That Man Behind The Curtain

So a former colleague tells me this afternoon that the company he works for has just sold an expensive software application, a breakthrough that has been anticipated for months. Trouble is, it is expected to consume all the division's development resources for six months (in spite of claims to the contrary, this product is merely 'slideware', that is, product existing only on PowerPoint slides), and is only the first in what is supposed to be, according to revenue projections, ten such sales over the year. The development is not 'build once, deploy multiple times'. It is largely custom.

So how does a company manage to project annual sales five times greater than their production capacity?

An enormous oversight? Is someone having a 'palm to forehead' moment? Not likely. This was anticipated, in a sense. This company, and many others like it, operate under two major, driving assumptions: One, a defeatest attitude that what they are selling will not be bought but will 'position it' for sales of lesser, more deliverable solutions; and two, that impossible tasks are made possible by sheer force of will.

Of the former, any company trying to market itself on the back of slideware that, if successfully sold, would cripple the company's ability to function efficiently, is self-defeating at best and fraudulent (to investors, customers, employees) at worst. The first rule of sales is to believe in yourself and your product. Continued failure to deliver on promises and sufficiently resource projects will undermine customer, investor and employee confidence. It is a consciously engaged strategy designed to hide unpleasant truths for short-term gains.

Of the latter, this only happens in movies. Excepting perhaps for heroic feats in the early years of the space program, impossible tasks are just that - and expectations of rabbits from hats reveal what is essentially an utter lack of planning and no real understanding on the part of management of the broader organization's inter-related functions, a fundamental disconnect from the laws of physics. Too many companies survive (barely) only because of the efforts of a narrow top percentile of employees that are burdened because they are averse to allowing failure - theirs or others. This leads to stress and burnout among the most dedicated and talented, as their efforts become not recognized, but expected; their eventual financial rewards not exceptional but typical.

Vision, mission, strategic planning is designed to avoid all this; honest concession, compromise, discussion and above all, leadership, drive sales and development plans that work as a cohesive unit, breaking barriers and driving growth. This is a company instead driven for short-term result, employing sycophantic ramblings to investors and employees, and an avoidance of the hard decisions that come with leadership. This is a picture of a company on the decline.

The Smartest Guys In The Room

On a strong recommendation from a former colleague, I added "The Smartest Guys In The Room", a documentary about Lay, Skilling, Fastow, et. al. and the hubris that led to the collapse of Enron, to my Netflix queue and had the opportunity to watch it last night. I am now watching the trials of Lay and Skilling with greater interest (and understanding) than before, and more convinced than ever that the "soft skills" now part of many business programs are critical to operational and individual success.

Enron's culture was driven by hubris, arrogance, and ego - the filmakers try to equate this with greed, but I see only Fastow (who skimmed gains on the questionable off-book partnerships and depositied them in personal accounts) as greedy - the rest saw money - as represented by Enron's market cap - as the scoreboard, evidence of their 'genius' and individual superiority. Being the smartest guys in the room - and being widely recognized for it - was not only their own motivation, but became a driving force for employees at all levels, from Lay to the energy traders working the phones.

An individual that insists on being the smartest guy in the room - especially to the extent that dissention is met with threats and dismissals - is a parasite that eventually devours the host. True leadership not only accepts but encourages individual thought, action, and opinion from all levels.

Illustrating this point, BBDO ad agency creative chief David Lubars was quoted in the September 2005 issue of Fast Company: "I want people to challenge me. I want them to feel they can step up and bring ideas. I insist on not being the smartest guy in the room. But if I hear everything, then I can help craft the smartest idea in the room. Here's the thing: Phil (Phil Dusenberry, Lubar's predecessor) was a genius. I'm not a genius, so I need other people to help me do genius things."

When Bad Blogs Happen To Good People

Great article on the use and misuse of Corporate Blogs: http://www.cio.com/archive/021506/schrage.html

Especially interesting are some of the reader comments, including this HSO: "If you think for a moment that I (and other CXOs) will soon see blogging as an inevitable communication media for themselves, we obviously haven’t been talking to the same people. I am convinced that the next revision of Jim Collins’ "Good to Great" will show that while some Good CXOs do blog, no GREAT CXOs do any blogging."

Lucky for me that no one reads this. Except you. And I thank you for that.

George Costanza: Business Guru

The definition of insanity, we've often heard, is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. What are you doing that is significantly different than your competitors - in a way that positively impacts the customer? Is your best response in defending a particular strategy, "Everyone is doing it", or worse, "Its always been this way"?

A popular episode of the TV sitcom Seinfeld finds perennial loser George so fed up with the poor decisions he has made in his life that he spends an entire episode doing the exact opposite that he would normally do: "It all became very clear to me sitting out there today, that every decision I've ever made in my entire life has been wrong. My life is the complete opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have in every aspect of life, be it something to wear, something to eat... it's often wrong.", states George. Jerry replies: "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right." In the end, George ends up dating a beautiful woman and landing a job with the New York Yankees.

Okay, so you don't trust your company with the likes of George Costanza? Then perhaps you'll listen to Dell CEO Kevin Rollins: "If we followed industry convention, we'd be in a mess. We believe that if you find something that's different from the industry norm, you'll be more successful."

Apply Apple's old advertising slogan to your own business: "Think Different."