Ask The Right Person The Right Question

I frequent a local independent hardware store that I’ve became a big fan of.  It’s a small store, but it’s been rare that they didn’t have the stuff (or the advice) I need.  Their people are knowledgeable.  They are patient—especially when I ask a question that only an annoying novice would ask.  They won’t sell me a $5.00 solution, when a 50 cent solution will do.  They’ve earned my loyalty.  I send my friends  there.

But, as good as they are, when I have a particularly vexing problem I routinely ask the staff  “who is your most knowledgeable person who can help me with such and such a problem?  It could be an electrical problem or plumbing problem or painting problem…doesn’t matter.  I ask this screening question because I’ve learned that nearly all their staff will have an opinion about what the solution to my problem is–regardless of their qualifications to render that opinion.  Occasionally this has led to a less-than-optimal solution. (I don’t hold it against them, I realize they’re just trying to be helpful.)

Sometimes we forget that the staff’s expertise isn’t necessarily always interchangeable.  We need to ask the right person, the right question, at the right time.  In a marketing department, the experiences and perspectives from the folks in advertising will be very different from those in demand generation.  Asked an identical question, their responses will naturally be different.

Simply put:  when I have a question whose answer is dependent on a higher degree of expertise, I seek that expertise out. In other words, I try to ask the person who is best qualified to answer my question.  In doing so, I’m more apt to get the very best advice while avoiding some well-intended (but less informed) people to influence me towards a so-so solution.  This is one way to ensure getting the optimal results as we advocated in The Power of Professionalism.   

I’ve noticed that workplace managers are prone to asking questions of people who aren’t necessarily in the best position to answer them.  When asked, most people will answer…it’s human nature.   Usually they do so because they’re trying to be helpful (while avoiding looking ignorant at the same time).  Plus, people (like the folks at the hardware store) will always be pleased to share their opinion.  After all, it makes them feel important.

The manager, as a reality check, should always be asking themselves, “how confident am I in the answers people are giving me?” Screening questions—analogous to the one I used at the hardware store—will help keep managers (or anyone else for that matter) out of the weeds.

Enjoy Retirement Tony

Earlier today, Tony La Russa announced his retirement–this after winning the World Series last week in dramatic fashion. He’s going out on top. I’m thrilled for him.

La Russa, who wrote the Foreword for The Power of Professionalism, had a brilliant career and undoubtedly will be a first ballot entrant into baseball’s Hall of Fame.

Cardinals star pitcher Chris Carpenter said of Tony, “I’m not sure there are a lot of people that can match the preparation, the dedication and the ability to put it all together.”

Carpenter is ‘spot on’.  In recruiting big name contributors (such as Tony) for The Power of Professionalism I had one singular criteria–that the individual had to emulate what I was writing about in the book. Tony does….he’s such a pro.

La Russa leaves a lasting legacy. Managers will forever model not only what he did but how he did it. Baseball was lucky to have him.

Enjoy your retirement Tony.

 

 

Professionals Just Don’t Do That

A woman co-hosting  a call-in radio program chimes-in on a technical question from a caller.  She goes on at nauseam about the topic.  A different caller later challenges her conclusion.   After back-pedaling for what seemed like an eternity, the woman finally acknowledged she knew little about the subject.  It took guts for her to acknowledge that—but , for me, that experience was like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Professionals just don’t do that.

When faced with a similar situation, the professional would acknowledge that the question wasn’t  within their field of expertise and suggest an alternative person to talk to.

It’s usually ego that drives us to chime in when we shouldn’t.  Sure…we all want to look good…have credibility in the eyes of others…and more!   But portraying ourselves as an expert when we shouldn’t  will almost always backfire in the end.

Last week I mentioned I recently attended Keiretsu—a forum for entrepreneurs and investors to meet, collaborate, and perhaps put together a deal.  An investor asked a particularly insightful question of one of the entrepreneurs that put the entrepreneur on the spot—largely because it required some additional research.  Rather than wing it, the entrepreneur answered the portion of the question he could and asked for the gentleman’s card so he could follow-up on the remainder of his question.  That made big points with the investor.  The entrepreneur, who had already gotten off on the right foot, became even more impressive in the eyes of the investor.

The willingness to be vulnerable in the way this entrepreneur did is a sign of being comfortable in your own skin.  It’s keeping one’s ego in check (consistent with mind-set six) …a demonstration of maturity…a sign of being a trusted professional.

 

How Mind-Set Three Aids Fledgling Entrepreneurs In Venture Funding

I recently attended a chapter meeting of the Keiretsu Forum.  The Keiretsu Forum provides a medium for young, high-potential companies needing venture funding to meet potential investors.  The companies need the funding to sustain their current operations or, more typically, take their business to the next level.  Obtaining that  funding is critical!  For some, the lack of additional venture funding can mean languishing in mediocrity or worse.

The investors can be a tough bunch…and well they should.  Many of these enterprises must overcome long odds to succeed.  Investors need to be both thoughtful and  prudent. They routinely scrutinize balance sheets, market strategies, and the like. But often their greatest scrutiny is of the entrepreneur’s themselves.  It’s, arguably, the most important factor to get right.

Investors love “coachable entrepreneurs”. Why? Because entrepreneurs who can’t learn ‘on the fly’ will likely fail.  And investors–who typically were once successful entrepreneurs themselves—often become the source of deep insights for the fledgling entrepreneur-leader. Often the investors are the entrepreneur’s best source of advice.

Know-it-all entrepreneurs usually have a short business life-span. The fast and furious start-up experience has too many moving parts –each of which requires specialized expertise–for people not to ask for advice.

On the other hand, entrepreneurs who are constantly asking questions (because they realize there’s so much they don’t know) have a much better shot at flourishing. These are people who have a mind-set that suggests that ‘things get better when they get better’  (mind-set #3).  They plan, execute, evaluate and learn….then repeat the process until they get it right.

When an investor comes to the conclusion that the entrepreneur is uncoachable…it usually signals the beginning of the end.  It doesn’t matter how smart or creative the person is. Without the ‘coachable’ trait the entrepreneur is unlikely to get funded.The investor, who is all-too-aware of how difficult the uncoachable entrepreneur can be,   opts out.  He keeps his financial powder dry, patiently awaiting the next potential deal.

This attribute of personal leadership (being uncoachable) often makes or breaks people very quickly in the entrepreneurial world. Investors simply won’t put up with it.  In the ‘corporate world’ it’s another story.  Uncoachable people in mainstream corporate environments ‘flame out’ much later–at least comparatively.  There’s lots of reasons why…but it doesn’t change the ‘drag’ the person typically has on the organization. Imagine if the corporate ‘uncoachables’ were forced to justify their funding each year by a rough-and-tumble investor.  Boy, how things would change!

Professionals: Not What, But How

In our August 30, 2011 post we illustrated why it’s a bad idea to think an organization should automatically be considered ‘professional’ because it produces technically sophisticated products developed by really smart people. A recent article in Fortune couldn’t have been more timely or effective in complimenting that earlier post. The story–based at the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer–is outstanding.  It’s one of the best business articles I’ve read in a really long time. Here’s the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/28/pfizer-jeff-kindler-shakeup/

There is perhaps no greater threat to an organization than dysfunction in the top team. And when that top team leads the world’s largest drug company, the potential consequences are huge. ’Inside Pfizer’s palace coup’ is the title of the article. Trust me–it’s aptly titled. In terms of bad behavior, these people had nothing on Machiavelli. Revenge, betrayal, power-grabs…it’s all there. If this story would have taken place in the military, it would have been described as ‘behavior unbecoming’.

Pfizer’s historical performance has largely been impressive….they make technically sophisticated stuff….they have exceptionally bright people. Yet ‘professional’ is a term that most reasonable people would find hard to use in describing Pfizer’s top team after reading this article. And, of course, the whole organization takes a big ‘hit’ because of that. It’s simply unavoidable. Remember—most people define an organization as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers but by how they go about their business. Pfizer’s experience should always be a reminder of that.

Lessons From Baseball’s Playoffs

Baseball’s playoffs are upon us. The teams are all exceptionally talented. With rare exception, it’s tough to differentiate one team from another–at least in terms of their respective capabilities. Often the difference between a winning and losing playoff team are a lot of little things….things that some would dismiss as merely ‘intangible’. But those intangibles often make all the difference…they build commitment by infusing energy into the team.

Consider:

  • the hustling outfielder who makes a brilliant highlight-reel catch, saving an important run….this despite risking a head-long crash into the wall.  (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)
  • the pitcher who methodically mixes up his arsenal of pitches, playing havoc with the hitter’s most precious commodity (his timing) and guaranteeing himself an early shower due to a high pitch count. (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)
  • the light-hitting journeyman who consistently and methodically works elite pitchers to full counts—frustrating the pitchers, sapping the life out of their arms, and shortening their all-important ‘innings pitched’—all the while putting his own numbers at risk. (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)

These, admittedly, are little things. But they are the types of things that help win championships. They are emblematic of the Mind-Sets held by the finest professionals among us. And when these mind-sets are predominate within an organization–the organization wins.

Want your organization to win its own championship? The Mind-Sets are often the secret ingredient!

Changing Your Tune

“Cheryl is the best project manager we have—her integrity is beyond reproach.”  “Suzanne is one of the finest people you’d ever want to work with—she’s simply a star.”
“Charlie was my best boss ever—fair-minded, respectful, insightful–he’s the real deal.”

The people expressing their admiration for these people based their views on years of personal experience working with them. But isn’t it funny how we’re prone to change our tune when things don’t quite go our way:

  • You change your tune about Cheryl after she reassigns you to a lower-profile project.
  • You change your tune about Suzanne after she respectfully, but vehemently, disagrees with you in front of the boss on a key strategic issue.
  • You change your tune about Charlie after he doesn’t hire you for a job you desperately sought.

If these people were good before, they should be good after. Your view shouldn’t change just because an isolated situation doesn’t go your way. Changing your tune in such circumstances makes you look petty…makes you look small…puts you fifty yards south of showing up as a professional would.

Should I Say What I Know?

That’s a question that some of us constantly ask ourselves.

Most of us wouldn’t:

  • tell our friends how the new blockbuster movie ends.
  • speak up in a meeting on an arcane point if we believed doing so would derail the meeting.
  • share an innocent, but little-known, fact about a colleague that, when revealed, might be used against them.

Sometimes knowing when (and when not) to speak up is a matter of judgment. In other instances, it’s a matter of character. Either way, the fact that we’re asking ourselves the question as to whether to speak up or not is evidence that we should tread carefully.

I once had a manager who always ran in the right circles.  He hung out with the ‘big dogs’—the ‘A’ list crowd. He was always “in the know”.  And he couldn’t wait to demonstrate that he was “in the know”.  Initially, it was just awkward…the information he’d tell me about.  I initially suspected he was revealing information he shouldn’t.  After awhile it was obvious that was exactly what he was doing. It seemed he just couldn’t help himself—revealing confidences that is.

It’s really tempting to be ‘in the know’….tempting to say what we know. In most business cultures,  the more information we possess, the greater our standing in the eyes of others. For some being ‘in the know’ is a (self) validation of one’s own self-importance.  Being ‘in the know’ can be intoxicating, because with knowledge comes a form of power–perceived or otherwise.

It also means that someone has taken us into their confidence…they’ve extended trust. That’s the trouble…my manager was violating confidences.  He had broken the trust that had been extended to him.

When this happens it’s typical:

  • for people to share only the information that’s absolutely essential with the offender (especially if that person is higher up in the food chain than we are).
  • that the offender develops a reputation for having ‘loose lips’ …which translates to a blemish on their character – eventually undermining their own effectiveness.
  • for the offender to lose the respect of others – the polar opposite of the enhanced ‘standing’ they may have originally hoped for.

So when you’re tempted to say what you know…remember, discretion is the better part of valor.

This Place Is Great!

Last week we pointed out how people become disgusted with their organization (and especially with their organization’s leadership) when professional ideals are either ignored or abandoned. The consequences are significant. Morale goes in the tank. Good people leave….and when they do it costs about 1.5 times a professional’s annual salary to replace them!

On the other hand, when an organization earns the reputation that it’s a great place to work…that it’s run by professionals…that professional ideals are a given…you see people taking pride in the organization….you notice that people care about how they conduct themselves. When that happens, it’s not unusual to see:

  • people willing to take less money or even put up with a longer commute for the opportunity to work there.
  • people giving management the benefit of the doubt when a needed, but controversial, policy is issued.
  • people recruiting ‘A’ list players within their network to work there –without having been asked to do so.

When people feel their organization is a great place to work they’ll do these types of things–and more!

I see it all the time…two sales offices…two call centers…two warehouse operations…all part of the same company. They have identical business purposes and job functions.  Invariably, I’ll notice differences….frequently BIG differences. You see the differences in the people…in their demeanor, in their focus, in their commitment. The reason for the differences?  One organization is run by professionals, the other isn’t.

John Bogle (founder of the financial services giant The Vanguard Group and one of the contributors to The Power of Professionalism) noted that the most important things in life were the most difficult to measure. How true. Yet all-important things like trust and pride are easy to spot in an organization run by professionals.

Professional or Classy?

How do you describe someone who…

  • keeps quiet about a rare indiscretion that, if revealed, would have tarnished someone’s otherwise stellar (and deserved) reputation
  • resists the temptation to tell someone they were wrong (when they clearly were).  Instead, they offer a different point-of-view–one that lets the person down softly.
  • jumps in and deflects attention away from a colleague who has unexpectedly embarrassed themselves in front of 80 ‘A’ list attendees during a workshop at your industry’s annual conference

Which description fits—professional or classy?  Not surprisingly, it’s usually both.