewash as an excuse masquerading as a reason

NO FIFTY SHADES WHEN IT COMES TO ETHICAL DECISIONS

 One of the most popular books in the stratosphere right now is Fifty Shades of Grey. I picked it up because I thought that this book was going to be about ethical dilemmas, as opposed to what it turned out to be! 

Yet, regardless of my need to read book reviews in the future (prior to buying), the title intrigued me from an ethical perspective, because so many believe that there are at least fifty shades of grey when it comes to decisions that they may believe are not necessarily a choice between "black" or "white" .

I have written extensively on ethics, over the years --in this blog (Conflict of Interest - What is it?, If it looks bad in a headline, don't do it, OOOps, I didn't know, and other unacceptable excuses) as well as for some magazines. And although the "right" decision may not be as clear as a neon sign pulsating in front of you, your instinct, or "gut", will usually be guiding you in the proper direction. There are no fifty shades wherein the decision becomes a moral pretzel. My experience has been that  when someone argues about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a direction it is usually around fear of the ramifications to themselves (ego-driven).

Right now in Toronto we have a mayor (this is purposely lower case, because he doesn't deserve to be referred to with capitalization) is arguing that  because he didn't read the conflict of interest guidelines, (read story here) he is not culpable for having broken the rules. Huh?

Where is his responsibility as a leader (again not capitalized) to ensure not only that he is abreast of all the rules of office? Yet, beyond that, he is the role-model for the rest of organization. If someone else had broken the conflict of interest rules, perhaps someone whom the mayor is not fond of, do you think for one minute he wouldn't have used these "unread" rules to get rid of this opposition.

We have too many individuals in both corporate and government using the "I am not responsible because I didn't know" excuse. This is never an excuse and quite honestly I am sure that this specific example was done with full knowledge (as are most) but with the arrogant thought that he wasn't going to be caught.

Do we really think that any criminals (either on the street or in offices) consider that they may be caught? Do you think that Bernie Madoff, the CEO of Tyco, the CEO of Nortel etc., etc. didn't know they were doing anything wrong? They knew, but thought that they weren't going to have to pay the piper -- because, hey, they are smarter than the rest of us and rules don't apply to them.

I know I'm ranting here...but it disgusts me when people play fast and lose with ethics, plead ignorance when caught and seem to have a revelation of sorts, with hundreds of mea culpas -- saying "if only I had known, I wouldn't have done this." 

Do they really have that little respect for the rest of us -- that they think we are that stupid? I hope that our mayor gets fired -- not just because he is not good for the city in general -- but because this would send a message that there are consequences and that there is a no tolerance policy when it comes to ethical issues.

There are no shades of grey here!

THE DANGERS OF TERMINATION

If you are or ever have had a leadership role, well then you've probably been in a situation where you've had to terminate the employment of a staff member, either because of a reduction-in-force (RIF) requirement of the corporation or because the individual was either incompetent, lazy or in some cases ethically challenged.

Although most leaders find the process difficult regardless of reason, once it is done, you move on and don't dwell a lot on it. At least you don't think that this ex-employee will come back and try to kill you.

Today in New York, a former "disgruntled" employee tried to do just that (click here to read the story). It made me remember that I had worries-- about down-sized, right-sized, whatever you want to call it-- that potentially some harm might come to me because of the actions taken. And guess what? It isn't just about terminating staff. It can also be when you end a relationship with a supplier or if the sales rep for that supplier isn't cutting it and you ask for a new rep.

Let me give you a few examples from my 20 plus years in corporate. The first termination which I had to do was in the early 90's. He was a part-time staffer, who was not doing his work and often showed up late (if at all). However I also knew that this individual was potentially volatile -- the supervisor whom he reported to was in fact afraid to action a termination so I stepped in. Now I did take precautions, as in having the location in the HR offices and I had arranged for security to stand by to walk him out. So when he was ushered into the office and I did the basic "you're employment is terminated as of today. This envelope will explain what has happened and you will get your final pay within two weeks." Well you know what he did ?(note he was a pretty big and burly guy). He leaned into my face and yelled -- "well you can just F*** off and Die." I then just reiterated my earlier statement and he repeated (again loudly) what he had just said before. Now I don't know where I got the wherewithal or perhaps I potentially could have inflamed the discourse, but I just said "well, I could do that, but even if I did you wouldn't have a job!" Surprisingly this calmed him down and he left with security. But I did have security escort me for several weeks to my car.

Another time was when one of the sales reps from a major company was just not doing his job well -- this was from my perspective and the perspective of the user department in the company. So I contacted the supplier and indicated that we needed to change reps, otherwise the supplier stood to lose a fair amount of business. So the rep was told by his company that he was losing this account and supposedly the supplier had had problems with this rep for a while and took this situation as a reason to fire him. Don't you know the next day he shows up in the Purchasing Office, looking for me. I can a panic call from my admin telling me what was going on and so I alerted Security and at the same time contacted the supplier wanting to know what was going on (that was when I found out they had fired him). This guy bench-pressed 300 lbs and had a part-time job as a bouncer, so my concern and that of others wasn't without reason. By the time Security had made it to the Purchasing Office, he had gotten tired of waiting for me and then stormed into the office of the user department. That is when Security caught up with him and escorted him off the premises...meanwhile the supplier called him and asked him to come to their offices (not sure how brilliant an idea that was) and things settled down. I did however again request an escort -- for a few weeks.

I have had others. Once staffer when told he was being fired for going AWOL for a week gave me a story about hookers and pimps and how he had rigged up his front door so anyone coming in would get shot (I told him that regardless of what had been going on, he could have called so he still didn't have a job). In another situation I had someone terminated for fraud (this was in the US) and Security escorted him to his car but didn't have a record of him driving out -- so they told me to find a meeting room where I should stay instead of my office and that while I was there they would be escorting me out -- but suggested I be extra vigilant to any pickup truck that might follow me when I was off the premises -- REALLY??

I guess this is my long story to get to a short point which is when you are performing actions such as terminating an employee or ending a sales rep or supplier relationship be cognizant of the potential risks to you and your team. I don't mean go out and buy a flak jacket..but we often look at the world too egocentrically and think well if I wouldn't go out and kill a boss or colleague because I got fired nobody else would. You never know the mental health situation of individuals and you never know if there are other things going on in this person's life wherein your action against them might just be the proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back." 

So be aware, be vigilant and don't let yourself become a front page news statistic!

COMMONPLACE CORRUPTION: HAVE WE BECOME DESENSITIZED?

There is an article from a couple of days ago in the NY Times entitled The Spreading Scourge of Corporate Corruption. It mentions studies done which indicate that the public basically expects corruption from corporations -- in fact it says that 62% of Americans believe corporate corruption is widespread and a whopping 75% believe it has increased over the last three years.

Wow, what a sad testament that is to our society today. Granted some of the thoughts here would be reflective of the banking debacles back a few years ago, but it can't explain the entire lack of faith.

Corruption, bribery and the like have been around ad infinitum. But I think today the impact of corruption (or mismanagement) has a much longer tail and affects so much more, just because of the global web of industry. When corruption is uncovered, the dominoes start to fall and the impact is not only global but comparatively instantaneous.

What is causing this? I think partly it is the constant analyst requirements which measure a company on short term performance. Inherently that means many CEOs want to become darlings of the investment community so they can move on to bigger and better gigs and well, if the rules have to be bent a little, well so be it. And of course once down that slippery slope into the greys..well it is not that long until the next minor step is into full scale corrupt activity. 

Or is it also possible that we embrace qualities of CEOs that are not good for the company or the people because the qualities that they have mean they may be psychopaths? A recent study (click here for at the article) about this is sobering. The expectation is that 10% of all people in the financial services sector meet the criteria for psychopathy. So if you work in this sector, look around, you probably know someone who is psychopathic.

Maybe we have to rethink the qualities that we want in our people and our leaders. If a CEO moves around a lot from place to place, don't hire them on their short term results -- see how broken they left the company upon their departure. I once had a corporate CEO who destroyed a company I worked for (it doesn't exist anymore) after driving the stock up and then after leadership by humiliation and fear the stock tanked and held junk bond status -- just like the company from where he came - although he was smart or lucky enough to get out of that fiasco in time. You probably wonder how he could survive if he was such a bad leader? Because he managed upward very, very well.

But why aren't we all up in arms and shouting to the corporate titans enough? Because we have become desensitized and for many it has become "well that is just how it is." Well, no, it isn't. There are ethical companies and leaders. If people see an ethical breach, they need to have courage and be willing to risk their jobs for it. I have, and yes, I lost my job because of it and nothing changed in the company -- but at least I can say I tried.

So let's not accept the unethical -- in the long term in hurts everyone.

EMBRACING CHANGE AND FINDING PASSION IN WHAT YOU DO

I find too often when I speak to people about their careers that they are unhappy and wish that they were doing something else.

So of course I ask the inevitable question "Why haven't you?" 

There are multiple excuses - "I've invested too much in what I'm doing," "I'll wait, maybe things will change," "I need the money, and if I go somewhere else, who knows what will happen," and my favourite "I'm too old."

If you think back on your life and when you've talked yourself out of making a change for the better -- what is your canned excuse? 

Personally I believe that all of these excuses can be summarized by one of the sayings in one of my favourite books on change -- Who Moved My Cheese. The question raised is "What would I do if you weren't afraid?"

This summarizes most of our attitudes surrounding change, because change can be scary, but it can also be exhilarating vs. leading a life of quiet desparation.

We tend to let our own doubts and those other nay-sayers (parents, spouse, and sometimes friends) give us the reasons to abandon the change. But ask yourself -- Are you Happy?

What is it that can create passion in your life? What is it that when you were young you wanted to pursue, or even a passion you have found along the way?

Define it and own it. You don't have to abandon your day job (at least not right away) to start creating a roadway to get you to embracing this direction. 

Wouldn't it be great to get up every morning and believe that you are doing something that is significant? That you can't wait to do? 

Too many of us have over the years been caught up in the pursuit of personal wealth, because that is how the external world often judges us. But if you didn't need to worry about money -- say, if you won the lottery -- once you made the requisite purchases, what would you chose to do?

That is the question you need to ask yourself. 

I remember seeing an interview many years ago with Michael Caine and there was a discussion about regrets. He said ( and I might be paraphrasing a bit here), "I would prefer to die regretting the things I've done as opposed to those that I have not."

That comment has stuck with me for many years now. So question yourself -- what is holding you back -- and what will you regret not having done when you are on your deathbed?

RETHINKING SACRED COWS IN SALES COMPENSATION

In the July/August edition of Harvard Business Review, there are several articles about how to motivate and get the most out of your sales force. One article that I found of particular interest was entitled "A Radical Prescription for Sales", wherein the premise is basically that offering commissions to the sales people may not be the way to get the best performance. 

As there is a shift from product selling to solution selling this makes absolute sense. The "if-then" reward system perhaps worked (and may still work) with simplistic sale, but when you get into high-value selling where you may need to take a lot more time in getting to the end-state with a client (and service the client post-sale) the commission structure could result in shoddy workmanship, if you will, because the sales person needs to already be focused on the next sale to make sure his/her income keeps rolling in. 

The cost to the corporation is high for the selling of a service which inherently is operationally difficult to implement, because there is distinct dissatisfaction for both the client and the internal folk of an enterprise who are tasked with ensuring the project/solution is implemented and the profitability promised by the sales person remains intact...not a prescription for success. 

This article in HBR refers to a company Microchip Technology which in the late 90's took their salespeople from a 60% base salary, 40% commission structure to a high base salary, which represented 90% of earnings for sales, and 10% was linked to the corporate (rather than the individual) measures. Not only was this the comp model for sales, but for the rest of the corporation too!

The result was sales increased and the cost of sales remained the same. This seems somewhat counterintuitive, but if you think of the sales force of today, vs. those of yesterday -- today you have highly educated self-motivated individuals whom you want to have working for the benefit of the whole vs. just their own pocket book. Several companies are embracing this "radical" approach with great results -- even GlaxoSmithCline. 

When I was on the buying side of the equation, I was much more inclined to give business to those firms where I didn't feel like they were looking at their watches and hurrying to the next appointment so they could keep up their mortgage payments. Furthermore, it isn't just about getting new clients, it is about no losing those that you have. With a revised comp system you may be able to do this.

As a consumer I prefer to go into Best Buy, as opposed to The Future Shop. Both are owned by the same mothership, but I don't feel pressured at Best Buy and I feel that I'm getting the best advice, vs. where the sales rep will get the most commission.

So perhaps it is time to revamp the thinking on sales compensation. And if you really think about it, you could probably eliminate a whole bunch of accounting people too that have to keep track of the complicated matrix of sales compensation that most companies have!

THE STUPIDITY OF RULES AND THE COURAGE TO SAVE A LIFE

There was a story in the newspaper today where a young lifeguard was fired after saving a drowning man's life . This took place in Miami(click here to read the story). 

You are probably thinking "isn't that a lifeguard's job?" And yes, you would be correct. But you see the drowning man was "outside the boundaries" (by 400 metres) of where the company responsible for the lifeguarding was paid to patrol. So he broke the rules and saved a drowning man, who didn't have the foresight to try to drown in the right area!

Yes, the drowning man was swimming at his own risk in a so-called "non supervised area" and as such, by the actions of this lifeguarding company, he deserved to die. Maybe they thought if this man died, then they could get more business from the county to supervise this other beach, because letting this man die would "show them!"

This adherence to rules and the lack of humanity is abhorrent. The manager who decided to fire this young man will probably be fired for what he did, but this kind of behaviour comes from the top, not from the one manager. He is just following the prevailing culture of this company. I don't believe that this was a manger going rogue.

The unfortunate thing is this happens in corporations and governments every day. The courageous "lifeguards" of these enterprises go outside the accepted "rules" to do the "right" and "moral" thing and are then either fired or severely chastised for so doing. And what does this result in? An organizational wide climate of keep your head down, follow the rules and let the proverbial man "drown."

I wish the young lifeguard who got fired well. As this story hits the airwaves I am sure he will get lots of offers for various jobs with various corporations. My fear is that many of those corporations which will offer him a job, do not realize that they have lifeguards in their own corporation which they may have sidelined by being enamoured with bureaucracy.

Let's hope he gets a job with a firm that truly embraces courage and authenticity!

THE DANGER OF INNOVATIVE ARROGANCE

Here we go again. Another icon of industry, RIM, on the verge of collapse. What is it that causes companies like RIM, Nortel, Blockbuster etc. to be innovative and market leaders, just to crash and burn.

It is what I like to call Innovative Arrogance! The high and mighty sit there and say, hey, we are so great and have developed a product, service etc., that is so great that we can just sit here, spend our money like drunken sailors and not have to worry, because, well of course the rest of the world is just going to sit there and accept our superiority and bow down to us. 

Yes, that is the same attitude that resulted in many civilizations collapsing in the past, not seeing the encroaching armies, ready to take power.

Such is the case in the companies mentioned, but many others as well. They were innovators and then they become fat and happy and don't realize the rest of the world is moving on and surpassing them, and that they have become irrelevant.

There are other industries on the precipice today. Publishing is one that comes to mind. How about office products? And cable TV (as most content is now easily accessible through computers or Apple TV?). Think of how quickly the world is changing and how slow these bureaucracies are to respond.

In Canada there has been a lot of complaints from exporters that the strength of the Canadian dollar is harming their ability to sell into the US. I have no sympathy for this. Why don't these companies look at their processes and how they do business and come up with a more effective way to do business? Because that would be harder than just relying on a weak currency.

The protectionism that we've had in Canada has spawned a raft of irrelevancy in industry -- publishing for example (a lot of money from Heritage Canada goes toward the publishing industry meaning they can have poor processes and business approaches because the government pays). Without competition being allowed to challenge the status quo...like in cellular communications...the fat cats just sit back and only seem to wake up when there is a potential competitive threat to their status...and meanwhile they aren't looking at rejigging their model to be more competitive in the event of competition from outside Canada. In the case of wireless, Canadians pay one of the highest costs in the world...you can't tell me that this is appropriate....I would be happy if more competition was allowed across the borders and these companies live or die...and if they die it is their own fault...again innovative arrogance.

You can tell I am somewhat angry at the stupidity that the corporate heads are exuding, because of the impact on so many lives. RIM has already laid off lots of people and now another third of their workforce. These aren't just numbers...these are real people and their families who now may be at a horrible financial crossroad. It's wrong and it could have been avoided, if these companies didn't have their head down in the trough.

I was recently in the Galapagos Islands where Darwin came up with a lot of his theories on natural selection and survival of the fittest. This is happening in corporations around the globe. The problem is it is the leadership that is not adapting and it is the rest of the people employed in the organization that are left to suffer and figuratively die.

Yes, I am angry...stupidity always makes me angry.

"IT'S NOT POLICY" AND OTHER WAYS TO ENSURE CUSTOMER DISSERVICE!

In the last couple of weeks I have been disappointed by the continued lack of understanding by companies that their "policies" are a disservice to their clients and I began to wonder "who's watching the shop?"

Usually I don't name names, but my recent "customer disservice" encounters beg for these businesses to be hauled out and publicly flogged for stupidity. Both are in highly competitive markets and if they don't change their approaches, then quite honestly, they will be added to the "good businesses, gone bad" death throe ballet.

First is a company called Dermaglow owned by VitalScience Corp. The company makes a brand of cosmetic products which I found to be quite good. After using a line of their anti-aging creams I did find my skin to be in better shape, and as such I made a subsequent purchase of the "Anti-Gravity Cream." Ok, I know it doesn't truly defy gravity (I do have a science degree after all), but it was as good, if not better, than other products I had used before. When I bought my second tube of the product (yes I need a lot of anti-gravity action these days) the packaging had changed and instead of a pump, it was a squeeze tube, with a little foil cover to keep the product in the tube. When I took this cover off, half of the cream started spewing out, reminiscent of any of several I Love Lucy episodes. So I sent an email through Dermaglow's web and waited a week but alas, no response. So I called the customer care line and spoke to a nice woman by name of Sarah, who said she would call me back, because she was not empowered to do anything and needed to check with the "lady" who is responsible -- not many, just one, which is also somewhat disconcerting.

Now this is where it gets interesting. Sarah called me back a couple of days later, quite excited in fact, that she has gotten a return authorization from this one "lady" and then the stupidity started. I was told that I would need to send this product (which costs in the realm of $60) back, AT MY COST, because they wanted to test the product and when they got it, they would send me a replacement.

When I pointed out that this would mean that I would pay over a 10% premium on the product -- because of course I wouldn't be able to send it just by regular mail, it would have to be traceable -- I was told that this was the Policy in how they deal with returns. I pointed out that I had gotten faulty product so why should I get penalized and pay extra for the "privilege?" of using their product. Sarah was nice, she said I made a lot of good points, but she was hampered because she was not empowered to do anything, it had to go back to this anonymous "lady" before anything could be resolved. I indicated that I wouldn't return the product on my dime and in the case of future purchases of their line...well I wouldn't make any. Sarah said she would get back to me, that was over a week ago. Ergo, why I am naming them -- stupidity should not go unpunished.

Which brings me to my second encounter. It was with Leon's furniture. I went in looking for some furniture and saw something that was on sale which I thought had potential. The salesperson suggested I put a $50 deposit on it, so that I wasn't at risk of it selling out -- a reasonable thought. So I plunked down via debit the $50 deposit. Once I got home I realized that the item would not match the decor, so the next day, I drove back to the store, to cancel the order and get my $50 back. Alas, once again, stupidity reigns supreme. You see if I had made the deposit on my credit card, they could have reversed the charge right there, but as it was via a debit card, they needed to send in the cancellation to head office, for them to authorize, print and then send me a cheque for that amount. Huh? I spent sometime chatting with the customer service folk at the counter and they said they had no way of returning the money any other way.

So not only have they annoyed a client (who will never darken their doorway again), but they are also incurring huge costs for this silly way of returning a deposit. (I would estimate that at minimum the cost for doing this to the company was in the realm of $150 - $200)

It makes you wonder, who in an organization is  considering what the client experience, particularly when there is a problem? I have always found it quite interesting watching any of the Undercover Boss episodes where the CEO says "gee I didn't know that." Well if you don't mr/ms. CEO then you haven't set up your organizational construct up correctly. The key premise for all companies should be if it doesn't add value to the customer experience and/or takes away from customer satisfaction then it should be revised or dropped.

That is if a company wishes to survive.

Interview on Professionally Speaking TV

Recently I was interviewed on Professionally Speaking TV. The description of the piece is as follows.

Breaking the glass ceiling of Supply Chain, Patricia Moser, President of i3 advantage inc., traces her career path. Reviewing processes and practices in past senior roles at Rogers Communications and Grand & Toy, she shares lessons learned and best practices. Patricia Moser discusses several contributing factors in successful procurement such as data mining analysis, effective value propositions,  and supplier due diligence. Learn what future trends Patricia Moser predicts for the industry. Learn the false metric in procurement. And learn why Supply Chain is at the heart of every organization.

You can listen to the whole interview by clicking here

TOE DIPPING: STRATEGY OR EXCUSE

There is an inherent lack of boldness amongst businesses today. It is a phenomenon which I would like to call "Toe Dipping".

My belief is that many corporations are into analysis/paralysis and when a new idea is considered, there is reams of information, market reviews, thousands of pros and cons identified and then maybe, just maybe, let's do a pilot. By that time often the opportune time for getting to market has passed and the corporate titans that go and high-five each other that they dodged another potentially unprofitable investment. But has this all just become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Although I would not got strictly on "gut-feel", I do believe that we have missed grand opportunities across the business spectrum because we no longer trust our business acumen (aka intuition). That is partly because we do have so much information (much of it contradictory) at our fingertips and a multitude of people who have somewhere in their job description the term analyst.

Are we doing ourselves any favors? 

Interestingly, one of the founders of one of the most successful companies detested market research...that being Steve Jobs. And do you think that Mark Zuckerberg said "well let's not launch this Facebook idea until we actually know that the public wants it!" Or Twitter, or Google...the list of examples is endless.

But here are large corporate entities who are probably sitting on the next innovation, but are letting it die because of corporate red-tape and fear. As Steve Jobs indicated, the market doesn't know what it wants until I tell them.

I'm not saying stop all due diligence, and I also recognize that there are some highly regulated industries (like pharmaceuticals) that definitively have to adhere rules.

However, mostly, I'm tired of seeing red-tape and pilots result in the crushing of opportunity. Let's be cautiously risky and although there may be some failures that will inevitably happen, those that would embrace this approach would leap frog the competition and become highly profitable.

Jump in. Toe-dipping is truly just an excuse.

THE FUTURE OF SUPPLY CHAIN AND PROCUREMENT

I am often asked where I think Supply Chain and Procurement will be in the next couple of decades. Perhaps that is because back in the year 2000 I entered a North American contest wherein I identified that in years to come It went something like this

Buyers would be holographic avatars whom we could configure to our liking (George Clooney or Jessica Alba for the guys) and once we identified for them that which we wanted to buy, the would quickly provide all the relevant information for a service right onto your laptop, or in the case of a product provide you with a 3D representation floating in air. Once a decision was made, then the "buyers" would jump back into the portal (somewhat like in Tron) and within seconds come back with the top three alternatives -- pros and cons attached. 

I also though ensured there was a fail-safe, because you see if I could call up George Clooney, perhaps I would do that every few minutes and buy much to much. So if you were trending to purchase above your budget or perhaps wanton buying then Barney the Dinosaur would show up singing "You're buying to much, you must stop now.."etc. etc.

Yes, for that "amazing" piece of insight I won the contest!

So back in 2000 my ruminations were wild...but today, they don't seem that far fetched! With websites like Second Life having the interest of corporations, maybe having an avatar to do your buying with all the algorithms built in is not so out of line!

But what about the rest of the Supply Chain. The warehousing, the distribution etc. Well, eventually you will be able to shop for everything at sites like Second Life. Their marketplace has real stuff.

If you think about all the bricks and mortar that companies have that distribute their own product, quite honestly, I believe that in the future, or at least those who want to be around in the future will start to outsource this to the experts. But even the experts won't be keeping tons of inventory. If you look at distribution behemoths like Amazon, a significant amount of their product is direct from a supplier. Ebay sends nothing direct. And although these sites are mostly consumer oriented (because consumers adopt before corporations do -- not as much red tape), it is only a matter of time that this trend will be accepted as the way to do business. Small bricks and mortar, lots of cross-docking and ship direct. There will still be lots of trucks on the road, so good news for the trucking industry, but they will have to start bringing their price-points in line. In fact the behemoths may very well negotiate on behalf of all those selling through their sites or with those firms that they are aligned with thereby decreasing margins. It will be a much more virtual world of Supply Chain in the future.

Is this going to happen tomorrow? Well, I believe it is going to happen a lot faster than most think. If you think of an example in the publishing industry, a few years ago they were not thinking that people would give up the touch and feel of books and today? Well, Amazon sells more ebooks that "real" books, so hold onto your hats. In a very short time paper books will be a thing that we remember fondly...at least a lot of trees will be saved.

I am not professing to be the Nostradamus of Supply Chain. But change is coming and it is worthwhile for companies to be ahead of the curve.

RACING WITH BLINDERS

I'm sure many pundits will be writing today about the shakeup at the top of RIM. Certainly one must always consider the fact that often those that are best suited to start-ups are not the best individuals to keep the company running in the future. With of course the exception of Steve Jobs.

Why is this? I don't believe it is necessarily a truism. As Steve Jobs demonstrated at Apple, as long as you keep innovation alive then you can run not only a successful company, but one that constantly redefines the marketplace. In fact, I believe the opposite can be true...if you remove innovators then you can lose your way.

But what causes these leading edge companies to truly lose their way? Arrogance and blinders. When you think about it, whether Nortel, Kodak or RIM, the parallels are there. Leading edge, innovation and then a "well, we're the best, so we don't really have to try anymore! We'll just make what we have a little better and because we are the first one's out of the gate, of course we will always be the leading horse in the race."

As Dr. Phil would say "How's that working for you?"

Not so much. It is actually sad to see these firms, which truly redefined our expectations to sink into the mire of misery caused by this arrogance. And if anyone thinks that by chopping off the head and replacing it with a new one means success, you are delusional. George Fisher tried to get Kodak to consider itself a "picture"company as opposed to a "film" company and he was met with resistance every step of the way. He wanted Kodak to go full speed ahead into digital, but the mid-level employees of the company stymied every step, because of course they didn't see any reason to change -- they were getting their bonuses and commission, so who is this interloper who has this "vision."

I hope that this will not be the case with RIM...as opposed to Kodak in the '90s, RIM is in serious trouble. However, innovation cannot be dictated -- "today your job is Innovation with a capital I" --

nope...that just doesn't work.

Rebuild needs to occur -- bottom-up and top-down -- but only if they are truly serious about change!

PICTURE IMPERFECT

When reading about Kodak preparing for Chapter 11 filing, I couldn't help but thing of the term innovative complacency. Here is a company that was way ahead of the curve for years and years, and in fact is the company that first came up with the concept, engineering etc of digital photography.

However, just like Hem in Who Moved My Cheese, a decision was made to protect the film business and not cannibalize nor infringe upon the mighty profits. Instead of changing the way we saw the world (which if you really think about it is what photography does), Kodak chose to ignore, foolishly so, the market trends, and in fact, missed defining the market trends. Thus the filing of Chapter 11.

I don't know if Kodak will recover. With many President's being put in place for the various business units, it is clear that there won't be one mega company, but many small ones. But the lessons are here for all enterprises who chose to protect their core business without trying to change the dynamics and lead their clients into a new world.

If you think about it we have seen many companies fall by the wayside. Nortel, BlockBuster, Borders, and although I'm not expecting it to file for bankruptcy RIM is also a company that was an innovator and then decided just to sit back and let the money roll in, while its competitors starting rolling over it.

I don't know what causes this. What lack of vision and insight there must be at the senior levels of organizations to let this happen. Maybe they just like the perks and ignore the future. In how my mind works, I can't even fathom this lack of insight.

The US car companies are another example...they were teetering on the edge and hopefully they have learned their lesson. But who knows -- after a few years where will they be. Will the cycle of complacency imbed itself once again?

What about companies that focus on printing and the distribution of paper. This train is coming a lot faster than I think any of these companies think. How about writing instruments, when I can now basically use my iPad as a notebook....makes you think.

So seeing Kodak go down is disheartening. But it is a lesson to CEOs and shareholders alike...complacency breeds bankruptcy. And that my friends is an imperfect picture for any firm!