Making dollars by making sense: Leading through the creation of meaning

2010 New Year's Resolutions for Leaders

2009-12-31T14:39:00.004-06:00

I will communicate a compelling vision for what we are trying to accomplish.
I will translate that vision into a unique and compelling story for each person who is responsible for fulfilling it.
I will hold people accountable for helping to realize that vision.
I will help my people achieve things that they never dreamt possible.
I will give my people open, honest, an on-going feedback.
I will model the values that I seek from others.
I will help my low performers improve and will help my high performers stretch into new opportunities.
I will look at my work through the eyes of my business partners or customers.
I will make myself and my department easy to do business with.
I will improve my customer's experience, my people's careers, and my organization's success.

What shoveling snow can tell us about leadership

2009-12-26T19:05:00.001-06:00

Winter has definitely arrived across the country. People from coast to coast are digging out of some hefty snow.

As my dogs and I try to navigate around my subdivision, I’ve noticed four types of snow shoveling strategies. Interestingly, these strategies line up very well with four different types of leadership.

What snow?
The first type of house is the one with tire marks in the driveway but no clear attempt to shovel. These people are not changing their routine just because their environment changed. Some leaders operate the same way. They go on autopilot and don’t adjust their work, their strategy, or the way they deal with their people based on context. They just plow ahead hoping not to get stuck on the ice. When they do, they often disrupt those around them for a little push to get back on the road.

I can get out
The second type of house is the one that is shoveled just enough to get the car(s) out of the driveway. The walk is left undone as is any area that doesn’t affect the owner’s ability to get around. This is like the lone-ranger leader. These leaders focus all of their energy on optimizing their results – at best without helping others, at worst to the detriment of others. These leaders have a siloed view of their role and relationship to the rest of the organization. I’d argue, they aren’t really leaders at all.

It’s not like I didn’t shovel
Then there’s the house with the fully shoveled driveway and thin path (usually one shovel width) along the sidewalk. These people know that they are supposed to be good neighbors. They don’t want to look selfish so they do the minimum amount necessary to be part of the broader community. We’ve all seen their counterparts at work. They come to meetings, volunteer for the easy tasks and never seem to be around when the going gets tough. In helping those around them, they seem to be more focused on their own well-being (e.g, reputation, political influence, etc.) than in actually helping the organization succeed. In some ways, I prefer the “I can get out” leaders. At least they are honest about their motives.

I’ve got your back
The final house is the easiest to navigate. All driving and walking paths are completely clear. These homeowners are thinking more about just their needs. They are thinking about the kids who need to walk to school, the mail carrier, the neighborhood dog walkers, joggers, and anyone else who is trying to pass by. They realize that their house is part of a larger community and plays a role in that community whether they are directly involved or not. In organizations, these leaders are attentive to the big picture. They don’t just optimize their individual department or goals. They understand that other people inside and outside of the organization might rely on their departments. Most importantly, they are responsive to those needs. They make themselves easy to do business with. They ensure that they do not introduce burdensome processes or obstacles into other people’s work. Some even goes as far as to remove such obstacles. These leaders understand that part of their role (I’d argue most of their role) is to help the organization, its customers, and its partners succeed.

Winter has just begun. As the snow falls and the shovels come out, now is a good time to reflect on your leadership style. Use the extra time that you spend fully clearing your walk to think about how you can fully clear the path to success for anyone who works with you or your organization.

What you see is what you get - or is it?

2009-12-21T11:40:00.007-06:00

Take a look at the picture below. Which of the horizontal lines is longer?

This picture is the famous Ponzo Illusion. The lines are the same length. How did you respond to that question? Did you

trust what you saw and say that the top line was longer
think back to a similar illusion that you've seen in the past and assume that the lines were the same
measure the lines to find out for sure
consider alternative ways to look at and make sense of the image

The first two are probably representative of how we approach many things. We trust our assumptions and senses without verification. That can get us in trouble. The second two represent good critical thinking.

This illusion illustrates a very simple idea: our senses may not be as accurate as they seem. We often rely heavily on what we sense – after all “seeing is believing”, right? It's reasonable to trust our sense. They are a deeply ingrained part of who we are. But, as the illusion demonstrates, senses can deceive us.

Actually, it’s not our senses that are deceiving us, it is our brain. Senses are just input devices just like microphones or video cameras. It's the way that those inputs get processed which creates problems. What we “see” isn't just a simple record of the image that entered our eye. It is influenced by our past experiences and what we’ve seen before. A recent research study showed that when an image enters your eye, two parts of your brain become active. The first is the part responsible for generating the image. The second is the part assocaited with your memory. That's why family resemblances are often more obvious to strangers than they are to family members. Strangers just see the actual features. Family members "see" all of the stories, experiences, and meaning behind those features which makes each family member appear much more unique.

It’s easy to feel certain about our perceptions because they often seems so real. Those lines in the illusion really look different, don’t they? But don't be fooled. Our brain dictates everything that we perceive whether it be through sights, sounds, smells, or even thoughts.

Recent discoveries in neuroscience have shown that by the time we become conscious and aware of anything, our brain has already applied several layers of “meaning” to it. Sometimes that meaning is real, other times, like with this illusion, our brains distort it. And, we can’t stop it. Look at the lines again. You know that they are the same yet you cannot stop your brain from making you see them as different.

So, the next time you feel certain about something that you are seeing, hearing, or thinking, remember that it might just be a very convincing illusion created by your brain. You might want to turn to some external source to validate your perceptions.

Hot Potato: Great kid’s game, but a bad leadership strategy

2009-12-17T08:08:00.001-06:00

Who are the “hot potatoes” in your organization? You know - the people who no longer are performing but have not been told. Instead, they just get passed along from department to department. We all have them.

Having difficult conversations is hard, especially when they involve someone’s performance. Despite this, not confronting poor performers is a problem.

Regardless of how much you try to isolate these people, they touch others. They may manage them, they interact with them, and they occupy leaders’ time and attention often at the expense of others. You can’t contain their influence. Their lowered performance affects all of the people they touch. The pull down morale and productivity.

Not dealing with these people properly also under minds your credibility. Everyone in the organization knows who these people are and what is going on. Any message or vision of building a high-performing team or holding people accountable become watered down with skepticism.

Most importantly, as my friend Ed Quijano once told me, it’s simply not ethical. Withholding information about someone’s performance and not dealing with the issue hurts the person. If someone were unknowingly paddling down a river toward a dangerous rapid, you’d warn them. If they were about to enter a building that had a gas leak, you’d warn them. So, why do we allow people to careen toward a brick wall in their careers?

No matter how hard the conversation might be, you are responsible for having it. You owe it to your organization, your people, and even the poor performer. And, who knows, maybe if you let the person know what’s wrong, he or she might actually fix it.

Leading in the passive voice isn't leading at all

2009-12-06T18:46:00.002-06:00

I recently heard a wonderful poem by Jack Riemer. I was struck at how well it captures the essence of leadership and personal accountability.

We cannot merely pray to end war;
For the world was made in such a way
That we must find our own path of peace
Within ourselves and with our neighbor.

We cannot merely pray to root out prejudice;
for we already have eyes
With which to see the good in all people
If we would only use them rightly.

We cannot merely pray to end starvation;
For we already have the resources
With which to feed the entire world
If we would only use them wisely.

We cannot merely pray to end disease;
For we already have great minds
With which to search out cures and
healings
If we would only use them constructively.

Therefore we pray instead
For strength, determination, and will power,
To do instead of merely to pray
To become instead of merely to wish;
That our world may
be safe,
And that our lives may be blessed."
-Jack Riemer (adapted)

I often hear leaders speak in passive voice. “If only our people could be more engaged”, “If we could just have a greater sense of urgency”, “I hope we’ll get through this change”. It’s as if those leaders forget that they are the ones leading.

Leaders shouldn’t hope or wish; they should do. Leadership is an active endeavor. A leader’s job is to draw out the best from his or her workforce, to keep them engaged and empowered, and to create the kind of culture needed to make the organization succeed.

How do you think about (or communicate) the needs of your organization? Are you passive - relying on some invisible force or person to make things happen? Or, do you speak about your responsibility, actions, and influence. If you aren’t sure, ask someone. If you lead in the passive voice don’t be surprised if you don’t see much change.

Don’t discard your biases and “gut”, just change the way that you use them

2009-12-03T09:42:00.004-06:00

Data-driven decision-making or gut-level decision-making, which is the answer? The pendulum has swung way over to data-driven. But isn’t your personal experience and judgment what got you to where you are?

Your value as a leader comes from your experiences and judgments. If organizations could codify every decision into a predictable formula, leaders would be replaced with statistics packages.

Yet, your personal experiences and judgments, while successful in the past, may no longer be sufficient in a changing world. So, what can you do? The answer is that you need both: good data and a strong gut. However, we need to change the way use them:

Instead of using your bias to answer questions, use it to generate questions and let the data provide the answers.
Then, instead of using data to support your gut, use your gut to process the data.

Ultimately, all of our decisions are gut-based and biased. This is best illustrated in Jonah Lehrer’s book, How We Decide. Lehrer describes a man who after having a tumor removed from his orbitofrontal cortex couldn’t make decisions (at least not quickly and easily). In the opertaion, some of the orbitofrontal cortext was also removed. The orbitofrontal cortex is the part of the brain governing emotion.

Why is it so hard to make an entirely fact-based decision? First, there is always more data. At some point, you have to make a judgment call. You must believe that you have a reasonable amount of data and a sound argument. Otherwise you’ll be searching endlessly. Second, treating every fact equally thwarts decision-making. You must determine which data matters most. This comes from your experience. Finally, few problems have a single right answer. Two people looking at the same dataset can come to vastly different conclusions based on their experience with similar data. And, both might be right. A surge strategy and a withdrawal strategy are probably equally viable ways of resolving the conflict in Afghanistan. It’s not that one is right and one is wrong. Both have their merits and their issues. To determine which is the “right” answer, people must use their experiences, biases, and gut to put the data into a broader context.

In today’s world, the “right” answer isn’t some form of absolute truth. Rather it is the one based on a sound, logical argument that is supported by facts (with the realization that there might be an opposing view that also has a sound, logical argument supported by facts).

This isn’t to say that every decision and every opinion is equally viable. People make bad and misinformed decisions. Good leaders need to learn how to harness their gut and bias. However, they should not blindly follow them. I am not advocating that we swing the pendulum back the other way. My point is just that we can use data to confirm or refute our biases/gut and we can use our gut/bias to put the data into a broader context.

You don’t have the time to “not have time”

2009-11-25T14:58:00.003-06:00

I don’t know if it’s an excuse or a misperception, but lately I’ve been hearing that people don’t have time to follow sound business practices. There is no time to plan, to get people’s buy-in to change, or to think critically about the business. Execution is the name of the game. Most people agree that those other principles make sense theoretically. Yet, they argue that in a fast-paced environment such principles are luxuries or not as relevant.

I’m not so sure. Those principles are even more important in a fast-paced environment. Think about a car. At 20 MPH you might not even notice that one wheel is out of alignment. Accelerate to 100 MPH and suddenly the car shakes furiously. Speed magnifies alignment problems. This is true in business as well. To respond quickly to competitive or economic threats, you need an aligned workforce. You can’t afford to have people who are still holding out for the old way. Each decision they make will move you toward or away from your goals. Speed also amplifies mistakes. If your environment is moving so fast, you have less time to recover. Each mistake provides the opportunity for your competition to move in. You’d better have a workforce that is thinking because you might only have one shot at getting things right.

Despite the belief that there is no time for the right things, there always seems to be time and money to clean up or redo the wrong things. In reality, the only people who do not need to be thinking, planning, and gaining buy-in for change are the ones with all the time in the world to get things done.

Is a dream a lie if it don't come true

2009-11-23T23:36:00.003-06:00

"Now those memories come back to haunt me
they haunt me like a curse
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true
Or is it something worse
that sends me down to the river
though I know the river is dry"

-Bruce Springsteen, The River

Perhaps Bruce Springsteen was on to something when he wrote those words back in 1980. It would be several years until neuroscientists began to wonder the same thing. Just how good is our memory? Not very. And, does it ever lie to us? Yes, probably more often than we realize.

In an effort to be efficient, our brains try to compress and squeeze as much information into one place as possible. It filters out the “noise” and retains the salient facts. Unfortunately, sometimes that “noise” is actually important.

For example, consider the last time you were reviewing work that didn’t meet your expectations. You probably cycled through the typical explanations: you didn’t communicate your expectations well, the other person wasn’t paying attention, the other person wasn’t up to the task, or perhaps, the other person just isn’t bought in and is doing his own thing. These explanations are certainly plausible and in many cases, one or more might be true. But before jumping to a conclusion on any of them, you might want to consider another explanation: what you remember communicating might be wrong.

You might be remembering the conversation that you had with yourself as you prepared for that meeting. You most likely went through all of the things that you wanted to say and how you wanted to say them. Your brain doesn’t necessarily distinguish the two events – the planning and the meeting. After the meeting, your brain combined the two memories into one. As you think back to the meeting, you “remember” with certainty what you said. And, you are right – at least partially. Most likely it is what you said (or thought) just not during the meeting. Where you said it is part of the “noise” that your brain filters out in order to more efficiently store memories.

The same might be happening to the person who did the work. Perhaps he thought through the discussion prior to the meeting. Or, maybe he spoke with someone after the meeting. As time goes by, his initial planning, his discussion with you, and the discussion afterward, all get combined. While he remembers the content of the discussions, he may not remember where and when that came up.

The lesson for leaders is that our memories can be fragile. Don’t jump to conclusions when what you see is different from what you remember requesting. Stop and confirm that your memory is correct. Better, yet, continually confirm that from the time you make the request until it is delivered.

How our memory really works is just one of the many things we talk about in our new book, The Brain Advantage: Become a More Effective Business Leader Using the Latest Brain Research by Madeleine Van Hecke, Lisa P. Callahan, Brad Kolar, and Ken Paller.

Do auto dealers read the same newspapers and books as the rest of us?

2009-11-20T09:37:00.006-06:00

I don’t think so. In the past two months I have purchased or been involved in the purchase of three new cars. It seems like auto dealers operate (or at least think they operate) in a dimension where basic principles of consumer behavior do not exist. For an industry that is reported to be struggling, they sure don’t seem to be too concerned about their customers.

Given that my tax money has gone to help some auto manufactures, I thought it was my civic and patriotic duty to try to provide some support. So, for those dealers that haven’t had time to read up on consumer behavior and expectations in the 21st century, I’ve compiled a few quick lessons. I hope they help.

Consumers have access to information now. I’m not sure if you’ve checked out the internet, but there’s all sorts of cool stuff on it, including the invoice price of your cars. Most people take MSRP about as seriously as the first price given for the six piece knife set on an infomercial. I do applaud you for applying good psychology research. Starting with the MSRP is called “anchoring”. It provides a baseline in my brain from which I decide whether the deal is good or bad. Because the baseline is the anchor, I am more likely to accept a price that is closer to the original number. However, here’s the problem. When I walk in the door (or call or email), I’ve already anchored myself on the invoice price. I have two prices in mind: the absolute highest price I’m willing to pay and the price that, if offered, will get me to commit to the purchase on the spot. So, how about if we just start with those numbers and you can quickly let me know where you stand. I won’t think badly of you if you believe that it’s not in your interest to meet those prices. But I will think badly if you make me play some long drawn out game to find that out

Speaking of walking in the door, if I don’t do that, assume that I’m not really looking for a conversation or relationship. I’m sure that you are very nice, but I’m very busy. Whatever choice I made in how I contacted you, I did so for a reason. I’ll let you know when I want to interact in a different way. Until then, assume that the channel I chose is the channel I want to use. People exchange information and conduct transactions electronically now. You can do that too. You might want to check out this cool website called Amazon.com. People can go there, get a price for the product they want, and can buy it without ever talking to someone. If I ask you for the price of something, how about if you just send me a note back telling me what that is.

And when I say I am looking for a price for “something”, I actually mean the thing I want. Remember that internet thing I told you about? It has a lot of information about your cars. I can learn about the various trim levels, available options, all sorts of cool stuff. So, when I tell you that I want your base model in electric red with the entertainment and convenience packages, it’s pretty safe to assume that I actually want that. I’m not looking for your limited edition model with the deluxe leather seating and driver side massage chair – if I did, I would have told you that. I did look at those options but already decided that they weren’t important to me or that they didn’t fit my budget. You aren’t really helping me when you tell me to give you a call so we can discuss some alternatives that you have available. So, when you do give me the price, please make sure it’s for the product that I actually requested.

Yes – I am asking you for a price because I’m shopping around. I'm used to being able to shop around for most things. I typically go to this really cool mall called “the entire world.” I get to compare prices from pretty much anyone (with electricity and internet access) who wants to sell me the product. I realize that I can’t buy my car from Malaysia. But, with a few clicks of my mouse I can find all of the dealers within a certain range of my house. I’m going to shop and compare. After all, I’m doing it at my computer and it costs me just about nothing in time or effort. I understand that you don’t want me to, but you really don’t have a choice. Consumers have a lot more control than we used to and we get sort of cranky when you try to take that from us. If I believe that you as trying to strip control from me, I’m walking.

Make the process simple, fast, and transparent. I’m pretty impatient these days. I really don’t like to wait to get information and I especially hate it when I have to wait for my purchase. Did you know that I can purchase a book from a company out of state and actually start reading it within a minute because it gets wirelessly downloaded to my ebook reader? Lots of stuff is like that now. I’m getting used to it and I think I like it.

So when I do finally come in and you have me sit around at a desk for 10 minutes while you check on the final price with your manager, I get annoyed. First, I thought we agreed on a price. When I order stuff on-line and hit the “purchase” button the deal is finalized. I don’t get a little pop-up window that says they need to check with their manager or that they forgot to include the price of the box. This is true even if we are negotiating the price in person. When you do the "manager" thing, I know you are just stalling (believe it or not, no one actually believes that you are in some heated debate with your manager working to get me the best price) Remember that control thing I talked about? I really don’t like being played.

OK, but enough about my reaction. There is something else that you really need to know. I’m not sitting there passively nor am I reading the pretty color brochure that you left me (remember, I already got all of the information I needed before I even walked in the door). See, I have this cool little thing called a cellphone. And, it’s not like the old fashion kinds of phones. It connects me to the internet. That means that I’m not limited to just the information that you make available to me while I am waiting. I’m checking to see if any of the emails that I sent to your competitors have come in. I’m double checking to see if any new rebate or incentive programs are available. I’m checking into financing options at other places. The bottom line is that whatever I am doing, it is not helping you. There might have been a time when prolonging the process worked to your advantage. Not anymore. The longer it takes, the more annoyed I get and the more time I have to gather even more information to use as leverage against you. (by the way, this is true on-line as well – each email that you send me with questions instead of answers allows me to get more answers from somewhere else). The faster you get me to a point where I can make a decision, the more likely it is that the decision will go in your favor (assuming you give me a good price). And, if it's not going to go in your favor, the faster you can move on to work with someone else. See, we both win.

One final thing on speed, if you leave me too long and I really get bored or aggravated, I’m going to start Twittering or blogging to all of my friends. And guess what I’m going to talk about? No, it’s not going to be about your five star service or coffee in the customer lounge. It’s going to be about how annoying it is that I am sitting in a car dealership. But don’t worry, I’ll mention your name, you’ll get all of the credit and word of mouth that you deserve.

Be honest. OK, that’s not really a new expectation but it’s always worth mentioning. I’m sure that you would love to get me a car for $2000 less than all of your competitors. But remember, I’m not buying the quote, I’m buying a car. Don’t quote me prices on products that you don’t have. I’m not used to that anymore. If one company doesn’t have what I need, I move on to the next one. Giving me a price and then later telling me that you’ll have to find the car only disrupts my process of moving on, it doesn’t stop it.

I hope this brief summary of customer expectations helps. The world is changing rapidly. I know it’s hard to keep up.

Business. It's personal!

2009-11-17T21:54:00.006-06:00

One of my bosses once asked me how I was able to generate so much loyalty and engagement from my team. I told him that I cared about them. He didn't like my answer. His concern was that we couldn't put "caring" into a program that we sent across the organization. I think he was looking for a process, or maybe a good strong checklist. But, I didn't have one.

He said that caring wasn't 'scalable'. We needed another option. It seems that in many businesses non-scalable solutions aren't worth pursuing.

Yet, I question that. Success doesn't happen at the institutional level; it occurs at the individual level. Your people don't interact with your "company"; they interact with other people within your company and most importantly, with their leaders.

A commonly quoted phrase from employee engagement research says that people don't leave companies, they leave bosses. But, not every "boss" believes that. In one organization, leaders complained that it was unfair to be held accountable for all of the questions on the employee engagement survey. Their argument was certain things like salary administration (and even salary ranges), benefits, facilities, equipment, and other aspects of the environment were out of their control. They believed that they were being dragged down by decisions that other people were making. We ran some data and found an interesting result:

The three groups represent all of the organization's departments clustered by overall satisfaction. At first glance, it seems intuitive. When people are happy/satisfied/engaged they see the world through rose-colored glasses. When they aren't, that also affects their view on everything.

But there is a more telling story here. It's not just a simple case of people seeing the glass half full or half empty. The survey questions were divided into three categories: the organization itself (benefits, compensation, personal development opportunities, facility, etc), the manager, and co-workers.

Two out of the three categories address things that are basically consistent across the organization. Everyone has access to the same benefits, resources, infrastructure, etc. On the co-worker side, people didn't only interact with others in their department, they interacted with other across the organization. And, within each department there were good performers and bad performers, personality differences/conflicts, and a pretty typical set of interpersonal issues. So, if everyone was experiencing the same organization and same co-workers, why did they have different impressions. The answer lies in the one thing that did actually change in the organization - the managers. So perhaps those managers' concerns were misguided. It wasn't that the organization was pulling them down. They were pulling the organization down.

The same thing applies to your customers. They don't interact with your company either. They interact with a sales person, call center operator, service technician, or any one of the many people who support them. And, just as a bad manager can drag down the organization, each individual customer experience adds to or takes away from the customer's impression of your company.

I disagree with the statement that caring can't be scalable. Caring must be scalable to all levels of the orgnization. But, I do agree that there isn’t a one-size fits all scalable solution to creating genuine, authentic, and meaningful interactions. It’s the unique nature of those interactions that make them genuine, authentic, and meaningful. You can’t scale interactions. However, you can scale your selection and performance management processes to hire, reward, and promote people who create those types of interactions.

Instead of focusing on scalable solutions, we might want to start focusing on maximizing each individual interaction. To do this, we have to remember that interactions are not about programs and policies. They are about having people who care - whether it be about one another, the customer, or the organization. It's about being able to address the unique needs, desires, and values of people. It's about working at a micro scale rather than a macro scale.

In the end, business, and success in business are personal.

It's lonely at the top - and people are always yelling at you

2009-11-13T21:56:00.004-06:00

I learned many things as an executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center. One of the most important lessons was that senior executives don't like getting emails or phone calls from irate customers. I received my fair share of forwarded emails with a simple two word introduction: "Fix this."

It's not that these executives don't care about customers or find them to be an annoyance. In fact, I've found quite the opposite to be true. Senior executives often care deeply about the experience that their customer's have. What frustrates them is that most of the time, the problems that are escalated have a simple, clear, and obvious solution. In many cases, people throughout the organization knew the right thing to do, they just didn't do it.

One C-Level executive was contacted by a customer who was appealing a $25 service charge on a bill. Her husband passed away and in the month that she was getting his and her affairs in order she missed payment. The answer is obvious, right? Apparently not. This customer had spoken to over 10 people in the organization at varying levels. None of them were willing to drop the service charge. The executive was astounded that issue even got to him. Within five minutes the service charge was dropped.

As a consumer I've learned to use it to my advantage. When I run into a problem, I no longer waste my time trying to navigate the maze of supervisors and middle managers who either aren't willing or aren't able to solve my problem. Instead, if the first two people I speak with can't make things right, I find a senior executive with whom to share my issue. Since changing to this strategy, my success rate for resolving problems has increased to an almost perfect score. And, the amount of time I spend trying to get my problems resolved has dropped dramatically.

So what's going on? These senior executives don't have more information about me than the front line staff or supervisors. They probably don't understand the specific processes that are impacting my ability to be served. In fact, usually the people who wind up solving my problems are the original people with whom I dealt.

I used to count the "fix it" notes that I'd receive as symbols of failed leadership. More specifically, failures of my leadership. If someone on my team couldn't (or wouldn't make) an obvious decision to help a customer, that was my fault. The person didn't have the ability, information, or motivation they needed to make the right call. Ability, information, and motivation is the job of a leader. Some leaders seem to take pride in the fact that when an issue is raised to their level, they can get it resolved quickly. I think it might be more appropriate to question how and why the issue even made it to them in the first place.

Does your organization require that customer complaints be escalated to the highest levels of the organization before they are resolved? Do you have a culture where executives in one department resort to contacting their peers in other departments to get things done? If so it's time to rethink your leadership strategy. Leaders need to empower their people to make decisions and take actions. You can't successfully run a business with every micro decision being made at the top.

Put understanding before data

2009-11-04T10:29:00.004-06:00

This week, blogger Jim Wells has an excellent post regarding a common myth associated with six sigma and other quality techniques. The myth is that these techniques will magically provide knowledge and insight. Jim argues that in fact, these tools are only as effective as the knowledge of the person using them and the data that is put into them. Check out Jim's full posting at:

http://qualitypractice.blogspot.com/2009/11/six-sigma-its-no-substitute-for.html

I often have a similar conversation with leaders. Many use data to substitute rather than complement their understanding of their business. That doesn't work. Leaders should develop a model of the dynamics that exist in their business and how those dynamics might play out in the data. They need to do this before reviewing the data so that they can more effectively approach it.

A famous story illustrates this principle. In WWII, the Royal Air Force had a dilemma. Its planes were being shot down and it only had a limited amount of armor to reinforce them. They called in mathematician Abraham Wald. Wald studied the planes and found that there were common patterns of where bullet holes appeared and where they did not. Most people would have recommended that they fortify those spots with the most holes. That seemed like the best answer since the data showed that that is where the planes were being hit the most.

However, Wald took a step back and applied his understanding of aircraft and warfare to develop a model to help him interpret the data. His recommendation was to fortify the parts of the planes that didn't have holes. His argument took into account additional information from his model. The planes he was looking at were the ones that returned. Therefore, the location of the holes that he saw was not critical to the planes ability to fly. However, the places where he didn't see holes must represent where the other planes (that were shot down) were hit. His solution was simple but only because he had a model from which to understand his data.

I recently was working with a group of people who were trying to measure the impact of a particular solution on productivity. They were fortunate in that they rolled out the solution in phases so that at any time there were people using the solution and others who were not. Week after week their report stated (based on the data below) that their solution was helping to drive up productivity.

I challenged them on their conclusion. Clearly, their solution improved productivity. That wasn’t the issue. But their story was somewhat misleading. Impact requires two things - effectiveness and use. A good solution that is unused does not have much impact nor does a poor solution that is used heavily. In comparing the department average with the other two averages, it became clear that, there weren’t very many people using the new solution yet. While their productivity improved, it wasn’t enough to have a material impact on the department as a whole. The “impact” model helped us better make sense of the data so that the story changed from “This solution impacts the business” to “This solution has great potential but we need to roll it out more aggressively”.

Insights don’t come from data. They come from your understanding of your business applied to data.

Playing to win - What high school wrestling can teach us about business success**

2009-10-24T11:23:00.009-05:00

The other day, while standing in front of the mirror, I realized something. My criteria for success has changed. I used to ask myself whether I looked good. Now I ask myself whether I don't look too bad. I'm not sure exactly when this changed but it did. This subtle change is probably more responsible than anything else for the image that I see in the mirror. I changed my focus from "winning" to "not losing". Where I was once driven to work out, eat right, sleep well, etc., now I am satisfied if I just avoid things that are bad for me. Those few extra pounds that prevented me looking good, aren't as troublesome as they once were, since they don't make me look that bad. I've lowered the bar. It's not suprising that my weight continues to increase.

As leaders, we need to create a culture of people who strive to win rather than than just avoiding losing. One of the best leaders in this regard was my high school wrestling coach, Fred Richardi. I remember a match I had my sophomore year. It was only my second year wrestling but I had been put on the varsity team (needless to say, I lost a lot). My opponent was a senior ranked third in the state. With 30 seconds left in the match, we were tied. There was a pause in the match. I went back to my corner and Coach Richardi said something I'll never forget, "You still have time to beat him." Gven the circumstances I'm sure he was one of a very few coaches who would have made that comment. Most would have told me to hold out for the tie.

I tried to pin my opponent. He easily countered and escaped earning one point. He won the match. I sulked back to my corner expecting to get chewed out by my coach. But instead he said, "Good job." I reminded him that I had just lost. He replied, "I didn't expected you to win. I expected you to try to win." For Coach Richardi a loss trying to win was far better than settling for a tie. He wanted aggressive wrestlers who tried to win. As a result, his wrestlers and teams had strong winning records year after year. That moment changed my view. Had he not empowered me to take a risk or had he penalized me for not staying the course and accepting a tie, I would have had a very different, and average, wrestling career (not that mine was all that outstanding but it was certainly better than average).

Looking back on my business career, Coach Richardi's words have even more meaning. The times that I've failed have been when I was trying not to lose - the safe opinion that wouldn't stir controversy, the easy project that I could deliver with my eyes closed, or those times when I tried to stay below the radar. My successes have come when I tried to win -doing those things that other people thought not possible or going after the high visibility projects.

The same thing happens in the business with whom I work. Organizations, teams, and individuals try not to lose rather than strive to win. The result is cautious decision making, risk aversion, and only doing things that have been "tried and true". Over time, these organizations go from being good to not bad to irrelevant. The very actions they take to avoid losing are the ones that, in the end, drive their loss.

Leaders who encourage their people to play it safe (whether implicitly or explicitly) create cultures of people who play not to lose. They hit their targets and meet their deadlines but never create the "killer app" or innovative idea. Their departments don't detract from the business but aren't seen as value creators or essential functions. At best, they generate indifference from the rest of the business.

It's time to start playing to win. Encourage your people to take chances. Allow them to swing for the fence and understand that they might strike out more. In the end, you'll win more games and have more impact.

**In memory of Coach Fred Richardi who taught me about life while trying to turn me in to a wrestler.

Critical thinking is essential during execution

2009-10-16T08:02:00.005-05:00

I recently gave a talk on critical thinking. One audience member firmly asserted that critical thinking is fine during planning when you have time. However, he said, it has no place during execution. His case in point, the Army. You can't have soldiers thinking about their mission. They just need to execute their orders. I hear this quite often. There is a strong belief that thinking is for planning, not execution. I couldn't disagree more.

Critical thinking needs to be happening all the time. It matters most during execution. After all, that is the only point at which your actions have consequence. Look at the most critical or devastating execution mistakes in your business. I would bet that many are not due to failed execution of the plan or policy. Often it is because they executed it too well.

The June, 2005 issue of Technology Review had an article by David Talbot titled Preventing Fratricide. Talbot cites a case of a U.S. and a British fighter plane were shot down during the second Gulf War. Planes get shot down during war, that wasn't his issue. The issue was that U.S. Patriot Missiles shot them down. Talbot provides several reasons for the errors including critical thinking. One of the biggest culprits was that the people who deployed the Patriots had a flawed assumption in their strategy. They assumed that Saddam Hussein was going to have a heavy, on-going barrage of missiles. Unfortunately, they didn't plan (or at least communicate a plan) for the alternative. According to Talbot, "The operating protocol was largely automatic, and the operators were trained to trust the system's software...a design that would be needed for heavy missile attacks, the task force wrote." In other words, part of the plan was that the operators shouldn't think but should rely on the system. Unfortunately, the intelligence was wrong and the missiles were few and far between. The systems weren't set up for that. The people deploying the Patriot batteries followed the plan perfectly. As a result, they watched as the missiles shot down their allies.

Sentinel events in hospitals, airline crashes, military errors, or even mundane day to day problems such as poor customer service or shop floor inefficiencies often stem from a lack of critical thinking during execution. Research shows that as stress and time pressures increase, critical thinking tends to decrease, just at the time you need it most. Believing that critical thinking is a luxury that can only be had during planning is itself a major thinking error.

As a leader, your job is to ensure that you create an environment where people think about what they do. The days of command and control decision making are over. This does not mean that people should sit around all day pondering every decision - that's not critical thinking anyway. It does mean that your people should have enough information and empowerment to challenge flawed or no longer relevant assumptions. Everyone in your organization should be thinking critically - especially those who are making the real decisions that ultimately affect your customer, your product, and your future.

A few tips for enabling critical thinking in your organization:

Reward critical thinking – don’t squelch people who oppose the status quo. Reward those people who can look at a situation differently.
Assign people the role of thinking critically – One CEO would assign a different person in each meeting to play “devil’s advocate”. The CEO based that person’s performance in the meeting solely on his or her ability to raise tough issues.
Provide context – Don’t just provide answers and orders. People can’t think critically about what they are doing unless they understand the assumptions and thought process that went into coming up with the answer.
Communicate both the consensus and the dissention – The Supreme Court publishes both the final ruling of a case as well as the dissenting opinion. This is to support future thinking and decisions.

Forget social media. There's a more powerful way to encourage collaboration.

2009-10-13T22:51:00.004-05:00

I was involved in an interesting discussion today. The group was trying to determine how to be more effective at driving collaboration in their organizations. This discussion has been going on for a long time. The emergence of social media has rekindled it by providing a new arsenal of tools from which to draw.

But it struck me that we might be asking the wrong question. In fact, I think we might have fallen into a common trap. Often, when people aren’t performing as expected, our first instinct is to "enable" - create tools, training, or processes for our people.

I'm not opposed to tools, training and processes. Good organizations give their people the resources they need to get things done. But, there is something more fundamental. Instead of asking, "how" people collaborate (and focusing on the tools), perhaps we can find a better answer by asking "who collaborates?"

Your people collaborate all of the time in their personal lives. They do it without all of the fancy tools, infrastructure, and processes that you make available to them. Even at work those people collaborate. They just don't always collaborate on the things that you want. Think of the last time you rolled out a major change initiative. I'd bet that your resistors found incredibly effective ways to collaborate and resist the change. They probably found "experts" who could build the case against the change; they located others with similar points of view. And, they coordinated the message so that there was a focused, unified force resisting the change. Just like at home, they probably didn't rely on your collaboration infrastructure to make this happen.

So, if it's not the infrastructure driving collaboration, what does? Let's go back to the question of "who" collaborates? People who collaborate the most have three things in common: shared goals, passion/engagement, and an opportunity to collaborate. Consider Wikipedia. The shared goal was the building of an open-source encyclopedia. The passion was whatever topic interested the individual making the contribution, and the opportunity was the Wikipedia site. Simple. So, why can't we replicate that?

Many organizations focus their efforts on the "opportunity part". They provide tools and website to allow collaboration. However, without passion or shared goals, people don’t seek opportunities. No one uses Facebook or Twitter just because they are available. They use them to further their goals and interests.

Recent research on workforce engagement sheds some light on the problem. A large percentage of people simply are not engaged in their jobs. They don't have passion for what they do. Their leaders fail to create a compelling vision or story in which they want to participate. They are doing a job. The aren't bursting with excitement over talking about the last customer complaint they handled, the status report that they wrote, or the team meeting in which they just participated. Many are probably trying to do the minimum required to get the job done satisfactorily.

Similarly, few leaders create simple, clear, shared goals for their organizations. At best individuals and departments have disparate goals. At worst, they have competing goals. In either case, people have little incentive to collaborate since, in the absence of shared goals, collaboration generally comes at a cost to one of the participants.

Perhaps it’s time to take a step back to the basics. There is no silver bullet or killer app that is going to solve our collaboration problems. Your people collaborate. They just don't collaborate on the things that you care about. So, instead of giving them a new tool, why not try to get them to care about those things as well?

There's a new blog in town - I recommend it to all leaders

2009-10-10T11:59:00.003-05:00

As a leader, you've probably been bombarded with six sigma and lean. Should you do it? How do you do it? Does it make sense in a non-manufacturing setting?

Jim Wells, a Master Blackbelt in Six Sigma, is sharing his experience in a great new blog called, "Quality in Practice". This blog isn't about theory. This blog contains real-life, practical applications of Six Sigma and Lean. Jim is going to cut through the hype and help you figure out how to make these principles work for you.

I'd encourage every leader to check it out.

http://qualitypractice.blogspot.com

Managers provide process, Leaders provide content

2009-09-22T09:25:00.003-05:00

Do you ever notice how meetings that begin as a discussion about a particular issue, quickly devolve into a debate about the right process for discussing the issue. Typically, at the end of such meetings, there is no consensus on a process, or more importantly, a solution for fixing the issue.

Sometimes this happens overtly - someone stops the discussion to advocate for their favorite tool or model. More often it happens implicitly. People answer the main question about what needs to be done, with further statements about how to figure out what needs to be done. For example, if the question were, "How can we best meet our customer's needs?" a reply might be, "We need to identify their top three buyer values." That sounds Ike a way forward. A clear plan. But, in reality it just prolongs the issue. Of course you need to figure out the three buyer values. That's the point of the meeting. You should be talking about what those are.

A good leader isn't constrained by the process. He or she knows what needs to be done to improve the business. So why doesn't this happen? In the organizations in which I've worked, I've seen three main drivers:

A risk averse culture - Process is safe. Content is risky. Opinions demonstrate what a person knows (or doesn't know).
Lack of understanding of the business - Discussing process requires no understanding of the business. It's an easy way to "contribute". Giving an opinion about what needs to be done requires both understanding and having put in some thought on how the business works. For many leaders, getting a deep understanding of their business is sacrificed for managing the tactical day to day details of their unit.
A focus on activity versus outcome - Many business cultures still reward work rather than results. Suggesting a process creates the illusion of progress. It can be documented, planned, and tracked. Specifying a solution can seem ambiguous. People might not see how to implement the solution. The person proposing the solution might not be able to lay out the specific steps and deliverables. It might be criticized as not being "pragmatic".

All three of these are individual and organizational leadership issues. They require greater attention to who is being put into leadership roles and for what reason. People who are promoted based on their ability to do tactical things and think in tactical ways, will probably continue to do tactical things and think in tactical ways, just at a higher level. Leaders are those people who know how to bring content and context to a problem to move things forward. In the interim, the best way to improve the quality of meetings is to start inviting people who can bring content, regardless of their role or level.

Noel Tichy recommends that leaders develop a "teachable point of view", something for which they have a unique and worthwhile perspective to share. I think leaders should take that one step further. Good leaders should have a general point of view on all aspects of their business. Some of those might be worthy of becoming their teachable point of view. More importantly, good leaders need to bring that point of view to the table.

Leaders need to step up and focus on content. They should be able to share their vision, point of view, and opinion regardless of the context in which is was solicited.

Are you asking the right questions?

2009-09-16T23:03:00.002-05:00

What are the three most important questions you use to determine whether you are being successful? If you are like many people, your answer might be:

1. Am I adding value?
2. Am I focused on the right things?
3. Am I meeting my customer's needs?

Those seem reasonable but they are the wrong questions. More importantly, they are the wrong type of questions. All of those questions are process questions. They create the wrong focus.

Process questions remove accountability. Take the question, "Am I adding value?" It's not quite passive voice, but it's close. It's as if the work you do and creating value are two separate things. Once you've done the work you are looking back to see if it happened to add value.

Instead, before you do any work, you should ask yourself the question, "What work will add value". Then, your "success" question should be an outcome question. For example, it might be, "Did I lower costs?" or "Did I improve our customer experience?" Those are outcome questions. Instead of going along hoping that the work you do will add value (in retrospect), you are proactively working toward those things for which you define as adding value. You are taking responsibility and accountability for your actions.

The same is true for the other two questions. Don't ask if you are focused on the right things. You should know what those are. If you don't, then your first step is to figure that out. Then, you should ask yourself if you are doing those specific things.

I see process questions a lot. There is a place for them - they should help you figure out the outcomes that you care most about. However, if you want to have a meaningful impact on your organization, you should be measuring your success against outcomes.

Don’t let your vision get hijacked

2009-09-02T21:14:00.002-05:00

Here’s a challenge. You have to get your organization to work in new ways but your workforce is well versed and even committed to the old ways. Sound familiar? Many leaders are finding themselves in this position. They have a vision but can’t seem to get it executed.

Certainly, sometimes the issue is the leader. There is no shortage of people who are put into leadership positions without regard to whether they can actually lead others. But, there is another major problem. Leaders who get their vision hijacked. The leader often exacerbates the problem. He or she tries to give the hijackers a break or a chance to turn things around. The problem is that they seldom do.

There are two kinds of people who hijack a vision: those who can’t do it and those who won’t do it. The first group is a reality of the business environment. Things change. New ways of doing business, new assumptions, and new technologies all make it harder for the workforce as a whole to stay relevant. While not ideal, this first group can be turned around. The second group is more problematic. This isn’t about simple motivation (e.g, reward strategies, recognition, etc.) This group doesn’t buy into the vision and actively tries to subvert it.

If you are serious about changing culture or implementing a vision, you need to figure out where your people fall. Taking the two questions, “Can this person get it done?” and “Does this person want to get it done?” yields four possible results (see graphic). Once you know where your people fit, you need to take action.

Drivers
Drivers are the people who can and want to implement your vision. They should be running your most critical initiatives. Give them the resources, latitude, and support to deliver.

Detractors
Detractors can’t deliver the vision and don’t care to anyway. You need to move them out of your organization as quickly as possible. Often leaders make the mistake of letting these people linger. They assume that while they aren’t driving the vision, they might be helpful for lower level work. That’s not the case. This group winds up draining your resources and energy. Having no one in their place is better than keeping them around.

Subverters
Subverters are the most dangerous group. They are skilled and can get things done. They probably have a lot of influence. The problem is that they are using that against you. Subverters can add value if they come around. So, that’s your action. You need to sign them up or sign them out and you need to do it quickly. While they are deciding which option they want, they shouldn’t be put on critical tasks. This might sound counter-intuitive. The reality is that an average performer who is bought in will often out perform a super star who is not. Don’t reward these people by letting them stay in the spotlight. Until they decide whether they want to be in, assign them to operational or maintenance tasks.

Hopefuls
Hopefuls want to deliver your vision but don’t have the skills to do so. Like the subverters, these people should be given a chance. However, you don’t have to be as aggressive. Give them a chance to retool. Support them. Put them in supporting roles learning from the drivers. These people are the core of your future workforce. Help them out. But, be realistic as well. If after reasonable effort, they still can’t deliver, they might be a mismatch for your organization.

It’s both natural and admirable to want to give people the benefit of the doubt. And you should. But, you need to do so in a measured, purposeful way. Too many leaders watch their vision stagnate while waiting for people to turn around.

Promote leaders, don't try to build them

2009-08-27T07:29:00.004-05:00

I commonly get asked how to teach "leaders" to be leaders. My answer is always the same. Don't. You can certainly hone and refine a person's leadership skills. But, if a person is responsible for leading others and doesn't already have basic leadership skills, it's too late.

Why do some many companies put unqualified people into leadership positions? After all, the number one job and competency of a leader is to lead. You wouldn't hire someone into your accountant department who didn't know how to do accounting. You wouldn't hire a lawyer who didn't understand the law. Yet, I see many organizations where people are promoted into leadership positions because they were good at something other than leading.

This creates several problems. The most obvious one is a poor performing workforce. In the work I do, a lot of performance, motivation, and engagement problems stem from poor leadership. Micromanagement, arrogance, poor communication, insecurity, lack of understanding about the business, inability to prioritize are all common issues that I uncover in my work. But if a leader isn't managing those things well, what is he or she doing? What value are they providing (as a leader)?

A second major problem is that a bad leaders produce more bad leaders. Recently, I was working with a group of managers on strategic thinking. We talked about the importance of getting out of the details to see the big picture. Several of the managers said that they wouldn't be able to do that. Their bosses (and even their bosses' bosses) always drove down into the details. Their bosses wouldn't even entertain a conversation about anything forward looking or strategic. Because those leaders couldn't hold a strategic conversation themselves, they forced others to their tactical level. The ripple effect was that these managers knew that, to be successful (at least with their boss) they had to be tactical. In turn, they forced their own people to provide tactical solutions and answers so that they could pass those up the line. This isn't an isolated case. The primary push back I get in most leadership training is that people won't be able to apply what they are learning because their boss "doesn't get it".

A leader has one job - to lead. As with any job, a person can always get better. However, all jobs have a baseline set of of skills, attitudes, and behaviors that must be present to even qualify. Leadership is no different. People who can't lead shouldn't be put into leadership roles. Period.

You're not as unique as you think - phew!

2009-08-19T14:02:00.003-05:00

I've noticed a pattern many of the organizations with whom I work. People tend to think that their industry/type of business is different than any other. Within their industry, they think that their business has its own set of unique challenge. And, within their business, they believe that their department somehow is different from the rest of the organization. Some people even take it further to the functional or team level. I'm not sure why it happens, but it does.

The reality is that organizations are less unique than the people within them think. It's true that at a certain level there are specific regulations, requirements, or issues that are unique to the organization. However, the broad issues that business face are the same. But why does that matter? It matters because I've seen three problems that leaders incur when they subscribe to the false belief that their organization is different:

Limited solutions
Face it, no matter what business you are in, most of the rest of the world isn't in that business. Therefore, if you limit yourself to thinking that your problems are only unique to your type of business or industry, you immediately exclude a lot of potential solutions. A lot of the conventional wisdom surrounding innovation tells people to purposely look outside of their industry to find solutions to their problems. So, the problem that you are having providing a consistent customer experience? It's the same issues for hospitals, call centers, retail stores, movie theaters, and even schools. Take advantage of their lessons learned.

Claiming false success
If you believe that your organization and its issues are unique, it becomes very easy to ignore external data when determining whether you are successful. For example, suppose that on average, companies in your industry score 9.3 (our of 10) on customer satisfaction surveys. A leader who firmly believes that his or her company is different might be satisfied with an 8.5. I've seen this happen. The leaders justify their decisions and actions arguing that if they used those other companies' models the scores would be even lower. But this kind of logic gets you in trouble. It allows you to believe that anything you do is right. Some leaders even take this to the next level and declare the work they do and their teams to be superior to the marketplace despite data to the contrary.

Diminishing opportunities to improve
If you believe that what you do is the best (given your unique circumstances), there is little incentive to change or improve. This is especially true of radical change. I worked with one leader who was convinced that his team's turn around time of two weeks for a report was about the best that could be done given the complexity of the report and information. He never looked for opportunities to improve. When I suggested that the turn around could be reduced to under a day, he laughed. He couldn't envision any way that the report could be done in less than four weeks. Of course, that's because he only envisioned scenarios that used his current process. When we rolled out a new version of the report that had a four hour turnaround he was stunned. Of course, he pointed to the fact that our report wasn't exactly the same as his. He was right though. Ours had more information and was be better tailored to the needs of each manager.

Go back to your HBR archives and pull a few leadership or marketing articles from the 70s or 80s. More often than not, if you changed the date (and possibly a few references to technology) those articles could have been written yesterday.

The truth is, in business and in leadership, there is a pretty large yet pretty common set of issues that people face. Generally speaking, when you pull back your company or industry's jargon, you'll find that your issues aren't really that much different from someone else's. If you don't, perhaps you don't really understand the issue or the nature of business as well as you should.

Netflix: Almost too easy to do business with

2009-07-19T16:50:00.003-05:00

After a couple of examples of non-customer centric encounters, I thought it might be time to provide some positive examples. The timing is perfect as I recently was reflecting on how I went from not using Netflix to paying $8.99 per month. It didn't happen overnight but it did happen because they made it ridiculously easy for me to business with them.

I started Netflix as do many people - with a free trial. Midway through my trial I started noticing a button on my home page. The button was my door to Netflix. No pressure, no sales pitch. They didn't even tell me about all the other membership levels. Just a simple click to become a Netflix member at their entry level of $4.99 per month. I clicked.

Then a few month later, just as I was wishing that I could get more than one movie per month, I started noticing another little button. This one told me that I could start getting unlimited movies per month (still one at a time) starting that day. It showed the amortized price for the rest of the month and then subsequent monthly price that I'd be paying ($8.99). Again, no major pitch, I didn't have to go to a separate screen that showed all of the other subscription options. Just a simple button. I clicked and continued this painless and seamless journey into Netflix membership.

I am currently holding steady at $8.99. But, I keep seeing the next button. I'm sure when the time is right I'll hit it and up my membership yet again.

Ironically, I would have never signed up for Netflix at $8.99 per month. I probably wouldn't have signed up if I didn't get the free trial. And I certainly wouldn't have signed up if I first had to talk with a sales person about Netflix. But, Netflix is smart. They didn't make me do any of that. They just offered me a simple button, a little information and left the rest up to me. It was almost too easy.

United: 0 for 3

2009-07-15T17:15:00.000-05:00

Well, my saga with United continues. They still aren't proving to be very customer friendly.

They went 0 for 2 with the on-line check in process. You would expect that once you log in you can hit a button and check in. But, that's not the case. I had to go through three screens of advertisements for things that I didn't want when I bought the tickets and suprisingly still didn't want. First screen - more legroom. Thanks for offering to upgrade me to a confortable seat. I appreciate it. Not! Actually, not only did you waste my time, you just reminded me how uncomfortable this trip was going to be. Next screen - the "premier" line. If I don't want to wait in a long line at security, etc, I can pay extra to get into a speedier one. Interesting. Maybe I should take some lessons from United and apply them to my business. I'll do the work. But if you want me to do be good (e.g., more legroom) you've got to pay more. And, my processes are pretty clunky, but for an extra $50, I'll try to be more efficient. That's brilliant. It used to be that companies invested in improving their inefficient processes. United seems to have found a way to make a profit from them.

I don't even remember what the third screen was. At that point, I just went straight to the bottom and said "skip this offer".

So, United has successfully violated most of the principles that Paco Underhill talked about in "Why we buy", United has designed a process that is clearly optimized for their needs and desires rather than their customers.

But, the story doesn't end. They then went for 0 for 3. Once I actually got past the commercials and "checked in" I printed by boarding passes. Much to my suprise, the seats weren't the ones I selected when I purchased the tickets. I guess they figured that I didn't really mean it when I took the time to specifically select five seats during the purchase process. Who knows, maybe these new tickets have a better view. I did see a button that would have let me change my seats. However, it never occured to me that the ones I had at check in were going to be different than the ones I selected in the first place so I didn't even check. I guess that's my fault as a customer. I shouldn't just assume that because I select something that I'll actually get it. Shame on me, right?

So, in my book, United is currently 0 for 3 in being customer-driven.

I just cant' wait until the actual flight. Ugh.

United Airlines: Charging a premium for decreased service

2009-07-05T22:07:00.000-05:00

Today I contacted United Airlines to change a return flight on trip. The total came to $230 ($150 change fee and $80 difference between the price of my old and new ticket).

Fortunately, I checked on-line before making the call and saw that the one way trip on my new date was only $194. The agent and I both agreed that it made more sense (for me at least) to keep my old reservation and book the one way flight. I wondered why, at that point, United would choose to go with the process that was less cutomer friendly (me booking the one-way on line versus them changing the flight for the same price). The outcome would have turned out the same. Either way they would have $194. But, for some reason, they chose the business-centric rather than customer-centric response.

This was a clear lose/lose in my book. As a customer, United made it hard for me to do business with them. If I can book a one way flight for $194, why charge me $230 to do it? At that point, they already paid the sunk cost of the agent's time. It wasn't lke they were getting any process savings for me booking on-line.

But did they gain anything? I now have a reservation on two return flights and I am only going to use one. So their supply and demand planning is off. They have one less seat that they can sell for full price (and make a lot more than the incremental $40 they would have made by charging me $230). So, I think they lost too.

At some point, trying to squeeze every penny out of your customer backfires, especially when customers are in control and have other choices. It's one thing if there wasn't an on-line flight that cost less. But given the circumstances, it seems like they consciously chose to provide poor service.

United had the choice to be customer-centric. The outcome in this case didn't change. The only thing that changed was the process. And they chose a process that placed the burden on the customer without getting any actual benefit for themselves. Now why would anyone do that?

Please fill out this form to request that your discount be terminated

2009-07-05T11:22:00.002-05:00

Recently I wrote about customer-centric processes. In early posts, I've discussed the idea of the "path of least resistance". That is, if there is something that you want someone else to do, you need to make that action easier than doing something else. To many, path of least resistance and customer-centric processes are a no-brainer. At least, intellectually they are. But sometimes, our internal policies and processes get in the way.

Today, I was reviewing my Verizon Wireless bill and found a mistake. I was receiving an employee discount for a company for which I no longer worked. I called Verizon to let them know so that they could make the appropriate adjustment to their records (and unfortunately to my account).

After a few minutes, the customer service rep told me that I had to submit an email formally requesting that my discount be removed. He then gave me a very user-unfriendly email address and a list of information that I was supposed to include in the email:

Discount code
Corporate id number
Group id number
ECPD (which he never actually defined)

I explained that I didn't know the values for any of those codes. They weren't on the bill (In all fairness, he did tell me I could just give my discount amount rather than the code - that was on the bill). In the spirit of true service, he offered to look them up and give them to me.

I'm sure that if I asked people at Verizon if they were customer-centric and if they tried to make themselves easy to do business with, they'd say yes. Yet somehow through a set of small discrete decisions, they've create a situation which is just the opposite. They are asking me to jump through hoops to provide them with information that they already have (and I don't) in order to do something that isn't in my self interest (economically) and only benefits them.

It's easy to nod your head and agree with being customer-centric and creating the path of least resistance. It's another thing to actually do it.