Thursday, July 22, 2010
Interview with Bob Lord
Bob Lord is the global CEO of Razorfish, one of the world's largest interactive agencies. He has worked for the company since 2000, and has also served as COO and as President of the company's East region. Lord previously served as COO and executive vice president of Prism Rehab Systems, a professional services firm in the healthcare sector.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Protect Your Dream
Job Interview
Rewind
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Believe
I look to you with grace, in your face.
When I need you the most
I look around with my eyes open
For you can be anything and everything
But a feeling of you is to be felt
You are here, there and every where
I need to trust my heart
For your presence is strong deep within me
So even if the unthinkable happens
Or a wind current tare me into parts
I believe that everything passes by me
Keeping me stronger and stronger
But a feeling of you is to be felt.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Motivational Vedio
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
How to Lead Without Saying a Word
Leaders can sometimes communicate more without words than with them.
What matters is poise and conviction.
That came to mind as I watched Kevin Bacon's performance in /Taking
Chance/, an HBO movie based upon Lt. Col. Mike Strobl's moving account
of escorting a slain Marine, Lance Corporal Chase Phelps, to his final
resting place in Wyoming. While Bacon has the lead role, it seems he has
no more than 10 pages of dialogue to deliver and most of that in one to
two sentences at a time. Without the benefit of words we see the
compassion he bears for the young Marine, the conflict he undergoes
because he is not in combat himself, and the strong bond for service he
carries.
What Bacon's performance reminds us is that a leader need not always use
words to convey meaning; non-verbal cues often say more than words can
ever do. Unfortunately, too often non-verbal cues are displayed to the
wrong effect, that is, to display distraction, disregard or even
distaste. Those in charge, especially those in very senior positions,
must be careful not only with their words but with their body language.
Here are some suggestions.
*
*Relax your facial muscles. **I once worked with a talented engineer who
had a real affinity for teaching others; it was something he enjoyed
doing. But since he was new to his firm, people didn't know him and when
they saw him they would see him in his office with his face scrunched up
and seeming very intense. His body language said, "Stay away!" In
reality he was deep in concentration but with people he could be
engaging. He worked on reminding himself to relax his facial muscles.
When he did so, he seemed more approachable, and as such was able to
connect better with his new colleagues. (Yes, you can practice relaxing
your facial muscles by looking in a mirror. This is not vanity.)
*Invite inspection.* Ask a trusted colleague to watch your facial
expressions and your posture during a meeting, particularly a meeting
where there will be intense discussions. If you look bored or irritated,
or if you are slumped in your seat looking out the window, you are
sending a message that you would rather be elsewhere. If your face bears
a severe expression, you may be radiating irritation. Be conscious that
people are not only listening to what you say, but how you carry
yourself when you say it.
*Keep your powder dry.* In some cultures, notably Native American and
Scandinavian, the person at the top says very little, often speaking
last on important issues. Business leaders can also encourage
subordinates to speak first and freely; only interject when you have
something of real substance to add. When the fur is flying, what gets
people's attention is quiet confidence. Don't raise your voice. Instead,
once you have people's attention, speak calmly and with conviction.
Nothing radiates power like controlled emotions when everyone else is
shouting at each other.
Leaders need not walk around with facial expressions that appear
"botoxed." If real issues are at stake, it is wholly appropriate to show
some emotion, and not simply with words. A leader is entitled to
communicate with authority and vigor, and make it known the urgency of a
moment. For example, if a team does not seem to be responding to
deadlines, and they have the tools and resources necessary, a pep talk
with heat is wholly in order. Such emotion expended for a good cause is
a great way to focus attention on important matters at hand.
Of course, you must do it with discretion. I remember a conversation I
had with the legendary University of Michigan hockey coach, Red
Berenson. He said that if he raised his voice with a freshman, he might
cost the kid his confidence. On the other hand, if he didn't raise Cain
occasionally with a senior, that player might lose his concentration.
It's a matter of picking your spots and acting appropriately.
One of the most poignant scenes in /Taking Chase/ is when Bacon's
character eyes the body of the fallen marine in his casket. No one else
will see the body, but Bacon feels it is his duty to ensure this young
Marine is dressed appropriately for burial. No words are spoken. Bacon's
countenance tells us all we need to know.
About the Author: /John Baldoni is a leadership consultant, coach, and
speaker. He is the author of eight books, including /Lead Your Boss, The
Subtle Art of Managing Up. /See his archived blog for hbr.org here
<http://blogs.hbr.org/baldoni/>./
The Worth-Your-Time Test
Nate Eisman* recently started working for a large consulting firm after many years as an independent consultant. He called me a few days ago for some advice.
"I'm wasting a tremendous amount of time," he complained to me, "I'm in meetings all day. The only way I can get any real work done is by coming in super early and staying super late."
Nate had gone from an organization of one to an organization of several thousand and was drowning in the time suck of collaboration. He is not alone.
I recently surveyed the top 400 leaders of a 120,000 person company and found that close to 95% of them — that's 380 out of 400 — pointed to three things that wasted their time the most: unnecessary meetings, unimportant emails, and protracted PowerPoints.
Working with people takes time. And different people have different priorities. So someone may need your perspective on an issue that's important to him but not to you. Still, if he's a colleague, it's important to help. And often we want to help.
On the other hand, we've all felt Nate's pain. The question is: how can we spend time where we add the most value and let go of the rest?
We need a way to quickly and confidently identify and reduce our extraneous commitments, to know for sure whether we need to deal with something or avoid it, and to manage our own desire to be available always. I propose a little test that every commitment should pass before you agree to it. When someone comes to you with a request, ask yourself three questions:
- Am I the right person?
- Is this the right time?
- Do I have enough information?
If the request fails the test — if the answer to any one of these questions is "no" — then don't do it. Pass it to someone else (the right person), schedule it for another time (the right time), or wait until you have the information you need (either you or someone else needs to get it).
In the last few weeks, in
The Cardinal Rule of Rules and in The Mostly Unplugged Vacation I wrote about how to avoid being interrupted. But sometimes it's impossible or inappropriate to wall yourself off completely. For example, what if your boss is the person who interrupts you? Or what if you're on vacation and a critical client reaches out with a time sensitive and crucial question?
These three questions offer a clear, easy, and consistent way of knowing when to respond. So we resist the temptation to respond to everything.
If your boss asks you to do something and her request fails the test, it's not just okay - it's useful - to push back or redirect so the work is completed productively. It's not helpful to you, your boss, or your organization if you waste your time on the wrong work.
That's the irony. We try to be so available because we want to be helpful. And yet being overwhelmed with tasks — especially those we consider to be a waste of our time — is exactly what will make us unhelpful.
When we get a meeting request that doesn't pass the test, we should decline. When we're cc'd on an email that doesn't pass the test, we need to ask the sender to remove us from the list before we get caught up in the flurry of "reply all" responses. And a fifty-page presentation needs to pass the test before we read it (and even then, it's worth an email asking which are the critical pages to review).
A few weeks after sharing the three questions with Nate, I called him at his office at around 6pm to see how it was going. I guess it was going well because I never reached him. He had already gone home.
*Some details changed to protect privacy
About the Author of this Article: Peter Bregman speaks, writes, and consults on leadership. He is the CEO of Bregman Partners, Inc., a global management consulting firm, and the author of
Point B: A Short Guide To Leading a Big Change.
The Cardinal Rule of Rules
I was in my home office, on the phone with a new client, when I heard a knock on the door. I looked at my watch: it was 4pm, the time my daughters Isabelle and Sophia come home from school. Generally I love taking a break at this time and hearing about their day.
But, I have a rule: if the door to my office is closed, they have to knock once. If I answer, they can come in. If I'm silent, it means I don't want to be disturbed and they have to wait until I come out.
Well, this time, not wanting my call to be unprofessionally interrupted, I remained silent. But they kept knocking and, eventually, just walked in. I was stunned! What about my rule? I signaled for them to be silent but let them stay in the room until the call was over.
After my phone call, I asked them why they had disobeyed my rule.
"But Daddy," Isabelle said, "you like when we just come in. We did it yesterday and the day before and you didn't say no."
I had broken the cardinal rule of rules: never break a rule.
I should know better. Just a few days earlier, after a speech I had given about time management to the top leaders of a large pharmaceutical company, one leader (we'll call him Sean) approached me with a question. How could he stop his secretary from interrupting him?
"I'll have the door shut and Brahms playing on the stereo — I mean, how much more obvious can I be? — and she'll walk in and ask me a question. It doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's a distraction and it throws me off. I tell her not to, but she does it anyway"
Sean is already ahead of the game. He realizes something most of us miss: it's hard to recover from an interruption. In a study conducted by Microsoft Corporation, researchers taped 29 hours of people working and found that, on average, they were interrupted four times per hour. That's not surprising.
But there's more and this part is surprising: 40% of the time they did not resume the task they were working on before they were disrupted. And it gets worse: the more complex the task, the less likely the person was to return to it.
That means we are most often derailed from completing our most important work.
"So," I asked Sean, "what do you say when she interrupts you?"
"I remind her that I told her I didn't want to be disturbed."
"Great. Then?"
"Then she tells me it will just take a second and asks me a question or talks to me about an issue."
"And?"
"Well, I already stopped doing what I was doing before and I don't want to seem mean or rude, so I give her what she needs and then ask her not to disturb me again."
That's Sean's mistake. And mine. And perhaps, if you find that people don't always do what you ask, yours too. We like being liked. We're too nice. We don't want to appear rude.
Unfortunately, it's a bad strategy. Because setting a rule and then letting people break it doesn't make them like you, it just makes them ignore you.
If Sean wants his secretary to listen to him, he needs to be consistent; no exceptions. On the other hand, he also needs to understand why she's constantly disturbing him. Sean travels and is often out of his office so his secretary is never sure when she will have the opportunity to connect with him. But when he's in the office, she knows she can reach him. She's not being obnoxious. On the contrary, she's being diligent.
To solve his problem and stop the interruptions, Sean needs to do two things:
- Set a regular appointment — that he does not cancel — to meet with his secretary to address any questions or open issues.
- When she does interrupt him (and she will) he needs to look at her without smiling and tell her that whatever it is, it needs to wait until their appointed time.
"And if it's a short question? Like: what time is your lunch appointment today?" Sean challenged me.
"I know it's hard. Silly even. But do not answer her. Just tell her you cannot be disturbed and let the silence sit there. If you want her to respect the rule she needs to see that you won't break it. Even if, maybe, in that situation, it makes sense to break it. It's a slippery slope."
As Sean listened to me he shuddered slightly at the thought. "That will be very uncomfortable," he finally said.
"That's the point," I told him, "You want it to feel uncomfortable. You want her to feel uncomfortable. That's what will prevent her from interrupting you again."
Later, if he wants, he can explain that his work requires total concentration and even a small interruption will cause him to lose his train of thought. But not at the time. Because an explanation at the time will reduce the discomfort.
Think of it this way: ultimately, people feel safer knowing what the boundaries are. It may seem harsh at the time, but in the long run it reduces their stress and uncertainty. People prefer to know where they stand.
"You're right," I told Isabelle after she called me on my inconsistency, "It's hard not to break my own rule because I love seeing you guys so much. But the rule really is important and I can't break it again."
The next day I was working on the computer when, as expected, Isabelle and Sophia knocked and then walked in without waiting for my response.
I turned to look at them. "Out," I said.
"But Daddy . . ."
"Out." I repeated.
"But, we just . . ."
"Out." I said once more, feeling like a jerk. I wanted to see them. I even worried for a second that they really needed me. What if one of them was hurt? What if there was a fire in the kitchen? But I didn't look up. My wife was home. If there was a fire, she would put it out.
A few days later they tried again but I didn't waiver. And they haven't broken the rule since.
About the Author of this Article: Peter Bregman speaks, writes, and consults on leadership. He is the CEO of Bregman Partners, Inc., a global management consulting firm, and the author of
Point B: A Short Guide To Leading a Big Change.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Baseball Method of Performance Management
Accurate selection of employees into critical roles in corporate America continues to be a difficult endeavor at best. First, however, we should consider how we manage performance, and improve this foundational process in order to advance our ability to make better selection decisions. Having these sometimes-difficult discussions with employees regarding performance has proven to be a task that many managers prefer just to skip. As a recruiter of many years, I can’t tell you how many times I have heard a candidate tell me about a negative relationship with an immediate manager that led them to either leave an employer or be released from that employer. Oftentimes it is unclear to employees what “good” looks like, with disagreements on performance inevitably following.
When you consider sports teams, there is little to debate as to how well a player is doing. Each player and team has “stats” that offer defined information on how well a player or team is performing. Players have “batting averages” in baseball which is further defined by specifically what happened at the plate. This helps baseball leagues have a universal language of what good looks like. Today in corporate America there is no well-defined way to compare “play” across companies. Performance is often based off opinions. Whether it is the opinion of a manager, employee, and/or others, there is typically not a full understanding or accurate picture of the employee’s performance.
What if corporate America took a similar approach to professional sports teams?
Below I will explain how this could look. (Sharing the information below with employees prior to having actual discussions regarding the information will allow them time to ask questions and organize their own thoughts.)
Rookie, Pro, Seasoned Pro, Superstar: These definitions could vary, but get calibrated on this as each level will have different expectations. You would not expect the same depth of expertise from a rookie and a pro. A seasoned pro for sake of this conversation will be those that lead others. Discuss with your employee how they perceive their level of play. What does the employee want to be? Oftentimes there will be a disagreement until it is discussed further and both sides are calibrated. This will be important in determining what type of “average” should be achieved, as well as a suitable number and type of “at bats” (see below).
Next, have a discussion around field of play or what constitutes a “foul ball.”
Field of Play: Oftentimes employees don’t understand the playing field very well. First, what is the playing field? What is considered a “foul ball” or “out of play”? What should the employee be aware of, or what “rules” are all the players abiding by? This can be a great discussion on intra-company relationships and processes. It can create meaningful questions from employees. It can also be an excellent way for a manager to help focus the employee on where to concentrate efforts as well as what areas to avoid.
Next define an approximate number of “at bats” and what each “at bat” looks like. In corporate this could mean anything from a project to meeting a certain sales quota.
Now the manager and employee need to define the outcome for each “at bat.” This becomes an ongoing dialogue as each “at bat” happens. Here comes the fun part. Another lesson from baseball: some outs are more humiliating than others, while some hits are much grander than others. All “at bats” are recorded and are considered part of each individual’s “stats.”
- Strikeout: This couldn’t have gone worse. This goal/project was a complete miss in every way. In fact, you could strike out swinging or watching, further defining level of defeat!
- Hit by a pitch: You got on base, but you damaged a relationship(s) while getting the goal/project completed.
- Walk: This would have gotten accomplished with or without your involvement. It did get done and you participated.
- Base hit: You got the goal/project completed in good order.
- Multi-base hit: You got the goal/project done and exceeded expectations. Really stood out.
- On-base due to error: Your goal/project got completed despite poor performance on your part.
- Home run: This couldn’t have gone better. Your effort has helped the company in a noticeable way and many others acknowledge and clearly see your high level of play.
- Line-drive out: You took a good try at this but still failed in achieving your goal/project. The obstacles or play of the opposing team was very high.
- Long fly ball: Made a good attempt but failed. Missed some elements in getting the project completed appropriately.
- Groundout: Attempted goal/project but most aspects were mediocre at best.
Measuring errors: During the year most corporate citizens handle issues that come up at the moment. Can you go error-free for the year? The manager and employee will want to discuss “errors” as they occur during the year. This will also be a part of every player’s “stats.”
Great plays: In baseball sometimes a player makes a great play on defense. Maybe a diving catch or a pitcher strikes out a batter. In the corporate world maybe it is creating great customer service or going out of your way to help a peer when you didn’t have to do so. This is also measured under “stats” of each employee as well.
Batting average: Overall “batting average” can be seen for each individual and also for an employee’s team if they lead others. Each “at bat” is measured, discussed, and defined.
Media presence: Most players today in professional sports are somewhat defined by the star quality they may or may not have. In corporate America we refer to this as “executive presence” which has become a very nebulous and erroneously used method of measuring individuals. This star quality is also measured in the baseball method. It should not be a surprise to a corporate citizen how they are viewed by the organization. As a part of their “stats” each manager and employee should define the player’s media presence. This is typically something that can be improved if the employee and manager are willing to work on it together. Some potential definitions of media presence are listed below.
- Disruptive player: This individual typically creates or gets involved with issues that destabilize the performance of a team.
- Problem player: In an effort to get results, this individual tends to make everyone mad, typically not caring about how things get accomplished.
- America’s sweetheart: This person tends to get things done with most people liking them along the way.
- Seasoned pro: Credible employee with a good reputation amongst most areas of the organization.
- Money-maker: This person typically brings strong skills and is liked by top management and customers but may be oblivious or not care what peers think.
- The franchise: This person is the superstar that all want to be around.
Resolving disputes: At the beginning of the relationship, designate an individual agreed upon by both who will mediate any dispute or be the “umpire,” should a disagreement occur. This would typically be the manager’s boss or a peer to your immediate boss. The umpire’s decision is final. This allows another individual to aid in discussion and development of the employee.
This method would create a safe atmosphere for ongoing discussion regarding performance. During regular meetings between manager and employee, “errors,” “great plays,” “at bats,” and “media presence” can all be discussed. Employees can have concrete experiences to look at and use for development. This also makes it more difficult for an employee to dispute poor performance.
What if a “baseball method” approach was practiced across many companies for performance management? What would the impact be on the selection process? The interview could cover “stats,” easily accessing actual past performance situations. The “stats” could become a part of the resume adopting some attributes of a baseball card.
--
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Five Keys to Creating an Information Advantage
The value of having superior information has been true throughout human history. I believe that in addition to the analytics movement, which my friend Tom Davenport has so beautifully documented, an information advantage actually derives from a more comprehensive set of principles — great analytics being one of them. Let's take a look at the case of a scion of the legendary Rothschild family.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) developed a small fortune lending money and handling the shipment of bullion during the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815). As his wealth grew, he dispatched his five sons to different cities throughout Europe (London, Paris, Frankfurt, Naples and Vienna) and set up a pan-European network of messengers and carrier pigeons so they could quickly gather information that might affect their investments. Rothschild ran a decentralized empire, but with tight controls. Each son was allowed to make the optimal decisions regarding investments in his country, but information was kept tightly within the company by the family bonds and arranged marriages with close relatives.
Just as investors watch Warren Buffet to see what they can learn, the Rothschilds developed a reputation for being in the know and were carefully tracked by speculators looking for where to place their bets. During the Battle of Waterloo, the stakes were particularly high. Speculators knew that if the Seventh Coalition (consisting of Britian, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, The Netherlands and a number of German states) won, the era of uncertainty caused by Napoleon's expansion would be over. Britain would become the dominant force in European politics, and the ensuing political stability would drive up financial markets and the value of investments throughout Europe. The Rothschilds knew this, too.
Shortly after the battle ended, and long before anyone else knew the outcome, Rothschild began selling stocks. Speculators and traders assumed this meant Napoleon had won the battle at Waterloo, which started a mass sell-off. When prices crashed, Rothschild used his agents to buy up everything they could and he turned his small fortune into a colossal one. Although the SEC might not have approved of his innovative tactics, Rothschild demonstrated the power of asymmetric information — having knowledge that no one else has yet.
Rothschild used five tactics to get his information advantage:
- He created a network of data gathering that allowed him to possess data others lacked;
- He used the best technology (pigeons) in a new way to help in the data gathering;
- He analyzed the implications of the data with insight and precision;
- Once analyzed, he considered how to best use these insights to his advantage — in this case, he knew the market would be watching for his movement — and therefore used his information first to drive down prices, first, before buying. If he had simply bought in, his advantage would not have been maximized.
- He had great timing and execution.
Today, Wal-Mart has a superior data network that allows them to sense and respond to the marketplace in a way that is impossible for others to replicate. The investment banks who perform high frequency trading use their access and analysis to create massive profits. UPS moves about 6% of the US GDP and if they were willing to use their data for investing purposes — which they are not — they could make a fortune.
The reason that an information advantage is becoming more important in today's world is that information about your customers, your market and your suppliers is one of the few proprietary assets that are available to you. Talent, capital, intellectual property, resources, can all be purchased. Distinctive competencies, patents, and customer knowledge are among the few defensible advantages over the long term.
Yet many organizations don't spend the time and effort to turn their data into dollars. They don't look at their network of relationships as a way to gather new and interesting information about the market and their customers. Those few who do, enjoy higher margins, more agility, and less volatility — because they can react faster and better.
Where will this go in the future? I believe that with the three clouds of computing (which I have written about before) there will be more opportunity to create an information advantage. For instance, AT&T developed an iPhone app that allows customers to tell them where the network is weak or strong. Soon, every product and service will have constant feedback from customers — online, and on their mobile devices. Those firms that can make sense of these emerging patterns, consider the best way to use the information, and execute flawlessly will win in the marketplace.
My question for senior executives is: Have you learned the lessons of Rothschild? Do you:
- Have a proprietary way to collect vital data?
- Use the best technology to gather and amplify it?
- Analyze it in a timely manner?
- Consider how to best use it for advantage?
- And do you execute with timing and flawless precision?
About the Author: John Sviokla is vice chairman of Diamond Management & Technology Consultants, Inc. He is a former professor at Harvard Business School in Marketing, MIS, and Decision Sciences.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]