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

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

"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?

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!

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

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

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.