1. Be awesome.
2. Repeat.
More and more we are playing on a global scale. Even when buying from the shop on the corner, there’s nothing to prevent that corner from being in a different state, country, or hemisphere.
With a smart phone in hand consumers can quickly and easily compare prices while in the store. Love the product, but hesitant on the price? A quick picture of the barcode will turn up the best prices available. I’ve recently been seeing concern that people will use local stores to find the perfect item, size, etc. and then order from elsewhere. This has always happened, it’s just easier than ever now.
I recently upgraded the brakes on my mountain bike. I purchased an American brand of brakes (buy American!) that were made in Taiwan (buy American?) from a store in the UK (wait a minute…). This was the first time I’d purchased from a store outside the country, but I believe we’ll be seeing more and more of it. There were no currency issues – their website showed prices in US Dollars based on the current exchange rate and the credit card works everywhere. Unlike the big box store that made it seem like a major hassle to order an out of stock laptop they were running a special on, this store made it as easy as possible to purchase. Finally, on top of a great price, they shipped for free and it only took a week to get it once it shipped.
Yes, there are downsides. It would be a pain if I had to return anything, it took a little longer to get than if I’d ordered from somewhere in the States (in fairness, the holidays probably slowed things down a bit), and I’m not supporting a local business (but then, I still wouldn’t be if I’d ordered from an internet retailer in the US).
Would I purchase from them again? Probably. I enjoy variety and having access to quality brands that are uncommon in the US. I’m amused by the idea of shopping in a foreign store. More important, they are getting it right. Even five years ago it would have been a real pain to order internationally. Today it’s as easy as any internet purchase. Where other businesses would shy away from international business – dealing with currency, taxes, shipping, and customs on top of long-distance customer service – this business decided to become the largest internet bicycle retailer. They have the volume to offer better pricing and invested in the effort to sort the customer service side of things.
This isn’t about bicycle parts, foreign stores, or my desire to be a little quirky. This is where the world is heading. Competing on price is difficult because there is always someone cheaper somewhere. For most businesses, especially local ones, the differentiator is really understanding the customers’ needs, service, follow-up, convenience, a cool vibe or good feeling, great people, extensive knowledge, problem solving focus, etc.
Your business is now competing with every other business on the planet. You probably won’t win on price (though you do need to be in the ballpark), but what makes your business stand out is simply: 1) how easy and pleasant is it to shop and purchase from you; and 2) how good are your people at solving the customer’s problems? It all comes down to processes and people. What is your business investing in?
From time to time I see HR folks insisting that the primary purpose of Human Resources is to keep the company from being sued. This philosophy is at the very core of everything I find wrong with HR.
Yes, HR can play a huge role in preventing or mitigating employment lawsuits. This is an important result of HR, but the top goal? Prevent lawsuits vs. select and train really great people? Prevent lawsuits vs. creating an environment where people actually want to be there? Prevent lawsuits vs. helping managers be the best leaders they can be? It really seems to be putting the cart before the horse. After all, a company can get sued if it mismanages its money but no one ever says that the number one goal of the finance department is to prevent lawsuits. You can get sued for being abusive to customers or false advertising, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the primary purpose of customer service and marketing are to prevent lawsuits.
Want to know the #1 way to ensure that HR is never involved in any strategic level conversations? Want to guarantee that your company culture is rife with fear and managers don’t manage? Want to be stuck in the glorious tar pit of HR as bureaucracy? Spend all your time focused on not getting sued.
In the perfect little world in my head, HR’s #1 goal is to help the company perform at its best. Minimizing lawsuits is a by product of doing things right; it’s a means to an end but not the end itself. The best processes and practices will help the company perform in a way that comply with all the laws and regulations. However, “not getting sued” as an end goal will never, ever create high performance. It’s like a runner training for a marathon with the #1 goal of not getting injured. Sure, they don’t want to get injured, but the best way to not get injured is to not train. After all, you can’t pull a muscle sitting on the couch. But that doesn’t work because their #1 goal is to perform at their best on race day. Not getting hurt is a part of that, but it’s obviously not the focus. Instead, the runner knows that with good planning, preparation, and execution of a training program they will minimize their chances of getting injured while maximizing the chances of high performance.
It’s an idea worth repeating: HR’s #1 goal is to help the company perform at its best. And if you do it well, you automatically reduce the chance of getting sued. But that’s an outcome of doing things right not the other way around. For example, adhering to all the anti-discrimination laws does not ensure that you hire great people. But when you are focused on hiring the best people you will naturally seek diverse talent pools because you don’t want to exclude the best talent because of arbitrary bias.
Can we move HR out of the dark ages now? Instead of operating out of continual fear of lawsuit, let’s create high performing companies by helping people be at their best.
When my son was five years old he was fascinated with “being in charge”. No surprise really because at five it seems like everyone is in charge of you. Even as we grow up I suspect we all want to be in control of our own destiny. This drive, this ambition is a good thing but any strength pushed too far becomes a weakness. Within every organization there are employees, managers, even senior managers getting in their own way – and getting in the company’s way. They spend their time wishing that they were in charge – in complete control. They are irritated by anything that gets in their way and dream of being able to lead unhindered. Why is this dangerous?
It ignores the practical reality that everyone reports to someone. Thinking that you can get promoted high enough to escape the scrutiny of others is fantastical nonsense. If they can’t see this obvious truth, what less apparent realities are they missing? What are they not doing while they are spending their time and energy in fantasyland?
A leader dreaming of being in complete control is a leader who wants their ideas and decisions to go unchecked by law, regulation, common sense, or basic manners. They seem to believe that they are completely right in all situations and should never be questioned, second guessed, or told “no.”
Leaders thinking they are universally right lack introspection and ignore/discredit any feedback that suggests they might be wrong. This is an assertive person who will make snap decisions that are often right, but they are unable to tell when they are wrong. They are also unable to lean from mistake or experience.
Because they believe they are always right, they rarely think through the potential consequences and downsides of a decision. Although they may have good ideas, implementation is often chaotic because they mistakenly believe that creating the idea was the hard part and executing the idea is easy. Likewise, they are continually frustrated by those around them who are unable to implement their ideas exactly as it exists in their minds, unhindered by reality.
The leader who wants to be completely in charge is someone only thinks about themselves rather than what is best for the company, the customer, the employees, or anyone else. They create teams, departments, and organizations whose success and glory is so centered on themselves that it dies when they are not there. This is in stark contrast to the leaders they try to create great teams, departments, and organizations that will thrive after the leader is gone (think petty dictatorships vs enduring democracies).
Unfortunately, these folks are often used to getting their way because others find it easier to give in than keep crashing against the wall of their closed-minded obstinance. This only reinforces the belief that they are right and if they stick to their guns they will prevail. All of these traits make them ferociously difficult to manager and downright painful to report to.
Sometimes this person will get in their own way so much that their career never moves forward and they spend their lives at the lowest levels, forever frustrated. Sometimes, this person will realize that they cannot work for others and start their own business or seek out jobs with maximum autonomy. And sometimes, this person will rise up through the organization, gaining considerable position and power through talent and hardwork, yet still crave more, more, more.
Again, I’m not referring to ambition, but the desire to have complete, unchecked control. So what’s to be done? As an HR pro, how do you help this person lead while staying within the boundaries of law, decency, and long-term success? How do you help them tap into their often considerable strengths while keeping them from creating anarchy and chaos? I’m leaving this open ended as I’d love to hear others’ ideas and experiences.
I was discussing the idea that good is the enemy of great the other day and someone said, “You ever notice how people say something is’good enough’, but they never say it’s ‘great enough’?”
Great enough. Love it.
I’m a big believer in the concept that good enough isn’t. Hitting the bare minimums isn’t success, it’s temporary survival. Sadly, most companies seem to struggle to reach even the level of good enough. They shoot for good enough customer service, good enough prices, good enough hiring policies, good enough management development, good enough training, etc. The problem is that, at the very theoretical best, it will only be good enough. In the real world, a bunch of attempts at good enough added together tends to equal not good enough. Aiming for “good enough” seems to get us to “doesn’t completely suck”.
In fact, I’d like to propose a real world rating scale. Feel free to use it for performance appraisals, evaluating processes, due diligence for investments, whatever you need a rating scale for. Here it is:
In everything there is a choice and in everything there is a tradeoff. There is an old adage in bicycling that highlights the choice/tradeoff decision: “Light, strong, or cheap. Pick any two.” When buying parts you can have them light and strong (but it’ll be expensive), strong and cheap (but it’ll be heavy), or light and cheap (but it’ll be weak). It’s up to the individual to decide what’s most important to them.
The same is true in business, even though it goes largely unrecognized. We can just as easily say: “Soundness, profitability, or growth. Pick any two.” We can be stable an profitable (though growth will be slow), profitable and fast growing (at the cost of soundness), or sound and growing (but won’t have much left over as profit). The challenge is, that because we don’t recognize this tradeoff, we try to create a business that is stable, has great profits, and is quickly expanding. Trying to maximize all three at once is impossible – at best one (or more) of the three will suffer, but be hidden. For example, the business may be highly profitable and expanding nicely and appear stable, until that first bump in the market highlights just how overleveraged the company is. At worst, the business is neither sound, nor profitable, nor able to grow.
Correct me if I’m off base here, but it seems that Wall Street rewards maximum profitability and growth, generally at the expense of soundness. Yet, the truly enduring companies (whether we’re talking about a sole propritership or multinational giant) – the ones that survive the cycles of recession – are the ones that best understand this tradeoff and keep soundness in the mix, switching focus on profits or growth as their strategy warrants.
In business, as in personal life, it always comes down to opportunity costs. By understanding what you really want, you have a much better handle on the strategy to pursue. As wonderful as it sounds, it’s a recipe for disaster to try and create soundness, profitablity, and growth simultaneously.
That’s the theory anyway. I’d love to hear about examples that poke holes in the theory (I sure can’t think of any).
Technology should simplify and make things easier for the customer/end user. There’s really no other purpose. Technology for the sake of technology is, well, annoying at best. But then anything for the sake of itself is inefficient, ineffective, and dumb. Case in point: my local newspaper recently ran an article on a program to encourage shopping at local businesses. It sounded like a cool program, but if I wanted to find out more about how to participate or which businesses were involved I had to either go to a website or use my smartphone to scan a QR code. Dumb, dumber, and desperate. Too much, too late.
I get that this is a multimedia world, but there is one basic tenant of business success that should never be overlooked: make it as easy and simple as possible for customers to give you their money. Amazon, Apple, etc. are all great businesses, but their genius is (say it with me) making it as easy and simple as possible for their customers to give them their money. It’s not the books that set Amazon apart, and I’d argue that it’s not even really the prices (although those help), it’s that they make it really freakin’ easy to buy a book. Ditto iTunes. This is really what innovation is all about – making it easier for people to solve their problems (even the problems they didn’t know they had).
There is a minimart/gas station near my house that I buy 80% of my gas from even though it is 1) out of my way; and 2) more expensive. So what’s their competitive advantage? I don’t have to pre-pay. I can pull up to the pump, fill my tank, grab my favorite source of carbonated caffeine, pay all at once, and leave. Every other place makes me pay first, which means that I either have to do two transactions, and, if I’m paying cash, walk back and forth to the cashier a couple of times. I will pay more because they have made it as easy and simple as possible for me to give them my money.
So the newspaper, in a very misguided effort to be relevant, has made it more difficult for me to get the information I need. I instantly stopped caring about a program I’d otherwise be curious about. Them forcing me to go to my phone is just as silly as, say, Amazon’s Kindle telling me to go find a dictionary when I ask it to look up a word. But we can learn from this editor’s mistakes. In an ideal world, everyone would be forced to voluntarily use their own products and services to experience it from the customer/end users point of view.
If you’re in HR, just how easy is it to apply for a job at your company? Are there any hoops you’re making folks jump through that could be put off until later? (For example, do you really, truly need to get everyone’s SSN on their initial application? Here’s a hint – the answer is no and you’re driving away top candidates if your automated process insists on it.) Do you actively seek ways to make it easier for candidates? Do you explain the process to them up front? Do you keep them informed and regularly updated on their status or do you force them to waste their (and your) time by initiating all communication with you?
If you’re a small business, do you accept all forms of payment? If you can’t process credit and debit cards, you’re not really serious about being in business. (No, seriously, these businesses exist.)
If someone calls your business, do they talk to a person who can actually resolve their problem/concern/request/order/desperate attempt to buy something from you? Or, and I’m thinking about the freight company that made a concerted effort to not deliver my new bicycle, do you have an automated voice “recognition” system that doesn’t actually recognize voice commands and eventually connects you with a minimally trained and hard to understand person who insists on reading the script even when the script doesn’t apply?
Does your website load superfast and is it easy to navigate? No matter how cool the graphics are, many of your potential customers have about a 1.6 second attention span. Too slow? Too hard to figure out how to get the right info? Good bye.
Examples go on and on. The principle is simple, but easy to get wrong when we think about what would make the shopping/buying/applying/etc. process most easiest for the company instead of what would make it most useful to the customer.
A friend posted this on Facebook recently: “People don’t leave because things are hard. They leave because it’s no longer worth it.”
I tried unsuccessfully for three or four seconds to track down the source, but it seemed to be anonymous. Most of the places I found it were using it as relationship advice, but the first thing I thought of was leadership and employee turnover.
It’s not hard work or tough situations that causes good people to quit. It’s rare that people find easy, simple work satisfying or fulfilling. Think back to the times when you were most satisfied and fulfilled at work. Chances are you had recently earned a hard fought success, pressed hard, stretched your abilities, and just generally kicked booty. Think back to the times when you were just coasting along – how satisfied were you? People don’t leave because work is tough. People leave because the upsides don’t balance the downsides.
They leave because of fire drills, knee jerk reactions, lack of appreciation (or even acknowledgement), thankless efforts, frustrating co-workers, stifling bureaucracy, arbitrary decisions, favoritism, patronizing attitudes, harassment, and even apathy. When people leave because of “more money” it is often not about the money. The extra dollars are nice, but what they’re really saying is, “I don’t get rewarded enough to put up with this job (and/or my manager). This new job looks like it won’t have these headaches and, even if it does, I’ll at least be paid more to deal with it.”
If you’re experiencing unwanted turnover, the question to be asking is: “What would make it worth it for people to stay?”
About once a year I get totally suckered and start believing my ego. It’s usually after I haven’t been on my bicycle in a while. This happened the other day: I’m out on a ride and just be ripping along. It feels effortless. After a few miles I start to think that I’m actually in pretty good – no, great – shape. Then the road turns and I realize that I had a decent tailwind pushing me along. Worse, I’m now going into a headwind. I’m not flying, I’m crawling. Ugh!
The exact same thing happens in business. When times are good, the economy’s booming, and we’re making money hand over fist it is easy to get suckered into thinking that it’s our innate skills propelling us along. Remember all the folks who quit their jobs to become day traders during the dotcom boom? What about all the real estate “experts” during the housing bubble? Then, the wind changed… Those who have been through the cycles before tend to do ok; those who mistake the tailwind for greatness tend to flame out spectacularly.
Why? Because they probably weren’t doing a good job of managing the business – conditions were simply so favorable that they could be ineffective and still get away with it. The booming economy masked their errors. When the economy shifts, there is no longer a margin of error to permit sloppiness. Additionally, if they think it was them rather than the circumstances that enabled success, they will continue doing what they’ve been doing rather than adjusting to changing conditions.
There’s no shame in making money during an economic tailwind. The trick is to recognize that it’s simply part of the cycle and realize that there’s a headwind coming. Then you can plan, prepare, and be ready for it.
The flip side is that when ride in a headwind, it feels miserable and hard and like it will never get better. Right now there’s a headwind. A tailwind is coming again and 99% (I just made this number up, but think it’s pretty accurate) of us will forget the lessons of the current economic headwind. Just like we did after 2001 and all the previous recessions before that.
Pedal hard.
[As an aside: I have a suspicion that many (not all, but many) of the investing or business gurus got in and out during a tailwind and confused ideal circumstances for brilliance. Fortunately for them, we don’t realize that and buy their ideas (which may be irrelevant or even detrimental during a headwind). ]
fool (with a plan) 