Tag Archives: news

Technology vs Productivity vs Expectations, Oh My

This post title should be recited to the tune of “lions, tigers, and bears, oh my;” that is if you’re old enough to remember The Wizard of Oz, or young (at heart) enough to have seen it as a rerun. It’s rhythmic and its cyclical and it never stops.

Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn are potential business advantages right now. Believe it or not, Twitter offers me real productivity gains. If you don’t see it yet, you will, later on. Facebook and LinkedIn do that for others (not me, but only because I can’t deal with too many different media). Businesses that manage these facilities well are ahead of the game, for now. If you don’t believe me, look at Zappo’s valuations when Amazon.com bought it.

Soon, though, they’ll be expected. It won’t be that businesses operating on the leading edge get credit. Instead, it will be that businesses operating behind that edge will suffer.

That’s the cycle: technology boosts productivity, and that boosts expectations, so we go back to the start again.

I’ve seen that same cycle for a long time now, over and over. When I started with spreadsheets, in 1980, they were so new that my use of spreadsheets gave me competitive advantage in business school. (That image to the right is a 1979 ad for VisiCalc, the first mainstream spreadsheet). Not any more; everybody assumes spreadsheets. Complicated spreadsheets don’t buy anybody competitive advantage. The same was true, believe it or not, with word processing (yes, there was a time when business people didn’t all understand word processing). Now we all assume that. There was a time when an early personal computer and WordStar software and a daisy wheel printer was a huge competitive advantage. No longer. And the same thing happened with desktop publishing. First it was competitive advantage, but then the bar was raised, and it became merely expected. And with email, and Internet websites. Technology to productivity to expectations to back to the start again.

True, we got better output. Spreadsheets give us better business analysis, word processing gives us better writing tools, and desktop publishing gives us better output. But we don’t spend less time. We just expect more.

(Photo credit: Woosa Rosa/Shutterstock)

Curious Case of Experts vs. Managers

How do you react to this quote? This is Mark Shaeffer about social media experts, in this post. I quoted him in my post here yesterday:

How many have ever had a real sales job or have been actually accountable for delivering new value in a marketplace by creating, testing and distributing a product on a meaningful scale?   Very few.  Yet these are our marketing “gurus?”

Now wait a minute.

Who says marketing experts have to have sales experience? Why do they need to have been accountable for a new product?

I want my experts smart, experienced, and knowledgeable. I want them to listen. I want them open to new ideas. I want them to give good advice.

But I don’t care if they’ve had sales responsibility; or if they’ve launched a new product. Why should I?

Do I care if my doctor has built a house? Do I care if my accountant can sing? Why do I want experts to be managers?

What about you? Do you think a business expert has to have line management experience? Can a single-person expert really be an expert if he or she hasn’t run a company?

Do you think the best programmer makes the best manager?

“Line vs. staff” was a big deal to multinational executives and managers I consulted for in the 1970s and 1980s. As a consultant and newsletter generator, I was staff. Line managers had responsibility for sales numbers or profitability. And they were proud of it. It was important to their career.

Does that still matter? Or is it confusing makers and managers? And don’t the experts have to close some sales now and then to survive in business?

Not that the idea threatens me at all – I’m safe on this respect, since I’ve built a company, based on my own software, so whatever expertise I claim will pass that “sales or new product” test.

It’s just that experts and managers are like apples and oranges. Different skills. I want managers to be managers, and experts to be experts.

———-

Late addition: I had the above post ready to go when I was dealing with comments from yesterday and picked up Chris Brogan’s defense, here. He picked up on the same underlying assumption:

Have I held a sales job in a big company? Hell no. I’m not a salesman. Instead, I’m someone who equips salespeople with new tools to drive to value. I’m a hell of an opener, and decent with the first 2/3 of the cycle, but if my kids had to eat on my ability to close complex sales? Hell no.

Interesting perspective. Can you trust me? Beats me. I’ll let my work stand for itself. : )

No argument from me there.

(Photo credit: karbunar/Shutterstock)

Confessions of a Hypocritical Business Planner

Irony: I’m a business planner, and I have been for 30 years now; but the biggest decisions of my real life have been remarkably unplanned.

I could rewrite my own history backwards to make it all seem like it had been planned, but it wasn’t. Going from hippy to business planner to entrepreneur, I tripped over the most important right decisions, accidentally. It was a lot like a shiny metal ball bouncing around in a pinball machine, hitting obstacles and changing directions. Sometimes I made the wrong decisions and got the right results. Go figure.

GTibbetts/Shutterstock

For example, in college I studied what interested me: Literature. I wasn’t making a career choice, I was taking the path of least resistance. It was an easy step from Literature to Journalism, and — after 10 years with UPI and McGraw-Hill and others — from there to the MBA. And in 30-some years of business I keep meeting people whose careers seem to reconfirm the basic wisdom of studying what interests you. These are people who followed that path of interest and found, later, that it led to the right place.

All of which could end up as dangerously bad advice, I suppose: if taking the downhill path leads only downhill. Sometimes you have to buckle down and work; but at least, if you’re doing something that interests you, the work feels better. That was certainly my case.  I got my first job in journalism in Mexico City, by mail plus a plane trip from Oregon, because I was happy to work cheap and they guessed that since my wife is Mexican I probably spoke Spanish (which wasn’t true until a few months later). There was no planning there; it was a job, in 1971, when jobs were scarce (as they are now). It seemed to prove the wisdom of taking that pinball-like  change of direction.

The next time I changed direction it was for the money.  I switched to business writing from regular wire-service news journalism after three years of it because my wife and I had two kids by then and with kids, money became an issue. Before that, neither one of us cared that much. Journalism had enjoyed an aura of save the world for a while, but that gets old. That change doubled my income (from very little to a little bit more). I waded slowly and fearfully into business writing with about as much enthusiasm as an ophidiophobe (fear of snakes) wading into a jungle swamp. At first, it was just a sellout; but then it got interesting. I took business classes at night school. I really wanted to know what was going on underneath the press releases, in the numbers, where the truth hides.

So it took me 10 years to get from undergrad studies to business school, but that wasn’t a bad thing. By the time I got there I was — notice the theme here — once again interested in what I was supposed to be studying. I’d had enough of business journalism to want to actually know what I had been writing about (novel idea) and that made business school fascinating. And my years as journalist helped me get through business school while working full-time in consulting. I could write fast, and that’s a good thing in school.

I made some very bad decisions that created very good outcomes. In some circles, we call that luck. Later I quit a good job to go on my own writing computer books, but with the help of my wife and my favorite former client, that became business plan consulting. And that — again with the help of my wife and some clients — became business plan software. It seemed like a natural progression. Just as it was critical to write for readers in Journalism, it was even more critical to write for users in software. And all of this changing directions meant that it wasn’t until 1994, 20 years after switching to business writing, 11 years after leaving that good job, that Business Plan Pro was first released.

And, while we’re on the general subject of unanalyzed decisions with good outcomes, doing what you want, in 1969 I asked a girl to marry me after knowing her about two weeks. Next January we’ll have a 40th anniversary. (And we both agree we were lucky. Don’t try this at home. Wait longer.) And at every key moment from literature to journalism to business to entrepreneurship, it was always two of us, never just me. When things were really dicey — like when we realized we had three mortgages and $65K credit card debt in developing Palo Alto Software — it was never “you idiot, what have you done,” but rather “we’ll take the risk together, and if we fail, we’ll fail together.” Knowing that you’re not going to lose a marriage over it makes it a lot easier to change directions.

Pinball metaphor notwithstanding.

(Photo credit: GTibbetts/Shutterstock)

Help! One of Me, Dozens of Social Media Sites

I posted here yesterday about the landrush problem of social media, which is my phrase for what happens when user feedback systems are subverted by vendors seeding reviews.

Another social media trend that worries me is the proliferation of sites. How do I deal with all the different sites I’d like to join?

Currently, for me it’s Twitter first, then LinkedIn, and then Facebook. But I haven’t figured out what to do about LinkedIn connection requests from people I’ve never met, or Facebook friend requests from people who are business acquaintances. So that’s a problem.

But there’s a bigger problem brewing for me. I want to participate in another half dozen or so social media sites … but how? Do I log into each one to check messages? I’ve already joined a social network at Entrepreneur.com, and the Business Exchange for Business Week, and the American Express OPEN forum, and the new business.gov community site, and the SBDCNet community site too. And I like every one of them, but I don’t manage to log in and participate that much on any of them. And I don’t like the idea of having my tweets or updates from LinkedIn or Facebook automatically go anywhere. I have different kinds of information for the different sites.

And if that isn’t confusing enough, I’m enjoying the #ageop chat for 50-and-up people on Twitter every Thursday, which has led me to join the Growing Bolder social site; but I can’t seem to log on and respond to messages there. And I’ve got another social media membership for our local Eugene OR smartups business startup interest group.

Argghhh! What to do about all of them?

3-Step Recipe for Not Delegating. Be a Bad Manager.

I posted here yesterday about what makes a good manager. I asked whether you are a good manager, and how you would know if you aren’t.

One thing I’ve thought of since is one way to tell you aren’t a good manager. Sometimes the negatives are easier. And although I can’t imagine all the different ways you could be a bad manager, I’m at least quite sure that one way is to pretend to delegate without actually delegating. What is that? Here’s how, step by step:

  1. Tell somebody they’re in charge of something.
  2. Wait.
  3. When it’s done, tell them what you would have done instead.

I can pretty much guarantee the result of this kind of management: your victims will stop making decisions on their own. Over time, you’ll end up frustrated that nobody thinks for themselves anymore. Everybody has to ask you everything. You’ll ask: “what’s wrong with them all?” And the answer will be: you.

And yes, I know what you’re thinking: there’s something wrong with my number 3, because you have to tell people what went wrong. You have to analyze results, right? Isn’t that management? Or do you just shut up? The answer is you analyze results without suggesting you would have made different choices if you’d done it yourself. Learn this line: “good decisions sometimes have bad results.”

Are You a Good Manager? How Can You Tell?

What makes a good manager? Is it something you’re born with, or something you learn? Is there management instinct? I don’t know for sure. I’ve been in business for more than 30 years now, and I still don’t know.

A few years ago I was trapped on a plane with nothing to read but The One-Minute Manager, by Kenneth Blanchard and Spencer Johnson. It was written in 1982, and still sells very well today, according to Amazon.com ranking, even 26 years later. It’s in the top 2,000 books.

It was a short plane trip, and an easy book to read. It seemed about like this:

Make expectations specific. Tell people what’s expected. Follow up. Track results. Tell people afterwards how they did.

Several things struck me about that:

  1. Completely obvious, but
  2. still very valuable.
  3. Some things that seem completely obvious, once said (or written) still needed to be said (or written).
  4. Authors deserve special credit for keeping a simple book short. This one was easy to read in a one-hour flight.

I’ve never been much of a manager myself. That’s no big deal, of course; lots of people aren’t managers. In my case, though, people expected me to be, because I’ve had a lifetime of successful entrepreneurship. But entrepreneurship and management are different things.

I don’t think I’m alone. I’ve just been browsing the Amazon.com site. Small and simple books like that one sell lots of copies to lots of people. Who Moved My Cheese?, another that fits that description, sells phenomenally well. It’s in the top 300 at Amazon.com

What makes a good manager? Is it confidence, relative certainty, good communications skills, comfort with authority? I just read How to Be a Great Boss on a blog ironically named “Dumb Little Man.” And it’s a good list, too, but not surprising. Standard stuff: listen, communicate, say “Thank You.” And this one: bring food and arrange treats. What is this, kids’ soccer?

Thinking about it, I want to ask the experts some questions back: what makes a good manager?

  1. Is it getting things done?
  2. Getting other people to get things done?
  3. Is it doing the company’s bidding?
  4. Being well liked?
  5. Advancing your own career?
  6. Inspiring people, or leading them?
  7. Coordinating a team?
  8. Is a good manager able to do the work instead?
  9. Do you have to know how to code to manage programmers?

And some really fundamental questions: is a good manager liked, hated, respected, feared, or all or none of these? Is it possible to lead people to higher productivity and the greater good of the business while being disliked? Is it possible to do that while being universally liked? Does a good manager have friends, allies, enemies, bosses, underlings, followers, or minions?

Is it about carrots and sticks, or both?

3 MBA Tricks to Shorten Boring Meetings

On the bad days, in off moments,  it seems like my two years in business school were mostly about learning the definitions of a few key buzz words to use in meetings.

1. ROI

Stands for return on investment, as in profits divided by total investment. For fun in boring meetings, think of it as “run out of interest.” So you say: “What’s our ROI on that?” That sounds like you know what you’re talking about and care about the discussion. But what you mean is “how long before we totally run out of interest on this topic?”

Another fun ROI trick is to make the R and I impossible to calculate. That’s trendy these days. Blow up the analysis by including status or branding or improved productivity or socio-economic gains as part of the return, or time and effort or creativity as part of the investment.

Variations: return on assets (ROA) is another good detour for a group; just redefine assets to mean anything you want that’s good for the company.

2. Matrix

Take a whiteboard or a piece of paper and divide it into rows and columns. Look at the picture here. I know, it’s no big deal, basically something like tic-tac-toe. But it works. Divide whatever it is (competitors, markets, problems, people) into groups that you can cut into boxes on a matrix.

The cool thing with the matrix is that it can make the most obvious classifications and categories look deeply analytical.

Extra credit: the plural of matrix is matrices.  Points off: if the word matrix reminds you of  the movie.

And, for a really good time, ask Google to define:matrix.

3. Diminishing returns

That’s when you get less bang for the buck as you put in more bucks. You can also apply the same phrase to a meeting, as in “I think we’re at the point of diminishing returns for this meeting,” supposedly suggesting that we got a lot out of it in the beginning but now the value is waning. It’s like less value per minute when you put in more minutes.

This one sounds really good, doesn’t it? Look at the Wikipedia definition:

In economics, diminishing returns (also called diminishing marginal returns) refers to how the marginal production of a factor of production, in contrast to the increase that would otherwise be normally expected, actually starts to progressively decrease the more of the factor are added. According to this relationship, in a production system with fixed and variable inputs (say factory size and labor), beyond some point, each additional unit of the variable input (IE man*hours) yields smaller and smaller increases in outputs, also reducing the mean productivity of each worker. Conversely, producing one more unit of output, costs more and more (due to the major amount of variable inputs being used,to little effect)

(Meeting image by Steve Weaver, cc license on Flickr. Matrix image is my own drawing.)

10 Troubling Employer-Employee Lessons

I was lucky. As Palo Alto Software grew up it found some good people along the way. Some of them stuck with us, and some were related to me, a second generation. We had a sense of community that seems, now that it’s grown, vital to that growth.

But I’ve never really understood about managing employees. When I was in business school, oh, so many years ago, what they taught was organizational theory, which we called “touchy feely,” and it didn’t relate well to what happened to us as we built a company.

You work shoulder to shoulder with people and you care about them. It’s hard to give good feedback on both sides (negative as well as positive) of the performance. It’s hard to stay at arm’s length, even though that’s what all the texts and literature and common sense suggest.

So here is some of what I take out of 25 years of building a company, points related to being an employer and having employees:

  1. Choosing people to fill jobs is really hard. People are unpredictable. Resumes don’t work very well, and job interviews don’t work very well either. And the legal advice all companies get from good attorneys, like all the questions you can’t or shouldn’t ask, make that even harder.
  2. “Fit” as in employee fit, is vital but also overrated, and too often used as a rationalization. You want people unlike you, not people like you. But you like people like you.
  3. People change. Long-term loyal and trusted employees grow in and out of the job, sometimes. Sometimes people find themselves and grow and get better and need more. Sometimes they get tired and stop caring as much.
  4. Sometimes you hire the right person for the wrong job. If so, you’re lucky. You find the right job and that problem is solved. Sometimes you hire somebody just for who they are, not how they fill the job description.
  5. When family business works, it’s great. When it doesn’t, I’m told, and we all know the stories, it’s hell. But it’s worked for me and Palo Alto Software. As the company grew up some family members grew up as well, finished college, worked in the industry, and came back to be a second generation of management. When that happens and you have a smart, loyal, trustworthy second generation, its great. How sad that some people assume there’s something wrong with that. Why?
  6. English doesn’t have formal and informal like Spanish and German and French. One of my mentors would never use the informal you. “Because I might have to fire you tomorrow,” he would say. There’s wisdom in that, I think, but then one day he jumped out of a high hotel window to his death.
  7. You can change the job, or move the person to a different job, but you can’t change the person. The people change on their own.
  8. Suspicion, hearsay, jumping to conclusions is dangerous. You don’t get to act on the smoke. Wait for the fire.
  9. Firing people is the hardest thing you do. And the hardest firing is the loyal and honest and hard-working employee who just doesn’t get the job done, or keeps making the wrong decision, and doesn’t fit another job. You were supposed to stay arms-length, remember? I still don’t know how people do that.
  10. It’s easier to fire five people in a single day than just one person ever, except when that person’s had a bad attitude.

Marketing Textbook in Top 250 Blog List

What if the question was: what’s the best book about marketing to read and recommend? And the answer was: read this compilation: Top 250 Blog Posts – Advertising, Marketing, Media and PR Spotlight Ideas. How things have changed. 

Not Kotler’s Principles of Marketing, not Seth Godin’s Permission Marketing, not even Jay Conrad Levinson’s Guerilla Marketing. But read the 250 posts included in this top 250 posts list at SpotlightIdeas, and you’d have a marketing education.

The posts are divided into meaningful categories, and include a highlights list of best bloggers in any of these marketing-related topics. Seth Godin, Chris Brogan, Leo Babuta, Robert Scoble, and many other generally-recognized blogging leaders.

Maker or Manager: Do You Hate Meetings?

Focus: in personal productivity, focus is power. Or maybe I should call it concentration. Have you ever borne down on a task, locked out all distractions, and gotten more done in an hour or two than you thought you could get done in a day? I have the feeling I used to do that a lot;  but now, only rarely.

Part of the problem is the obvious computer-dominated workplace, with emails, instant messages, Twitter, my office phone, and my cell phone, all competing with the task at hand.

But it’s more than just technology. It’s like in an office, more to do, more distractions, more of everything. Especially, more meetings.

I was struck the other day by Paul Graham’s recent essay Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule. He says time is different for different types of jobs and people:

Most powerful people are on the manager’s schedule. It’s the schedule of command. But there’s another way of using time that’s common among people who make things, like programmers and writers. They generally prefer to use time in units of half a day at least. You can’t write or program well in units of an hour. That’s barely enough time to get started.

So the manager’s day divides into 5, 10, and 15-minute pieces. The programmer’s, designer’s, or writer’s day doesn’t.

I can relate to this. In 40 years of adulthood I’ve had three lives as a maker and one as a manager. For years my real work was developing a software product, which included some of the code plus content and even documentation. Meetings were big interruptions. Then for a lot of years I was building and running the company, doing nothing but meetings. During those years I was unable to get much writing or software content done at all.

People are different. I like the maker’s life better; but then I’m a hermit by nature, I can go for hours concentrating on a task without talking to anybody. I know people who would hate that, and live for the actions, the thrill of the chase, the decisions, the jockeying for position, the sense of getting things done (in a different way) and, with it all, the meetings.

What are you: Maker or manager?