Interpersonal Business

Vol. LXXVI

Dear Manager,

Outside of yourself, and perhaps inclusive of yourself, can you think of a single individual more important than the organization as a whole and all of its team members? Too often I’ve seen management side step this perspective, allowing their decisions relating to individuals to impair their vision, putting their entire organization in peril.

PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION

Challenging economic times demand of us as managers to insist upon staff members whose single focus is being “part of the solution.” We can try to get away with less when the pipeline is full; we most certainly can’t when the well begins to run dry. By accepting less, we’re now part of the problem. Often management is looked upon to have and/or implement “all of the answers” to solve current challenging economic times. Excuse me, but it’s only the heroic efforts of the full team that holds the greatest potential for solving challenging economic scenarios. Each member is personally accountable, each member holds personal investment and ownership. Part of the problem…Part of the solution!

There are two fundamental and at times conflicting factors that provide significant advantages, while simultaneously creating conflict in our ability to manage our staff on a day-to-day basis.

TENURE VS. MERIT

This is certainly a decades-old, if not centuries-old debate. While most of us might think of systems based tenure and merit in terms of education or civil service, these systems apply to business as well.

First of all, I’d like to assume there are significant advantages inherent in tenured employees. Many of these individuals instill a sense of heritage to ones organization. As managers, we can rely on their experience to assist us in leading our organization in its forward direction. They may understand the rhythms of our organization having survived and excelled in both the good times as well as the more challenging. They may also act as a source of stability for those who have not yet matured within the organization. There is no greater virtue than loyalty in its purest form.

Having said this, I’ve noted instances where tenured employees are no more than dead wood and a full-blown anchor to the organization. It can appear on occasion that these individuals have exaggerated their self-importance far beyond any reasonable perspective. They soon take for granted their full responsibilities to the whole of the organization. They may even take personal advantage through the knowledge and susceptibilities of the organization that they’ve been entrusted to protect. They’ve paid their dues, and are coasting toward retirement. Tenure based solely on a foundation of “entitlement” should not be rewarded through sustained employment by any organization.

I recently came across a word that really caught my attention: meritocracy. When compared to the concept of tenure, I believe its meaning becomes fairly clear. All organizational members from the sweeper to the President hold the fundamental responsibility to bring merit to their profession as well as to the company.

There is no greater pleasure for any manager than to have an individual who excels in their position. Is there any better reward than to see such an individual advance within the company? He or she has worked hard, gained knowledge and experience to strengthen the company as a whole, and has been rewarded on merit. Why else would we choose to do what we do, if not to enjoy the satisfaction in this process? These are the paybacks for the substantial responsibilities that we hold, and they can only be fulfilled with a staff that is focused and absolutely committed to bettering themselves and the roles they play on behalf of the organization.

I would suggest that in debating the value of tenure versus merit there are no black and white conclusions. All members of our staff must be a positive influence regardless of event or circumstances, merit or tenure. Failure to address the dynamics of this issue on a case-by-case basis is only delaying the inevitable, while creating needless additional risk to the organization as a whole.

You might ask how this is possible. Certainly a manager wouldn’t intentionally make a bad decision of this significance, but intentions and reality are two very different action points. Managers want to protect and nurture. What they often fail to account for is the “chain of events factor” in their tenure versus merit calculations.

Each situation has the potential to set off a chain of events that will continue to impact the company over time. Managers must use their “gut” and experience to think in terms of second, third, and fourth generation with regards to the ramifications of the decision at hand. In most cases the decision is not the issue (it’s obvious!). The issue is the ability to take action that will continue to move each individual and the organization as a whole productively and enthusiastically into the future.

This ties into the decisions we make as managers in less stressful times. The greatest difference is that we have much greater control of the timing, the players, and have a much larger window of opportunity. If we’re unwilling to put this level of significance into the thought process and the actions we must make on an ongoing basis, it would suggest we are also fully entitled to the outcome.

To finally address the answer to my earlier challenge: No, there are no individuals more important than the whole of the organization. I believe this would and does include all of us as well. We’re here to create a successful environment not only for today, but also for future generations to improve upon. All members should feel risk in the event that they fail to bring benefit and a positive influence to this institution.While this topic is very fundamental, its premise is all too often ignored in a business climate. Using the academic concept of tenure versus merit, apply this to your organization. Your sales and office staff are the educators of your clients and caretakers of your company’s promise for the future. Are you more likely to succeed with a “teacher” who feels entitled to their job and is simply putting in time, or with one whose enthusiasm, creativity and loyalty, regardless of length of employment, merits them their position? Solve the equation.

It reminds me of a television commercial I recently saw for Lowe’s Home Improvement Centers, and it absolutely applies to this discussion: “This is why logic makes sense!”

Personal Regards,

Keenan

INTERPERSONAL© is published by INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM, Keenan Longcor, Editor, ©2011. Duplication of this publication is permitted for both personal and business use. Excerpts may only be quoted with acknowledgment of INTERPERSONAL/INTERPERSONALBIZ.ORG as the source. For re-publication rights, please contact the editor at KEENAN@INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM

Vol. LXXV

Dear Manager,

With this issue I’d like to look at this topic and the necessary “equalizing balances” in terms of quality vs. quantity. I can’t think of two more equal, yet by nature more conflicting, aspects of business in today’s marketplace. With the advances of the world economy in full bloom, quality vs. quantity is clearly the dynamic that will determine our future, and the future for generations to come, if the U.S. is to retain its competitive edge.

A number of years ago my daughter left college after her junior year to move to the Silicon Valley and join the “dot.com rush.” While my feelings were mixed, I genuinely supported her decision. Katie is one who will always land on her feet, and I felt this would give her some of those life experiences we all need. Jeez, to be 20, making $60K a year, and with the title of Project Manager to boot … doesn’t get much better than that!

It was an amazing year, twelve-hour days, six or seven-day weeks of intensely focused time with members of what became “a new family.” Exhaustion, poor eating habits I’m sure, with only infrequent visits to the gym to ease some of the stress. I think we’d all agree: a bit too much quantity, too little quality. Just before her one year anniversary, it became obvious that yes, the price had become too high. Katie gave notice. She yearned for her former life and the more simple pleasures found in college. She’s moved back to Seattle to finish up her degree. She truly appreciates so much more what she’d nearly lost: the quality of life she had forsaken. As you may have predicted, weeks later her former company locked its doors.

Ah yes, how the “pendulum do swing” from one extreme to the other, both individually and organizationally, in these times of high drama for American Business. This evolution in the marketplace has certainly affected the gift, stationery, and home furnishing markets. The smoke and mirrors of the collectable industry is in the tank with the influence of the Internet and its “clean air and pricing policies.” The greeting card industry is just now admitting the impact of the virtual greeting card, and for every new and independent retailer opening in this category there are three that will close. Only those who innovate and adapt will survive.

Clearly this is a reflection of our society’s infatuation with the Sam’s Clubs, Targets and Costco’s of the world, making it very, very, very clear that “this is where America shops!” Quantity would seem to rule this contest, though in reality the independent retailer’s lack of innovation has resulted in no current growth. Those who are growing do so at the expense and market share of another. Similarly, in the absence of innovation, manufacturers have no choice but to follow their customers.

The president of a sales agency recently asked me how best to protect his interests in these difficult times. He felt the need to shore up his agency with additional new manufacturers, but realized he’d do so at the expense of available time and capacity for his current manufacturers. When you’re running scared in business, most any path of least resistance can seem incredibly appealing.

Capacity is a very real and ongoing concern for both manufacturers and sales agencies in this and other industries. Productivity has been enhanced, but in this industry many are still writing orders by hand (a slow and mundane process of decades past), instead of using hand held, automated order writing systems. I know of one agency that experienced a forty percent growth in sales once these devices were implemented.

The increase was neither the result of a better-trained sales force, nor of a hot or explosive marketplace. It was simply a reflection of increased capacity. My first response to this agency president would be to run, don’t walk, to the implementation of this form of automation for his agency. While it won’t solve the underlying problem, you can be assured that if or when the gas runs out of the engine, at least you’ll be holding the fuel pump!

My second piece of advice would be that quality over quantity has survived the test of time in American Business. Certainly the dumping of quantity from overseas and domestic markets has taken its toll, but in the end, quality always rules. Think of it in these terms; would you prefer to be known for your quality, or your ability to produce quantity? It would seem to be fairly clear. Even if the pendulum is currently swinging against you, it will swing back. With time, quality always comes back into favor.

In conversations with my sales associates, I would always suggest that while I could find them three additional manufacturers to represent, I couldn’t find them the additional four days each month to support the manufacturers’ rightful needs and expectations. While it was common for many sales agencies to represent thirty or more manufacturers, our agency represented fifteen.

It was clearly important to our agency that we play a significant and visible role with our manufacturers. I wanted to be more than just “another rep agency” in these primary relationships. In good times, I wanted our agency to be acknowledged as a potential leader; in difficult times I wanted our agency to be in a position to receive the benefit of the doubt. Strong and mutually beneficial relationships, ones founded on quality, are becoming less common. I wanted to stand out among the masses, making it that much more difficult to form a negative conclusion relating to our organization.

I also found this policy to be revealing as it related to our internal sales trends. Invariably, even with our limited number of manufacturers, the bottom three consistently represented less than three percent of our total sales! Can you imagine how these ratios would translate to an agency with thirty or more manufacturers? What potential for quality exists for the manufacturers at the bottom of that heap?

One of the greatest challenges for agency presidents, their staff, and sales people, is the sheer amount of administration, follow up and maintenance required to stay on top of so many manufacturers. This was a daunting task for our office and each of its staff members. Forget quality for a moment. How much more capacity, let alone stamina, can I provide a dozen clients compared to thirty? Clearly, this single commitment established a sense of quality, clear lines of communication, and years of security for our organization, in the good times and in the bad.

We as managers must remain vigilant in these highly productive times to not overextend our staff’s capacity. We must maintain the standards of quality consistent with our prior success. In times when quantity vs. quality is in debate, this may be your greatest opportunity to throw all of your resources behind your own position of strength in the marketplace. You will not just be noticed; you will stand head and shoulders above your competitor.

Personal Regards,

Keenan

INTERPERSONAL© is published by INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM, Keenan Longcor, Editor, ©2011. Duplication of this publication is permitted for both personal and business use. Excerpts may only be quoted with acknowledgment of INTERPERSONAL/INTERPERSONALBIZ.ORG as the source. For re-publication rights, please contact the editor at KEENAN@INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM

Vol. LXXIV

Dear Manager,

Certainly there are individuals who can look beyond the surface and try to understand this larger perspective; unfortunately many can’t or won’t. We, as managers, can’t simply be passive, accepting the classic workers vs. management stereotype.

I’m not here to suggest that I was ever able to fully overcome this issue within my own organization. In fact, this may have been one of my greatest challenges (and unfulfilled objectives) in managing my organization. Grappling with this objective was one of the founding reasons for launching INTERPERSONAL these many years ago. I was able to share many of my management ideals and challenges through this publication, presenting them from second person perspective, rather than pointedly at my staff.

I always hoped that the challenges I addressed in these written pages would raise their understanding and awareness of my challenges on the other side of the desk. Not only would this new insight strengthen our team, this perspective would assist each member in managing their individual “empire” as well! While I’d thankfully walked in their shoes, most had never walked in mine. There were no guarantees that the message would be read between the lines, just as there were no guarantees that my written words would be read at all.

I believe that our staff members each have three very real allegiances with regards to their professional careers. The first allegiance or accountability is the one owed to themselves and their families. The second one is a responsibility to their manager, the third being an obligation to the company for whom they choose to work. While I feel I could probably make a case suggesting these three allegiances are equal, reality suggest that one or more would be considered, by most, to be more equal than others.

PERSONAL ACCOUNTABITY

Certainly as individuals we hold a personal accountability to ourselves to be the very best we can be in our chosen career. Our career is a major factor in determining our value to our family, and to society as a whole. To accept anything less than what we know to be our best effort should be personally unacceptable. As individuals, we are the only entity that carries the full truth with regards to our current and ongoing commitment to our professional careers. While you may be able to fool others, you can’t fool the person in the looking glass.

We have a fundamental responsibility to not only be the very best we can be, but also for the choices we’ve made in arriving at this current moment. I often hear individuals complain about their current working environment, only to find that they’d made the choice to work for their current employer. Judging by their attitude, you’d think they worked in a slave labor camp. How, and why, would an individual hold such disdain for their current environment, and subject themselves to such continued punishment?!

I believe we also have a fundamental personal responsibility to continue to grow and challenge ourselves to “better our lot in life.” An ongoing objective within my organization was to create an environment that would provide an opportunity for continued growth and success. If an individual felt that this opportunity didn’t present itself, I never questioned their desire to leave my organization for the purpose of enhancing or expanding their potential for a successful career. I might hate to see them leave, yet if there were greener pastures elsewhere I would also wish them the very best.

ONES RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR MANAGER

There can be, and hopefully is, a very special bond that develops between an individual and their manager. Often this relationship begins with a first interview that culminated with both parties forming a mutual and stated commitment to their collective success. This personal and mutual commitment should be considered the cornerstone of their working relationship going forward.

Each party holds the ethical responsibility to protect one another’s interest both “in and out of the office.” Further, each holds the personal commitment to both support and nourish the success of one another’s position within the organization. Anything less, and one or both of these parties have made a glaring error in judgment regarding themselves or the commitments they’ve made.

It should be further understood that while we maintain equal responsibilities to one another, this relationship is not, nor should it ever be, perceived to be one of equal authority. The individual roles should be very clear from the outset: one individual is in a staff position the other individual is their manager, period. It’s common for these lines to become blurred, especially when a staff member might perceive greater power by somehow “equalizing” their role to that of their manager. Human nature gets the best of some individuals. A strong manager quietly, effectively and, if need be, consistently, clarifies the roles and their boundaries.

In the worst-case scenario, managers must provide some individuals “the opportunity” (I’d like to help you out … which way did you come in?) to follow their desires and fulfill personal expectations with another organization. When faced with this situation, I found that in each and every case my organization was much better off for having made this decision, regardless of the loss of that individual’s talents.

ONES RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ORGANIZAITION

Once again it’s common for members of your staff to never feel or understand a personal sense of responsibility to the organization as an entity. Staff members are asked to focus on specific objectives over which they usually have at least some control of the outcome. Managers are asked to think in terms of what is in both the best interest of the individuals, but also what is in the fiduciary best interest of the company as a whole.

Obviously, much can be lost in translating the organization’s global perspective to ones staff members. Until the first male feels the pain of giving childbirth, there is not a man on this planet who will ever fully understand or appreciate what a mother must endure. This analogy is very similar, if not identical, to what managers must endure. We can certainly try to explain our challenges; rarely can we effectively communicate their scope or sense of magnitude. There are times when we must ask those we manage to simply accept our conclusions as a decision that’s in the best interest of the organization. While all will gain from the process, in the end, some will “get it” and others will not.

While organizational relationships are not structured to be equal, they should not be competitive in nature. If a single individual is unable to make changes consistent with the needs of the company, this individual is compromising their own position and those of their fellow staff members. Yes, the organization is all of us, not simply those aspects, policies, and structures that personally impact us. It’s management and staff members, individually and collectively, that require support and protection. It’s a team.

Personal Regards,

Keenan

INTERPERSONAL© is published by INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM, Keenan Longcor, Editor, ©2011. Duplication of this publication is permitted for both personal and business use. Excerpts may only be quoted with acknowledgment of INTERPERSONAL/INTERPERSONALBIZ.ORG as the source. For re-publication rights, please contact the editor at KEENAN@INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM

Vol. LXXIII

Dear Manager,

What is this skill? What’s missing? American Business needs more managers who can make a decision!

A decisive manager commands respect. Their ability to understand the broad dynamics of their business, think on their feet, and to bring a succinct conclusion, is truly a dramatic sight to behold. It’s unfortunate, then, that many managers either can’t come to a conclusion, or are simply unwilling to do so. Thinking they might not make a good decision, these managers choose not to risk making a “bad decision” in favor of the worst possible alternative: no decision at all.

THE “NO DECISION”

I’m convinced that in American Business, nine out of ten instances of “no decision” are consistently less productive, and ultimately create greater risk, than a “bad decision.” We’ve all made presentations in person or over the phone to an individual who suggests mild, yet unspecific interest in our proposal. This person is clearly unable to form a conclusion based on the initial conversation. Since we are all good sales people, our next step is to ask the question, “When do you think you will be ready to make your decision?” This is not too much to ask! With a side step to the left, and a few side steps to the right, this person usually comes up with the following, (and very decisive, I might add) conclusion: “I’ll get back to you.”

Clearly, there are decisions that just can’t be made on the fly. Yet, in the fast paced nature of business, I would suggest this is the exception rather than the rule. By now, we’ve all gained enough knowledge about the dynamics of our business to form a thought process that leads to a conclusion. Delaying a decision for its own sake is a crutch and a total disservice to all parties concerned.

A SIMPLE YES OR NO PLEASE!

Certainly there’s risk in the decision making process. Are decisive individuals any more “right” than others who simply can’t get off the dime? Probably not. I’ve always heard that to be correct 51% of the time in business decisions is to be a success. We’ve all made decisions that, from a Monday morning quarterback’s perspective, were poorly analyzed and or misjudged. I’ll also guess that we’ve never made that identical bad decision twice! If we’ve learned from our mistake, what more can we ask of our staff or ourselves?

One of the first good decisions a strong manager can make is to allow staff members to make decisions relating to their areas of expertise. There’s few things worse than a manager lurking over the shoulder, second-guessing ones decision process. Staff must be empowered to make the best possible decisions with the knowledge at hand. Anything less, and it’s really a direct reflection on management’s decision to hire this individual in the first place! In other words, if they aren’t good enough to make a quality decision, then why would you possibly want them to be a member of your team?

Strong management should consistently challenge their staff to step up to the plate in the decision making process. It’s vital that they understand the significant value they have to the company as a decision maker. Early on, there may need to be discussions regarding the thought process leading to these decisions, but soon the baton of decision empowerment must be passed on to our staff members.

Of course, as managers we need to make or participate in the significant and major decisions relating to our organizations. We must also be made aware of some decisions to avoid being caught flat footed or unaware in the future. This doesn’t mean that we need to know every detail, or make every single decision! In most cases, the decision to delegate many of these issues is the single most valuable one we can make for our organization.

A manager must also be willing to allow his/her staff to come to a conclusion and decision inconsistent with their own. The decision making process is also a learning process. If you break the spirit of the decision maker, you have sent the message that they are ill equipped, or not allowed, to make a decision at all. I’ve learned from experience that, with the test of time, many of my staff’s decisions were better than my own would have been.

We must encourage the decision making process and believe that no one intentionally makes a bad choice from the options available to them. We take pleasure in the good decisions, and we learn from those that aren’t!

COURAGE AND TRUSTING YOUR GUT

Yes, courage is often required in the decision making process. Certainly, we’ve all stubbed our toe and wished that we’d handled a situation differently. We must keep in mind that if all decisions were precise there’d be little (if any) need for management! We must also put ourselves in the shoes of those awaiting our decision in order to fully understand their need for a timely, decisive decision. There’s not one of us who hasn’t walked in these shoes, wondering when or if a decision will come down. We owe those awaiting our decisions nothing less.

I’ve found that the best decisions I’ve made were the ones where I trusted my gut. To take this a step further, the very best decisions that I’ve made from a “gut perspective” would, at the time, have been considered the most obvious! Once your analysis is complete, and you’ve done the gut check, proceed confidently and with full steam.

THE $100 DECISION

For a number of years I’ve owned real estate in the Portland area. In the early years I managed these properties on my own. I’d do much of the maintenance, leasing, and field all of the calls personally. With these properties came countless, ongoing, minor decisions that needed to be made to insure proper maintenance and upkeep. For the most part, solving these problems required decisions that added up to less than $100 in actual cost. There was a time when I’d struggle over these decisions, making absolutely, painstakingly sure the maintenance was needed, or that I was getting true value for my money. I finally realized that I was turning my less-than-$100-problem into a $500 enigma by virtue of investing so much time in a protracted decision making process.

I learned two things from this: 1) Hire someone to manage and make the “$100 decisions” that must be made on a day-to-day basis. If you’re afraid to let your staff make a decision on a less-than-$100-problem, why are they there? 2) In business, when a $100 issue lands on your desk, write a check immediately, without question, without cause, (do not pass GO!) and move on to areas and decisions that are consistent with managing the true priorities of your organization.

Personal Regards,

Keenan

INTERPERSONAL© is published by INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM, Keenan Longcor, Editor, ©2011. Duplication of this publication is permitted for both personal and business use. Excerpts may only be quoted with acknowledgment of INTERPERSONAL/INTERPERSONALBIZ.ORG as the source. For re-publication rights, please contact the editor at KEENAN@INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM