Executives have taken to using the military acronym
VUCA–Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity–to describe the
world in which they operate and to ask that question: In a VUCA world,
what’s the point of strategy?
Strategy does still have a purpose, but building one in a VUCA
environment requires more nuanced thinking. And treating those four
traits as a single idea leads to poorer decision making.
Watch and
listen as Nathan Bennett provides a framework, first featured in an HBR article, for how you should deal with a world that includes V, and U, and C, and A.
At the age of 10, Benjamin Franklin left formal schooling to become an apprentice to his father. As a teenager, he showed no particular talent or aptitude aside from his love of books.
When he died a little over half a century later, he was America's
most respected statesman, its most famous inventor, a prolific author,
and a successful entrepreneur.
What happened between these two points to cause such a meteoric rise? Underlying the answer to this question is a success strategy for life that we can all use, and increasingly must use.personal-growth goals,
The five-hour rule
Throughout Ben Franklin's adult life, he consistently invested roughly an hour a day in deliberate learning. I call this Franklin's five-hour rule: one hour a day on every weekday. Franklin's learning time consisted of:
Creating
a club for "like-minded aspiring artisans and tradesmen who hoped to
improve themselves while they improved their community"
Turning his ideas into experiments
Having morning and evening reflection questions
Every time that Franklin took time out of his busy day to follow his
five-hour rule and spend at least an hour learning, he accomplished less
on that day. However, in the long run, it was arguably the best
investment of his time he could have made.
So what would it look like to make the five-hour rule part of our lifestyle?
The core concept of the five-hour rule: empty space
To find out, we need look no further than chess grandmaster and
world-champion martial artist Josh Waitzkin. Instead of squeezing his
days for the maximum productivity, he's actually done the opposite.
Waitzkin, who also authored The Art of Learning,
purposely creates slack in his day so he has "empty space" for
learning, creativity, and doing things at a higher quality. Here's his
explanation of this approach from a recent Tim Ferriss podcast episode:
"I
have built a life around having empty space for the development of my
ideas for the creative process. And for the cultivation of a
physiological state which is receptive enough to tune in very, very
deeply to people I work with ... In the creative process, it's so easy
to drive for efficiency and take for granted the really subtle internal
work that it takes to play on that razor's edge."
Adding slack to our day allows us to:
1. Plan out the learning. This
allows us to think carefully about what we want to learn. We shouldn't
just have goals for what we want to accomplish. We should also have
goals for what we want to learn.
2. Deliberately practice.Rather than doing things automatically and not improving, we can apply the proven principles of deliberate practice
so we keep improving. This means doing things like taking time to get
honest feedback on our work and practicing specific skills we want to
improve. 3. Ruminate. This helps us get more perspective on our lessons learned and assimilate new ideas. It can also help us develop slow hunches
in order to have creative breakthroughs. Walking is a great way to
process these insights, as shown by many greats who were or are walking
fanatics, from Beethoven and Charles Darwin to Steve Jobs and Jack Dorsey. Another powerful way is through conversation partners.
4. Set aside time just for learning.This
includes activities like reading, having conversations, participating
in a mastermind, taking classes, observing others, etc.
5. Solve problems as they arise.When
most people experience problems during the day, they sweep them under
the rug so that they can continue their to-do list. Having slack creates
the space to address small problems before they turn into big problems.
6. Do small experiments with big potential payoffs. Whether or not an experiment works, it's an opportunity to learn and test your ideas.
The difference the five-hour rule makes
For many people, their professional day is measured by how much they
get done. As a result, they speed through the day and slow down their
improvement rate.
The five-hour rule flips the equation by focusing on learning first.
To see the implication of this, let's look at a sales call (note: replace "sales call" with any activity you do repeatedly).
Most professionals do a little research before the call, have the call, and then save their notes and move on.
Somebody with a learning focus would think through which skill to
practice on the call, practice it on the call, and then reflect on the
lessons learned. If that person really wanted an extra level of
learning, he or she would invite a colleague on the call and have the
colleague provide honest feedback afterward.
By focusing on learning as a lifestyle, we get so much more done over the long term.
So, are you ready to embrace the five-hour rule?
How about reading a book a week to get started? Even though he's the
richest man in the world and could afford to hire an army of teachers
and consultants, Bill Gates still reads a book a week. In a 2016 New York Times interview, he said, "Reading is still the main way that I both learn new things and test my understanding."
Want to read the most-recommended books by top leaders like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and Elon Musk? Here's our report on the six highly recommended books you should read, along with 460-plus of their other book recommendations.
Thanks to Shizuka Ebata for being an integral part of putting this article together.
In 1996 John Kotter from Harvard Business School famously stated that
70% of change programs fail. Twelve years later in 2008, McKinsey
surveyed 3199 executives and showed that nothing had changed with the
fail rate holding at an obstinate 70%. More recently in 2013, Towers
Watson reported that despite the sophisticated change management advice
available, only 25% of transformation projects are successful.
The reasons identified for such dominant fail rates range from
failing to ‘prepare managers as effective change leaders’ and
‘management behaviour not supporting change’ to neglecting the remaining
staff and managers calling the change process complete too early.
Regardless of the study, the causality is centred around the people
side of change.
As a career coaching firm, this link between organisational success
and the human factor is not a surprise. However, we want to understand
the financial cost of the human variable so we gathered the published
research and ran a case study on a typical downsizing scenario.
CASE STUDY In this example, a 100 headcount business is making 10 roles redundant. Using validated research we identified the direct cost,
indirect cost and opportunity cost that can be expected in this
scenario. We then looked at the difference between the average outcomes
compared to an ‘effective separation’ process to assess the predicted
financial impact of a professionally run project.
KEY FINDINGS
The real cost of redundancy is 6 times the direct cost;
The cost savings of an effective separation process are $54K saved per exiting employee;
ROI for professional outplacement is 12 times the investment.
CALCULATING THE COST When assessing the cost of making roles redundant, most businesses calculate the direct cost of the redundancy payout and the legal fees involved. However, very few consider the indirect cost or the opportunity cost.
For a complete breakdown of each calculation and cited references.
DIRECT COSTS [severance package and legal fees] $19,208 per redundancy based on average tenure, average salary plus average legal costs.
Direct costs are $192,080 for 10 redundancies.
INDIRECT COSTS [absenteeism, turnover and productivity] Indirect costs are caused by changes in the behaviour and output of
remaining staff after role redundancy. Engagement, job satisfaction,
commitment and productivity are all impacted.
In this case $370,035 can be attributed to absenteeism; $239,301 to
unwanted turnover and $358,952 to lost productivity based on published
averages.
OPPORTUNITY COSTS [time investment] $79,688 is the estimated opportunity cost in this case based on management time and lost value creation.
THE REAL COST OF DOWNSIZING Therefore, the real cost of downsizing in this case is $1.24 million
or 6 times the direct cost. While the variables will shift in every live
scenario, we can use this as a baseline ratio. If your business is
expecting a downsizing event, the most accessible figure is your direct
costs. You can multiply this figure by 6 to estimate the real cost to
your business without intervention.
INVESTMENT IN OUTPLACEMENT While there are highly credible strategy and change management
consultants delivering valuable know how to their clients, a more
targeted option in this case is a professional outplacement or ‘Career
transition’ firm who are specialists in staff separation and post-change
engagement.
More specifically, these firms
support impacted employees with their next career move;
advise the organisation on effective separation process and communication;
support remaining staff and managers to adapt and reboot their career with the company.
The rationale for providing outplacement can be divided into three arguments: MORAL “It’s the right thing to do” BRAND “We need to protect our brand / reputation”; and FINANCIAL “Managing this well will protect our balance sheet”. While all three play a role in the success of a downsizing project, this business case focused on the financial perspective.
In this case, a typical investment in an outplacement program is
$39,900 or 3% of the total cost of redundancy. This combines career
transition coaching programs [$30,000 @ $3,000 per person] and change
workshops for remaining staff and managers [$9,900].
THE COST SAVINGS OF EFFECTIVE SEPARATION With expert advice and professional support, an outplacement provider
facilitates an effective separation process. While the event will
always be challenging, the right support ensures that all staff are
treated with dignity and respect. As a preventative measure, the
experience of outplacement specialists also allows the business to avoid
errors that they would have otherwise made.
Aberdeen Group [2011] demonstrate that companies who provide
outplacement services experience a ‘highly engaged’ staff percentage of
60%, compared to 33% for firms who don’t provide outplacement. They also
detailed the case of a financial services organisation who engaged an
outplacement provider to assist with their their separation process. 50%
of remaining staff were ‘highly engaged’ after the event, compared to
an industry average engagement rate of 35%.
Building on this and using our example, here are the conservative business expectations of an effective separation process.
VARIABLE
AVERAGE
EFFECTIVE SEPARATION
ABSENTEEISM
Absenteeism rises
2.5 times
Absenteeism rises
1.5 times
PRODUCTIVITY
Productivity drops
20%
Productivity drops
10%
Productivity is impacted for 3 months
TURNOVER
4 examples of
unwanted turnover
2 examples of
unwanted turnover
COST OF REDUNDANCY
$1,240,052
$695,110
COST SAVING$544,942
[$54,494 per employee]
Even an effective process will not eliminate all of the negative
impacts of change and uncertainty, however these are mitigated by
managing this well. Above and beyond the moral and branding
implications, you can conservatively expect to save $54,494 per impacted employee through effective separation.
With an outplacement investment of $3,990 per person, the net saving
per impacted employee is $50,504. This represents a return on investment
[ROI] of over 12 times the outplacement expense.
LITIGATION RISK Additionally, this case study does not include the substantial cost
of potential litigation which is estimated to be between $13,500
[Productivity Commission, 2015] to over $1 million per employee. In our
experience, professional outplacement support migrates the litigation
risk to zero with not a single client taking this action.
CONCLUSION We know that the vast majority of transformation programs fail and
the cause relates to the way that people are managed and engaged. In
this case, an investment in effective downsizing is not only a fraction
of the overall business cost, it also represents clear ROI in cost
savings.
CEO CHECKLIST Here are the practical steps that the research and our own business case identify for the CEO facing a downsizing event:
Factor in support for the remaining organisation at the start of the project;
Engage an end to end outplacement partner to assist with the preparation, the event and the post change environment;
Focus on effective training and coaching for people managers in the remaining organisation – this is your front line;
Expect a shift in engagement, yet listen and respond to staff needs;
Treat everyone with dignity, professionalism and respect. Sounds
basic however some formal processes work against these principles.
Downsizing will always be challenging, however these fundamentals
will give your business the best opportunity to survive and thrive.
Christopher
Paterson is the managing director of ALCHEMY Career Management, a firm
of coaches and organizational psychologists who support individuals and
organizations around the world with executive coaching, career
transition, Wellness@Work™ and change management programs.
In 1998, Kodak had 170,000 employees and sold 85% of all photo
paper worldwide. Within just a few years, their business model
disappeared and they went bankrupt. What happened to Kodak will happen in a lot of
industries in the next 10 year - and most people don't see it coming. Did you
think in 1998 that 3 years later you would never take pictures on paper film
again? Yet digital cameras were invented in 1975. The first ones only had
10,000 pixels, but followed Moore's law. So as with all exponential
technologies, it was a disappointment for a long time, before it became way
superior and got mainstream in only a few short years. It will now happen with
Artificial Intelligence, health, autonomous and electric cars, education, 3D
printing, agriculture and jobs. Welcome to the 4th Industrial Revolution.
Welcome to the Exponential Age. Software will disrupt most traditional
industries in the next 5-10 years. Uber is just a software tool, they don't own any
cars, and are now the biggest taxi company in the world. Airbnb is now the
biggest hotel company in the world, although they don't own any properties. Artificial Intelligence: Computers become
exponentially better in understanding the world. This year, a computer beat the
best Go player in the world, 10 years earlier than expected. In the US, young
lawyers already don't get jobs. Because of IBM Watson, you can get legal advice
(so far for more or less basic stuff) within seconds, with 90% accuracy
compared with 70% accuracy when done by humans. So if you study law, stop
immediately. There will be 90% less lawyers in the future, only specialists
will remain. Watson already helps nurses diagnosing cancer, 4
time more accurate than human nurses. Facebook now has a pattern recognition
software that can recognize faces better than humans. In 2030, computers will
become more intelligent than humans. Autonomous cars: In 2018 the first self driving
cars will appear for the public. Around 2020, the complete industry will start
to be disrupted. You don't want to own a car anymore. You will call a car with
your phone, it will show up at your location and drive you to your destination.
You will not need to park it, you only pay for the driven distance and can be
productive while driving. Our kids will never get a driver's licence and will
never own a car. It will change the cities, because we will need 90-95% less
cars for that. We can transform former parking space into parks. 1,2 million
people die each year in car accidents worldwide. We now have one accident every
100,000km, with autonomous driving that will drop to one accident in 10 million
km. That will save a million lives each year. Most car companies might become bankrupt.
Traditional car companies try the evolutionary approach and just build a better
car, while tech companies (Tesla, Apple, Google) will do the revolutionary
approach and build a computer on wheels. I spoke to a lot of engineers from
Volkswagen and Audi; they are completely terrified of Tesla. Insurance companies will have massive trouble
because without accidents, the insurance will become 100x cheaper. Their car
insurance business model will disappear. Real estate will change. Because if you can work
while you commute, people will move further away to live in a more beautiful
neighborhood. Electric cars will become mainstream until 2020.
Cities will be less noisy because all cars will run on electric. Electricity
will become incredibly cheap and clean: Solar production has been on an
exponential curve for 30 years, but you can only now see the impact. Last year,
more solar energy was installed worldwide than fossil. The price for solar will
drop so much that all coal companies will be out of business by 2025. With cheap electricity comes cheap and abundant
water. Desalination now only needs 2kWh per cubic meter. We don't have scarce
water in most places, we only have scarce drinking water. Imagine what will be
possible if anyone can have as much clean water as he wants, for nearly no
cost. Health: The Tricorder X price will be announced
this year. There will be companies who will build a medical device (called the
"Tricorder" from Star Trek) that works with you phone, which takes
your retina scan, you blood sample and you breath into it. It then analyses 54
biomarkers that will identify nearly any disease. It will be cheap, so in a few
years everyone on this planet will have access to world class medicine, nearly
for free. 3D printing: The price of the cheapest 3D
printer came down from 18,000$ to 400$ within 10 years. In the same time, it
became 100 times faster. All major shoe companies started 3D printing shoes.
Spare airplane parts are already 3D printed in remote airports. The space
station now has a printer that eliminates the need for the large amount of
spare parts they used to have in the past. At the end of this year, new smart phones will
have 3D scanning possibilities. You can then 3D scan your feet and print your
perfect shoe at home. In China, they already 3D printed a complete 6-storey
office building. By 2027, 10% of everything that's being produced will be 3D
printed. Business opportunities: If you think of a niche
you want to go in, ask yourself: "in the future, do you think we will have
that?" and if the answer is yes, how can you make that happen sooner? If
it doesn't work with your phone, forget the idea. And any idea designed for
success in the 20th century is doomed in to failure in the 21st century. Work: 70-80% of jobs will disappear in the next
20 years. There will be a lot of new jobs, but it is not clear if there will be
enough new jobs in such a small time. Agriculture: There will be a 100$ agricultural
robot in the future. Farmers in 3rd world countries can then become managers of
their field instead of working all days on heir fields. Aeroponics will need
much less water. The first petri dish produced veal is now available and will
be cheaper than cow produced veal in 2018. Right now, 30% of all agricultural
surfaces is used for cows. Imagine if we don't need that space anymore. There
are several startups who will bring insect protein to the market shortly. It
contains more protein than meat. It will be labeled as "alternative
protein source" (because most people still reject the idea of eating
insects). There is an app called "moodies" which
can already tell in which mood you are. Until 2020 there will be apps that can
tell by your facial expressions if you are lying. Imagine a political debate
where it's being displayed when they are telling the truth and when not. Bitcoin will become mainstream this year and
might even become the default reserve currency. Longevity: Right now, the average life span
increases by 3 months per year. Four years ago, the life span used to be 79
years, now it's 80 years. The increase itself is increasing and by 2036, there
will be more that one year increase per year. So we all might live for a long
long time, probably way more than 100. Education: The cheapest smart phones are already
at 10$ in Africa and Asia. Until 2020, 70% of all humans will own a smart
phone. That means, everyone has the same access to world class education. Every
child can use Khan academy for everything a child learns at school in First
World countries. We have already released our software in Indonesia and will
release it in Arabic, Suaheli and Chinese this Summer, because I see an
enormous potential. We will give the English app for free, so that children in
Africa can become fluent in English within half a year.
Nielsen Catalina Solutions comparison of average increase in dollar
sales by media in study across 1,400 CPG campaigns. Credit: Nielsen
Catalina Solutions
What medium delivers the biggest bang for the buck? A new study
provides a definitive answer, at least for packaged goods, and it's
probably not the one anyone expected.
Magazines deliver by far the best return on ad spending when compared
to TV, digital display and video, mobile and cross-media campaigns,
according to a study set to be presented today by Nielsen Catalina
Solutions at the Advertising Research Foundation Audience Measurement
2016 Conference in New York. The medium delivering the lowest return in
the study is digital video, arguably the hottest for CPG marketers and
for much of the marketing world.
The study appears to be unprecedented in scope in terms of looking at
norms for return on ad spending (ROAS) across multiple media -- albeit
only for CPG. The conclusions are drawn from analysis of 1,400 research
projects spanning more than a decade across 450 brands.
The projects have been commissioned since 2004 by a variety of media
companies and brands, but unlike most such research wasn't backed by a
single sponsor or industry. Nielsen Catalina is using the term ROAS
rather than the more commonly used return on investment (ROI) to help
indicate that the results measure only incremental sales impact per
dollar of advertising spent, not profit impact.
Magazines delivered ROAS of $3.94 per dollar of media spent. Digital
video delivered only $1.53. Other media explored in the study -- TV,
digital display, mobile and cross-media campaigns -- were in the middle,
clustered around $2.50 per dollar of media spending.
Leslie Wood, chief research officer, Nielsen Catalina Solutions Credit: Advertising Research Foundation
Nielsen Catalina Chief Research Officer Leslie Wood was quick to
point out that the differences between magazines and digital video were
all about pricing. Magazines had the lowest cost per thousand
impressions (CPM) in the study, and digital video the highest. Magazine
audiences in the study were bolstered by inclusion of secondary
audiences -- the pass-along readership that occurs everywhere from
doctors' offices to friends' homes.
"Everybody wants to be in digital video," Ms. Wood said. "There is
very little inventory, so the price is high. It's the reverse in
magazines, which are undervalued in the marketplace.
When Nielsen Catalina looked at incremental sales per household
reached, performance of all the media was more closely clustered.
Magazines produced 26 cents of incremental revenue per household reached
vs. 23 cents for digital video. TV came out on top at 33 cents.
Digital display had the lowest sales lift per household reached at 19
cents and the lowest sales lift per thousand people reached at $16.95.
But it was average in ROAS because it had the lowest cost. The study
covered mainly premium inventory and little or none was bought
programmatically.
That cost data for all media came directly from either media
companies or brands, so it reflects actual spending, not estimates, Ms.
Wood said.
Increase in sales per household in Nielsen Catalina Solutions study. Credit: Nielsen Catalina Solutions
In terms of sales impact per thousand consumers reached, mobile fared
best. But that was based on the relatively low reach of mobile -- which
on average reached only 2% of consumers in the study -- so it had
almost none of the diminishing returns that come from reaching the same
people multiple times, like other media, Ms. Wood said.
Nielsen Catalina bases its research on audience-measurement panels of
Nielsen and other partners with sales data from shopper loyalty
programs collected by Catalina -- matching the same households to
measure what media they saw and what they bought.
The study only covers CPG, and deeper analysis suggests media
effectiveness may differ for other categories, because it even differs
within CPG categories and brands. Big, high-market-share brands
purchased frequently had the highest returns on media spending. Brands
with smaller market shares or purchased infrequently had lower returns.
Some of the online display studies compiled for the research date to
2004, while measurement of other media types is more recent, with online
video since 2007, TV since 2008, magazines since 2011 and cross-media
studies since 2013.
To test whether effectiveness of TV, magazines or digital media had
changed over time, Nielsen also compared media year by year -- meaning
it looked at studies across all media only for 2013, 2014 and 2015 --
and found no meaningful trends in effectiveness, Ms. Wood said. Overall
ROAS is lower in the NCS database since 2011, but that has to do more
with the composition of brands and media types in the studies -- for
example more small brands and more campaigns with digital video dragging
down the average -- than with decline in overall media effectiveness,
she said.
The study had no way of looking at the impact of creative
effectiveness separately from media placement. But NCS did look at
impact of different creative types, with ads featuring promotional
appeals or coupons generally delivering higher returns than other types
of ads.
Ms. Wood expects lively debate as various media groups look to turn
the findings to their advantage. The data may suggest that magazines are
undervalued and digital video overvalued. But will marketers defy
trends by shifting funds back from one of the hottest media of recent
years to one that's seen steady declines?
"If what I do changes behavior, I'd be thrilled," Ms. Wood said.
"That's certainly the takeaway, that there are opportunities here to be
looked at."
Much of the money that's been chasing digital video and driving up
its CPMs has been driven by the search to find millennial and Gen Z
audiences that have gotten harder to reach with conventional TV or
magazines. But regardless of the demographics, the Nielsen Catalina data
suggest there's plenty of sales impact to be had from older media.
One of the more surprising findings to Ms. Wood was the resilience of TV.
"What's interesting to me is that this happens at the scale that
these media have," she said. TV has "dramatically higher reach" than the
other media, averaging 57% of audiences in the Nielsen Catalina study
vs. an average of 35% for campaigns overall and less than 10% for
digital media, including only 2% for mobile. "Reach is expensive," Ms.
Wood said. "So it's interesting that no matter how high its reach is,
linear TV does a tremendous job of driving sales."
The study is in line with findings from another study released
earlier this year by IRI and backed by Turner Broadcasting across 62 CPG
brands representing $3 billion in annual media spending. IRI found TV
return on investment has remained steady the past five years, despite
challenges facing the medium, and that it generally was better than
digital. As with Nielsen Catalina, IRI found big brands with high
household penetration got by far the best return.
Increase in sales per thousand impressions in Nielsen Catalina Solutions study. Credit: Nielsen Catalina Solutions
Speaker(s): Professor Richard Rumelt Chair: Professor Gordon Barrass
Developing
and implementing a strategy is the central task of any leader. Richard
Rumelt shows that there has been a growing and unfortunate tendency to
equate motherhood and apple-pie values and fluffy packages of buzzwords
with "strategy."
Richard Rumelt is the Harry and Elsa Kunin Professor of Business and Society at UCLA Anderson.
Here are a few bad decisions from the world of business
that have become famous -- and are downright humorous in hindsight. Some
people learned from their mistakes and moved on (Bill Gates.) Some,
sadly, faded into history (Decca).
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981
"Drill
for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try to find oil? You're
crazy." -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to
drill for oil in 1859
"But what ... is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
"There
is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken Olson,
president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"The
wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay
for a message sent to nobody in particular?" --David Sarnoff's
associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the
1920s. I hope he fired all of them.
"The concept is interesting
and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must
be feasible." -- A Yale University management professor in response to
Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.[FedEx])
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Airplanes
are interesting toys but of no military value." -- Marechal Ferdinand
Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre. Wasn't France
bombed in World War Two?
"I'm just glad it will be Clark Gable
falling on his face and not Gary Cooper" -- Gary Cooper on his decision
not to take the leading role in "Gone With the Wind"
And my three favorites:
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." --Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962
"This
'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a
means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." --
Western-Union internal memo, 1876. Alexander Bell offered the patent
for the Telephone to Western-Union in 1876 for $100,000. They declined.
The telephone patent has been estimated as the most valuable patent of
all time. Bell's Company, AT&T, later aquired Western-Union. Special
Note -- In 1971 AT&T turned down an offer to own the Internet. Oh
well.
"So we went to Atari and said, "Hey we've got this amazing
thing, even built with some of your parts, what do you think about
funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our
salary, we'll come work for you." And they said, "No". So then we went
to Hewlett Packard and they said, "Hey, we don't need you; you haven't
even got through college yet." -- Apple Computer Co-Founder Steve Jobs
on attempts to get Atari and HP interested in he and Steve Wozniak's
personal computer. HP recovered nicely (though not quite as nicely, I
suspect as they would have if they'd chanced it) but where is Atari
today.
Special Mention -- Couldn't find a quote for these two, but...
In 1933 Coca-Cola declined an opportunity to buy it's then-bankrupt and insignificant rival Pepsi - Cola
In
1999, Excite declined the opportunity to buy Google for $1 million.
It's possible that ANY quote on this from Excite would be -- a-hum --
unprintable. ;)
About the author: http://www.articlesbase.com/authors/mark-hester/30502
Forget the stereotypical leadership image of a buttoned-up person in a
gray suit hauling around a hefty briefcase. Today, standout leaders
come in all shapes and sizes. She could be a blue jeans-clad marketing
student, running a major ecommerce company out of her dorm room. He
might be the next salt-and-pepper-haired, barefoot Steve Jobs,
presenting a groundbreaking new device at a major industry conference.
"Our research indicates that what really matters is that
leaders are able to create enthusiasm, empower their people, instill
confidence and be inspiring to the people around them," says Peter
Handal, chief executive of New York City-based Dale Carnegie Training, a
leadership-training company.
That's a tall order. However, as different as leaders are today,
there are some things great leaders do every day. Here, Handal shares
his five keys for effective leadership:
1. Face challenges.
Great leaders are brave enough to face up to challenging situations
and deal with them honestly. Whether it's steering through a business
downturn or getting struggling employees back on track, effective
leaders meet these challenges openly. Regular communications with your
staff, informing them of both good news and how the company is reacting
to challenges will go a long way toward making employees feel like you
trust them and that they're unlikely to be hit with unpleasant
surprises.
"The gossip at the coffee machine is usually 10 times worse than
reality," Handal says. "Employees need to see their leaders out there,
confronting that reality head-on."
2. Win trust.
Employees are more loyal and enthusiastic when they work in an
environment run by people they trust. Building that trust can be done in
many ways. The first is to show employees that you care about them,
Handal says. Take an interest in your employees beyond the workplace.
Don't pry, he advises, but ask about an employee's child's baseball game
or college graduation. Let your employees know that you're interested
in their success and discuss their career paths with them regularly.
When employees, vendors or others make mistakes, don't reprimand or
correct them in anger. Instead, calmly explain the situation and why
their behavior or actions weren't correct, as well as what you expect in
the future. When people know that you aren't going to berate them and
that you have their best interests at heart, they're going to trust you,
Handal says.
3. Be authentic.
If you're not a suit, don't try to be one. Employees and others
dealing with your company will be able to tell if you're just pretending
to be someone you're not, Handal says. That could make them question
what else about you might be inauthentic. Have a passion for funky
shoes? Wear them. Are you an enthusiastic and hilarious presenter? Get
them laughing. Use your strengths and personality traits to develop your
personal leadership style, Handal says.
4. Earn respect.
When you conduct yourself in an ethical way and model the traits you
want to see in others, you earn the respect of those around you. Leaders
who are perceived as not "walking their talk" typically don't get very
far, Handal says. This contributes to employees and other stakeholders
having pride in the company, which is an essential part of engagement,
Handal says. Also, customers are less likely to do business with a
company if they don't respect its values or leadership.
5. Stay curious.
Good leaders remain intellectually curious and committed to learning.
They're inquisitive and always looking for new ideas, insights and
information. Handal says the best leaders understand that innovation and
new approaches can come from many places and are always on the lookout
for knowledge or people who might inform them and give them an
advantage.
"The most successful leaders I know are truly very curious people.
They're interested in the things around them and that contributes to
their vision," Handal says.
Professional success is important to everyone, but still, success in
business and in life means different things to different people--as well it should.
But one fact is universal: Real success, the kind that exists on
multiple levels, is impossible without building great relationships.
Real success is impossible unless you treat other people with kindness,
regard, and respect.
After all, you can be a rich jerk... but you will also be a lonely jerk.
That's why people who build extraordinary business relationships:
1. Take the hit. A customer gets mad. A vendor complains about poor service. A mutual friend feels slighted.
Sometimes, whatever the issue and regardless of who is actually at
fault, some people step in and take the hit. They're willing to accept
the criticism or abuse because they know they can handle it--and they
know that maybe, just maybe, the other person can't.
Few acts are more selfless than taking the undeserved hit. And few acts better cement a relationship.
2. Step in without being asked. It's easy to help when you're asked. Most people will.
Very few people offer help before they have been asked, even though most of the time that is when a little help will make the greatest impact.
People who build extraordinary relationships pay close attention so
they can tell when others are struggling. Then they offer to help, but
not in a general, "Is there something I can do to help you?" way.
Instead they come up with specific ways they can help. That way they
can push past the reflexive, "No, I'm okay..." objections. And they can
roll up their sleeves and make a difference in another person's life.
Not because they want to build a better relationship, although that is certainly the result, but simply because they care.
3. Answer the question that is not asked. Where relationships are concerned, face value is usually without
value. Often people will ask a different question than the one they
really want answered.
A colleague might ask you whether he should teach a class at a local
college; what he really wants to talk about is how to take his life in a
different direction.
A partner might ask how you felt about the idea he presented during
the last board meeting; what he really wants to talk about is his
diminished role in the running of the company.
An employee might ask how you built a successful business; instead of
kissing up he might be looking for some advice--and encouragement--to
help him follow his own dreams.
Behind many simple questions is often a larger question that goes
unasked. People who build great relationships think about what lies
underneath so they can answer that question, too.
4. Know when to dial it back. Outgoing and charismatic people are usually a lot of fun... until
they aren't. When a major challenge pops up or a situation gets
stressful, still, some people can't stop "expressing their
individuality." (Admit it: You know at least one person so in love with
his personality he can never dial it back.)
People who build great relationships know when to have fun and when
to be serious, when to be over the top and when to be invisible, and
when to take charge and when to follow.
Great relationships are multifaceted and therefore require
multifaceted people willing to adapt to the situation--and to the people
in that situation.
5. Prove they think of others. People who build great relationships don't just think about other people. They act on those thoughts.
One easy way is to give unexpected praise. Everyone loves unexpected
praise--it's like getting flowers not because it's Valentine's Day, but
"just because." Praise helps others feel better about themselves and
lets them know you're thinking about them (which, if you think about it,
is flattering in itself.)
Take a little time every day to do something nice for someone you
know, not because you're expected to but simply because you can. When
you do, your relationships improve dramatically.
6. Realize when they have acted poorly. Most people apologize when their actions or words are called into question.
Very few people apologize before they are asked to--or even before anyone notices they should.
Responsibility is a key building block of a great relationship.
People who take the blame, who say they are sorry and explain why they
are sorry, who don't try to push any of the blame back on the other
person--those are people everyone wants in their lives, because they
instantly turn a mistake into a bump in the road rather than a permanent
roadblock.
7. Give consistently, receive occasionally. A great relationship is mutually beneficial. In business terms that
means connecting with people who can be mentors, who can share
information, who can help create other connections; in short, that means
going into a relationship wanting something.
The person who builds great relationships doesn't think about what
she wants; she starts by thinking about what she can give. She sees
giving as the best way to establish a real relationship and a lasting
connection. She approaches building relationships as if it's all about
the other person and not about her, and in the process builds
relationships with people who follow the same approach.
In time they make real connections.
And in time they make real friends.
8. Value the message by always valuing the messenger. When someone speaks from a position of position of power or authority
or fame it's tempting to place greater emphasis on their input, advice,
and ideas.
We listen to Tony Hsieh. We listen to Norm Brodsky. We listen to Seth Godin.
The guy who mows our lawn? Maybe we don't listen to him so much.
That's unfortunate. Smart people strip away the framing that comes
with the source--whether positive or negative--and consider the
information, advice, or idea based solely on its merits.
People who build great relationships never automatically discount the
message simply because they discount the messenger. They know good
advice is good advice, regardless of where it comes from.
And they know good people are good people, regardless of their perceived "status."
9. Start small... and are happy to stay small. I sometimes wear a Reading Football Club sweatshirt. The checkout
clerk at the grocery store noticed it one day and said, "Oh, you're a
Reading supporter? My team is Manchester United."
Normally, since I'm pretty shy, I would have just nodded and said
something innocuous, but for some reason I said, "You think Man U can
beat Real Madrid next week?"
He gave me a huge smile and said, "Oh yeah. We'll crush them!" (Too bad he was wrong.)
Now whenever I see him he waves, often from across the store. I almost always walk over, say hi, and talk briefly about soccer.
That's as far as our relationship is likely to go and that's okay.
For a couple of minutes we transcend the customer/employee relationship
and become two people brightening each other's day.
And that's enough, because every relationship, however minor and possibly fleeting, has value.
People who build great relationships treat every one of their
relationships that way. (That's a lesson I need to take to heart more
often.)
Jeff Haden
learned much of what he knows about business and technology as he
worked his way up in the manufacturing industry. Everything else he
picks up from ghostwriting books for some of the smartest leaders he knows in business. @jeff_haden
