A Relationship Story - Honesty and Success – Poll Results

December 2005

A Relationship Story
Honesty and Success – Poll Results

Thanks friends for taking time to offer your thoughts. I received 100+ responses, and I definitely consider that a representative sample of our community and a real reflection of our version of "Conventional Wisdom". As a reminder, the question was:

On a 0% - 100% scale, from dishonest (0%) to honest (100%), what is the average % for successful people? (If you missed the November story that posed the question, just email me and I'll send it).

Now I knew this had the potential to be a trick question, and a lot of people commented on the lack of clarity. But that’s really part of the learning process here, as you’ll see. I did not know what nugget of wisdom was going to come from this exercise when I asked the question, but I just knew it would be very interesting, and sure enough it was.

The first reassuring result was that 92% of the answers were above 50%, and 70% were at 75% or above. So we know that the vast majority have a positive view of the correlation between honesty and success. Whew, our hopes for society are not lost! But then it got interesting.

After reviewing the results and the comments, I discovered the "trick" in the question, and that is what I found most intriguing. "Success" had not been defined, so it was left up to everyone’s interpretation, thus giving us a glimpse into the prevailing Conventional Wisdom about people’s perception of success. Some mentioned that their answer would differ based on the definition of success, for instance, the number would be lower if only considering financial success. This is not a surprise to anyone, I’m sure.

However, what I found most compelling was that 10% of the respondents unequivocally answered 100% to the question. Their definition of success required that a person must be honest. Any level of dishonesty was a disqualifier. Now forgive me if you think I was being tricky, but I didn’t plan this or know what would come from it (I'm clearly not that smart). I did, however, find that this single aspect of the data taught me more than anything else.

It means is that our Conventional Wisdom, at a 90% rate, accepts some level of dishonesty in the definition of success. In our Machiavellian world, I expect that is also not too much of a surprise, and in fact I’m afraid my own answer was similarly affected by convention. However, the message that I take away is that there is a higher standard that can be applied when viewing others (and ourselves), and it differs from the Conventional Wisdom of our times. I ask you, what’s wrong with us joining the 10% who just don’t accept dishonesty?

I hope you’ll all accept these thoughts as my gift for the holiday season. I hope it can become part of your New Year’s resolutions, as I plan for it to be part of my own.

In the words of Epictetus, the ancient stoic philosopher who is the ultimate anti-Machiavellian: "The only prosperous life is the virtuous life". Words to live by. I welcome your thoughts and comments. Thanks!

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year to all.

Book Recommendation: The Art of Living by Epictetus

Sincerely,

Jeff Black
Principal Consultant
McDermott & Bull Executive Search
black@mbsearch.net

A Relationship Story - The Freakonomics of The Conventional Wisdom

November 2005

A Relationship Story
The Freakonomics of The Conventional Wisdom

Things are not always what they seem, and it takes a clear view of reality (and the data to support it) to get our perceptions out of our way. Here’s an example. I think we all share a perception that drug dealers are all driving cool cars and rolling in dough…so why do nearly all of them still live with their Mothers? In Freakonomics - a book by a self-admitted "rogue economist" about how prevailing incentives make things what they really are – the real world of the drug dealer is described based on exhaustive research. The stark reality is that it’s a classic pyramid, where for every one person with a cool car, there is a giant pyramid of foot soldiers who are effectively enslaved at far below poverty wage. The author contends that based on their own perceptions, getting to be the boss is the only "success" they can hope for, and there is nothing that protects them from being exploited.

While this book addresses some very controversial issues - and I’m not endorsing all the assertions it contains - I am endorsing the idea that we need to look beyond the perceived "obvious" to seek the truth. I think our world encourages us to believe in conventional wisdom, and also that somebody’s incentives are being realized by getting us to believe. It’s sort of a Question Authority thing for me, and it bugs me.

A perfect conventional wisdom example is something I come across all the time…what is most important for people in getting the best reception from potential employers (I also believe this is true for all relationships). The conventional wisdom tells people they need to morph into what the market is looking for. I don’t buy that. If they try to morph, they’re going to be half-baked, and they won’t fool anybody. This isn’t science fiction, it’s people, and people just don’t "transform" themselves very well. Face it, people are what they are, and they’re always more effective just being themselves and leveraging their natural strengths. What I tell people is that they need to find ways to get people excited about what they really are - and then let the network give them leverage - instead of trying extra hard to be a square peg for a round hole.

Another conventional wisdom old standby is that you can’t trust others or you’ll get screwed. I hate that one, although I’m no fool and I know some people have gone to the dark side…I just prefer to try to keep them out of my life.

So ok, let’s try and experiment. Let’s assess the conventional wisdom within our own little community as it relates to honesty. Just press reply and send me your quick answer to this very simple question:

On a 0% - 100% scale, from dishonest (0%) to honest (100%), what is the average % for successful people? Don’t think too hard, just press reply with one number between 0% and 100%. I’ll compile the data (confidentiality is assured) and share it with you all in an upcoming story.

Book Recommendation: Freakonomics by Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner

Sincerely,

Jeff Black
Principal Consultant
McDermott & Bull Executive Search
black@mbsearch.net

A Relationship Story - A Tale of Two Companies…and the Big Difference

October 2005

A Relationship Story
A Tale of Two Companies…and the Big Difference

It was the best of companies, it was the worst of companies…and the difference was very clear.
It’s fascinating to see how different the cultures and priorities can be in different (yet equally successful) companies. With success measured much more in the short term by our fast-paced world, making the numbers is what usually defines a good company. It is my belief that there are two clearly different ways that companies go about achieving similar short-term success, and I believe the "big difference" has deeply significant impacts on long-term success.

Two companies side by side along the highway, Brand X and Brand Y. Both are characterized by corporate achievement and success at making their numbers. Both are short-term successes.
Brand X and Y share some key characteristics:

• They only want smart people
• They live by metrics
• They are process focused
• They are customer centered
• They value strong product brands
• They run lean and smart

However, there are critical differences:

Brand X identifies first with intensity and outcome-focus.
Brand Y identifies first with fairness and alignment-focus.

Brand X tends to be secretive and selective in communicating.
Brand Y insists on being open and candid in communicating.

Oh no, here this Jeff Black guy goes again stating the obvious. Of course it’s better to be fair and open. But wait! The Brand X mentality really happens! Some companies pay lip service to fairness and openness, but what really matters is action and behavior, not policy and slogans. I see it all the time. It’s amazing how different cultures can be – and how differently people feel about being in them.

Brand X believes that only intensity will drive the desired outcome. Brand Y believes fairness (I didn’t say wimpiness) and alignment of needs between the company and employees make greatness flow naturally – creativity and ingenuity are not bottled up by the need to look over your shoulder all the time.

Brand X behaves as if people don’t need to really know what’s going on – believing knowledge is power, and leaders need to retain power. Brand Y has a strong enough center and self-image as a company that it wants everyone to part of the knowledge process.
Now come on, tell me you haven’t seen Brand X in practice. You can try to deny that it’s bad, but I don’t buy it.

The center of company greatness is not smart people – they’re a given; it’s not efficiency – good tools make that happen; it’s not innovation – smart people innovate. The center of company greatness is mutual respect between a company and it’s people.

The result for people in Brand Y companies:

• Less worry, more confidence
• More passion and less aimlessness
• More loyalty and positive energy
• Better retention, no "reasons to leave"

For Companies - The big differences of the "big difference":

• Easier to attract talent – believe me, it’s hard to "sell" a bad company.
• Getting the best out of people – people perform better when they’re confident, not scared.
• Increased company reputation – as Vance Caesar says "the key to a person’s success is how many influential people are telling stories about their ability to build relationships of trust." I believe this is also true for companies.

I have great clients who really believe and behave like Brand Y. I really love working with them…and I think they really get the best out of me as a partner. I welcome opportunities to work with more like them. Please let me know if your company is one, or if you know one you would like for me to know.

Sincerely,

Jeff Black
Principal Consultant
McDermott & Bull Executive Search
black@mbsearch.net

A Relationship Story - A Baseball Metaphor for Your Business – Focusing on What “Really” Matters

The Dog Days of Summer 2005

A Relationship Story

A Baseball Metaphor for Your Business – Focusing on What "Really" Matters

Seeing things as they really are is what every business wants to believe it does. No disguises.
Sorry, it’s not that easy. Here’s my example:

During the last 5 years, things have started to change in the business of fielding winning major league baseball teams. That’s just the last 5 years of a game that has been played professionally for 130 years. Only recently have team owners begun realizing that the logic for choosing players that prevailed for 125 years was dead wrong. Fortunately for the fans, the good-old-boy network and "group-think" mentality that prevailed all that time caused every team to be stupid together, so at least the playing field was level for the fans.

The new economics of the game, with the huge imbalance in resources between the rich and poor teams, has spawned a sort of guerilla warfare among the wiser of the "have nots". If a team spends only half what others do, then they really have to spend smart. It sounds a lot like the battle between the big guys and little guys in any business, and the underdog behavior that is necessary for the little guy to compete.

Here’s how it works, and as with many good ideas, it’s really simple – just seeing things as they really are. For 125 years, while mountains of statistics have been collected on ballplayers, teams have consistently been blinded by their perceptions about "talent" (like the 95-MPH fastball).
They have failed to truly evaluate what the data shows the player has actually done – as measured against what really contributes to winning and losing – generating and preventing runs. What’s happening in these guerilla units is that the Harvard MBA is replacing the grizzled veteran scout in identifying the right talent worth the investment of limited resources. Just like when businesses are seeking key talent, the best predictor of future success is past success…and this means real accomplishments - facts and data - and not just a good-looking fastball. We have to make sure we are measuring the right things.

Although Baseball had a natural tendency to value facts and data, as indicated by the extraordinary focus on collecting and cataloguing statistics, it has regretfully and blindly continued to rely on the flawed-but-familiar performance measurements that were crafted 100+ years ago (like batting average). Just like the technology business that can’t bear to move away from its engineering roots and focus on real business issues, Baseball has been run by insiders and good-old-boys forever, and the game has been the victim of its own reliance on tradition – it failed to evolve and to see itself as it really is. We’ll see in the next few years whether the new guerilla clarity makes the difference in who really wins more ballgames cost effectively, but the early signs point to a logic landslide. Just take a look at the Oakland A’s this year, with ¼ the payroll of the Yankees and ½ that of the Angels, they are doing awfully well.

In terms of relationships, this trend isn’t happening without some ruffled feathers, as you can imagine. There are a lot of Baseball old-timers harumphing around and whining about these renegades. Making revolutionary changes in an institution takes fortitude. The same is true for how your business looks at its own talent. Who can argue with the ideal of a highly integrated team with an open and honest culture where the best is brought out of every individual? Nobody can. However, if you don’t have winners and natural difference-makers on the team, the results are at risk. Are you evaluating your talent for their real contributions to your company’s success? Or are you blinded by how good they look throwing their fastball? Measure the right things, and remember, what gets measured gets improved.

Book Recommendations: "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis

Sincerely,

Jeff Black
Principal Consultant
McDermott & Bull Executive Search
black@mbsearch.net

A Relationship Story - The Underdog Advantage

April 2005

A Relationship Story - The Underdog Advantage

The Underdog Advantage is a book that draws a fascinating business parallel with a world we all find ourselves wrapped up in every 4 years…politics. The primary principle is that there is no value in coming in second; unless you get 50.1% or better, you are nothing but a big loser. It’s a lot like winning in competition for business. Losing costs you in 3 different ways: first, you don’t get the business you wanted; second, you don’t recover the cost of pursuing it; and finally, you don’t get to build a future annuity with repeat business. Nothing good comes from losing.
The book suggests that good businesses must think like a political campaign does…you absolutely must win, and nothing else will do. You have to think like the underdog all the time, even after you move into a commanding lead. Some key principles include:

Relationships among all the members of your company must be focused on a common outcome – everyone must be pulling the same rope to beat the competition. When businesses get too big and people lose focus on the real goal, it’s time to break things down into smaller parts to keep them focused and thinking like underdogs.

Every dollar, and every minute of energy, must be focused on the business equivalent of getting votes…if spending does not make it more likely you will win in competition, then save the money or save the minute. When money or energy are spent without a direct link to the real goal of winning, it’s again a sign that bureaucracy is making decisions on its own.

You have to know who can realistically be expected to vote for you, or in a business sense, what business you can win. Potential "votes" are categorized as one of the following:

• Hard Support
• Soft Support
• Undecided
• Soft Opposition
• Hard Opposition

Obviously, pursuing the hard opposition is a waste of energy. A surprising premise of the book is that not only is the soft opposition a waste of energy also, but so are the undecided. The primary reason is that the soft opposition and the undecided have no real relationship with you and little connection with your distinctions and your values. The undecided may say "yes", but they are unlikely to ever become hard support because they are easily swayed (or bought) and are not true believers, friends, or partners.


The real objective is to increase the number of hard supporter clients. They are not only the most reliable source of repeat (and inexpensive) business, but they also serve as the evangelists to spread the word about your greatness without you doing (or spending) much of anything. The book’s premise is to focus all your attention on moving the soft support to hard support – think of this as the equivalent of the political campaign getting out the vote.

For me, this means first understanding my own values and focusing my personal energy on consistently living them, and then seeking relationships with people who share those values. Fortunately for my business, I am able to pass up relationships that disconnect in terms of values…but when the connection is a good one I just can’t take "no" for an answer.

Ask yourself if your business is really focused on winning without compromise. Start with knowing who you are and what you want. If everyone on your team is aligned on the same goal, and you are not wasting money or energy, you can’t be stopped. Stay an underdog!

Book Recommendation: The Underdog Advantage by David Morey and Scott Miller

Sincerely,

Jeff Black
Principal Consultant
McDermott & Bull Executive Search
black@mbsearch.net