Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:
Recent Posts
Archive
Archive
Tags
Affective Action B2B business business model career development career management cause marketing collaborate commercialization Conflict corporate responsibility customer networks demand generation Design Duarte Communications early sales Ecomagination effective communication Empathy employee engagement employee retention GE generative green marketing high performance high touch/low cost hiring HR human resources innovation innovative thinking Institute for the Future investment Jeff Immelt leadership lead generation management managing women market development marketing marketing automation marketing metrics motivation negotiate nurturing prospects outperform passion personalized marketing philanthropy philosophy philosophy and business Presentations product introductions project management project portfolio analysis project selection prospecting regulatory expansion results sales Santa Clara University social-media social entrepreneur social venture Social Venture incubator Strategy sustainability TEDx Presidio the buying process the customer view The Onion time to market time to ramp use case venture program
- RSS - Posts
- RSS - Comments
Subscribe in a reader

Browsing Category General Management

Your Marketing Needs Four Pillars Too

July 23, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

Most tech businesses have product marketing. Sometimes Marketing starts and stops there. If you build it they will come, right? Or, as one manager told me when I suggested that we work on messaging, “Taia, the product IS the message”. Even among the more enlightened, Marketing is a lot like South America: People know the outline, but don’t ask them about the number or position of the countries.

So here it a short and sweet starting point for you. The four pillars of marketing. What functions fall under each. With whom they need to work most closely. And the key metrics for each. It can be you very own Arch of Triumph. Some assembly required.

Note:

This model surrounds Product Management with the important things that they often cannot do either because of the skills or time needed. With the addition of the Market (vertical) Management, full Marcom and Market Development you can address true customer needs and do modern demand generation. This is true commercialization.
From left to right, the key interfaces shift from Customers to Internal partners to Sales (“Field”). If you have a small team these interfaces can happen more easily. With large teams, you’ll need to actively manage this to ensure the right collaboration.

Download the above document: Linked Doc

Input Welcome

Are there key functions missing?

Do you have a better model of marketing?

Speed Up Your Sales Improvement Time

July 20, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

Sales are below plan. Does the blame game begin, or do both Marketing and Sales know what to do NOW to make a difference?

I was in a business where a sales shortfall triggered a “Performance Improvement Plan”. The afflicted business unit would go off to investigate the problem and conjure up a convincing plan for fixing it. Then implementation of that plan would begin. If someone happened to get pregnant at the beginning of this process, they had their child about the same time that we were seeing the results of this process. And those sales results were not always good. There had to be a better way.

There is. Here is a way to reduce the response time and increase the confidence in the fix.

Model What You Intend to Do

Many business development/intro plans are this:

The sales goal(s)
The list of a bunch of things that everyone will do.

Basically, there is a big collective hope that the latter will produce the former. The dynamics of how that is expected to happen aren’t specified; so when the sales don’t materialize, nobody knows what failed. Not enough “things” done? Price wrong?

The better way: “The Magic Formula”. Estimate values for these three key drivers of sales performance and then track them as metrics:

Average sales price + Length of the sales cycle + Win rate

At the beginning, you may not have much to go on to set these. Not a problem. Make an educated guess (you’ll refine that over time as you get more data). Use those estimated values to model how you will get your sales goal.

Example

Here is a model for a hypothetical business projecting $500K of sales in 12 months:

Magic Formula: Average sales price $30K, 4 month sale cycle, 25% win rate

Given the average sales price, you need $500K/30K , 17 sales in 12 months
At a 25% win rate you need to engage 17 x 4 qualified leads: 68 total
Given the 4 month sales cycle, you need to have engaged seriously with those 68 qualified leads in the next 8 months.
If you know half of those already, then you need to generate 32 qualified leads. Let’s say you need 7 prospects for every qualified lead: In this case you need to generate 32 x 7 prospects – a total of 224 prospects to generate and qualify in the next 8 months.

This approach focuses Marketing and Sales on the right level and types of activities needed to meet the goal. It makes the market development or time-to-ramp commitments much more solid. It also requires the two functions to work together to set these formula value estimates and refine them. Those discussions often surface hidden concerns, alignment gaps and expectations, reducing later issues and forging good relationships.

How Using This Can Speed Your Reaction Time

Ok, back to the scenario in which the order rate is below expectations. Instead of flailing at causes and fixes, go to your data. Which Formula factors are not as you estimated?

Is the average sales price below your estimate while the other metrics are holding? Then look to either your discount level or the configurations that people are buying.
Is the win rate lower than you expected? See if the sales force needs more training and check the competitive positioning.

The relevant issues and fixes will be specific to your business of course. The point is that this approach gives you built in diagnostics. Now when sales are down you do not start with a blank slate on which people write their excuses. Instead, you have focus and this gets everyone into effective and affective action, fast. Finger-pointing and delays in turning sales back up are de-motivators; quick iterations that also add to the collective knowledge base on sales generation are big motivators.

Input Welcome

Defusing Difficult Conversations

July 10, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

Second post in the “Thanks A Million” series on great things that I have learned from employees or colleagues.

I was on the Board of Directors of an excellent job training non-profit, JobTrain,some years ago. At one point, the Director, a fellow Board member and I were discussing the need to address a staff member’s performance problem. The Director anticipated that the person might react negatively. My fellow board member was Roy Clay. I already knew how accomplished and respected he is in Silicon Valley (more on Roy below). I then learned how wise he is.

Roy asserted that there would be no problem as a result of addressing the performance matter with the employee. It was a matter or how the message was delivered. I remember he said:

“ You can say anything to anyone, if you say it with love”.

His words have come to mind countless times since then, and led me to find better ways to deal with a range of tough situations. It is the epitome of applied Affective Action– combining an understanding of how people feel as well as how they think, to achieve higher outcomes, employee engagement and management effectiveness.

Here are three examples:

1. Performance management.

I used to hate giving corrective feedback to my employees. Even though I rarely get headaches, I would always get one on those days. Using Roy’s maxim I changed how I prepared for those discussions. I still made sure that I could be clear about the issue and what needed to change. But instead of preparing to deliver unwelcome news I prepared to help the employee increase their success and pride. An expression of a deficit became an expression of caring.

The results? Impressive:

The employees left aware and motivated
Our relationship seemed strengthened instead of strained
I was left feeling confident that change would happen and … remarkably headache-free before, during and after!

Just a small shift in my own definition of my intent changed the dynamic and outcomes. Here’s my dissection of why it works:

Instead of sensing the manager’s tension, the employee senses goodwill. This puts him/her in a receptive rather than defensive mode.
Since the conversation is about enabling them to perform at their potential it is much more likely to be a collaborative dialogue. This produces better ideas about how to make progress and leads to more ownership by the employee.
For the same reason, it is also a discussion that the employee looks forward to continue having. This is huge since giving them more feedback over time is much more likely to produce the desired result than a one-time one-way issue dump.

2. Communicating Budget Decisions.

As General Manager or team manager you frequently have to make tough resource allocation trade-offs. There are many legitimate needs that affect your people acutely that simply are not as critical as other needs. The problem is that you need high performance from people on both the winning and losing parts of the budget. When communicating the funding decisions, you can talk about the fact that fiscal discipline is key, that business is about tough choices, blah, blah, blah. But that does nothing to keep the people on the losing parts of the budget from feeling disaffected. Heck, it leaves even the budget “winners” feeling like they are part of an under-resourced family. I found that “saying it with love” works here too but means something different.

Communicate Acknowledgement and Empathy. People will accept a decision if they feel that their need was understood and not just ignored. And let there be no mistake: They will assume that you did not understand or consider their need unless you actually express that you do/did. Remember, parents and managers are always judged to be clueless until proven otherwise.

Even if you show that you know everything about the thing that you are not funding, you may miss a key point: People want to know that you recognize their “pain” and feel bad about the negative impact they are bearing. Astoundingly, the quarterly “I know you are all working very hard” statement and the “THANKS!” slide aren’t enough. But if you can mention specific areas that are tight or unavoidably understaffed and how people are making do, you reach hearts, which are far more open than minds.

Communicate the Tie to the Shared Underlying Strategy. Ok, if there is no strategy or if it is not already shared, there is work to be done. But when you do have one, reiterating it lets people know why the investments are being directed as they are and what the team expects to get “in exchange” for their sacrifice. People know or can imagine (or hope) that they will benefit if the strategy gets successfully implemented and the whole business does well.

3. Conflict.

Do you have a hypercompetitive colleague? Is another group not collaborating with one of your teams? Let’s face it, there are endless sources of conflict at work. I expanded on Roy’s maxim to deal with these. Here is what I advised people to do:

a. Think about what makes your adversary lovable. I know: this sounds truly weird. But you can’t act ‘with love” if you do not see them as a lovable person. Think now. Somebody must love them; what could have inspired that? Once you identify something, really appreciate that about them–no matter what you think of their other traits.

b. Before meeting with him/her, bring that sense of the person to mind. Once again, this sounds weird. But it works – though perhaps not the way you anticipate. Mentally bestowing your goodwill on them makes you feel powerful and benevolent. Your body language will unavoidably communicate this feeling. More than likely, you will be calmer, more in control and more influential. At best, the other person senses all this and it puts your conversation on a different course and plane. If nothing else, it confuses them. ☺

I have tried to make this practical and a bit humorous because I know that, in the business world, it is easy to dismiss anything involving the word “love” as incompatible with being serious-minded. But it is the most powerful force driving humans, trumping even the drive for self-preservation. Not harnessing it in business is serious mismanagement.

Input Welcome

– Have you used similar approaches?

– Are there other situations in which you think this works?

FYI: Silicon Valley Engineering Council Bio of Roy Clay

How and Why to Optimize Your Relate:Create Ratio

July 2, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

Can you think of anyone who succeeds by focusing exclusively on the subject matter of his/her work? Yes, some artists who labor alone do achieve wild posthumous success, but I have yet to meet anyone with that as his/her goal. Most of us recognize that we have to work with and through others. This post is about turning that general awareness into a actions that will help your career development and your real results.

Why do it

Here is another one of those Keys to Life (see May 28 post) that I have found exceedingly useful since I heard it sometime in the 20th century. (I would attribute it but I have no idea who was the wise spirit who originated it.) It is captured in a diagram which describes the potential states of a work relationship.

The horizontal axis is Time. It measures how long the two people have known each other and interacted.
The vertical axis is Tension. It measures the level of relationship Tension coming from two potential sources: Distrust and Transactions.

Distrust. When people first meet they don’t know what to expect from each other. Their level of trust is low. Accordingly the relationship tension is high. Over time, people get to know each other and, unless those interactions abound in deceit and treachery, the level of trust between them tends to increase: Logically, the level of distrust-driven tension goes down.

Transactions. Each time we want something from the other person or vice a versa we engage in a transaction, and each transaction creates some tension. If you have a small easy request to make of the other person, the tension created by that request will be very low. On the other hand, if you have a proposal that imposes a major cost on the other person (e.g., it conflicts with their plans, requires a lot of time or significantly inconveniences them) then the transaction-driven tension level created may be quite high.

So far so good. Now here is the key: Put these together and you will see why trying to do a major transaction with someone you barely know is so difficult. The high distrust-driven tension coupled with the high transaction-driven tension adds up to a vertigo-evoking level of overall tension. If instead, you attempt the same transaction with someone after you have established a relationship of trust, you have almost half the level of tension to deal with and the likelihood of success soars.

Ok, What To Do?

The take-away is: Get down that distrust curve as fast as possible with all the key people with whom you need to collaborate or negotiate. Important: This is not a cynical tip meant to turn you into Machiavelli! Groucho Marx said, “Sincerity is everything. If you can fake sincerity, you have it made.” No, no, no. We’re talking about effective communication and relationship building:

Seeking the person out
Listening to them
Being helpful when you can
Letting them know how you think and what drives you
Introducing them to your ideas early
Maintaining a dialogue

You get the picture.

Getting down that trust curve takes more time and effort than most of us think it does. Which brings me back to the title of this post. Most people like to — and think they are paid to — work on the Create side of that ratio; that is where their passion is and they spend as much of their time as possible on it assuming/hoping that that will win the day. So “Optimizing the Relate:Create ratio” usually requires shifting time spent on the substance behind those transactions to time spent on the relationships that will enable the real results.

You may be able to make that shift naturally just by being more aware of this. The rest of us mere mortals need to take a more structured approach, at least at first: Picking key people with whom to deepen a relationship and then setting aside time explicitly for that.

As a manager this is a huge area of additional opportunities for creating an affective action culture and a high performance organization: I will cover these in my next post.

Input Welcome

Have you changed your Relate: Create ratio profitably?
Have you found ways to help your employees do this better?

Is Your Plan Bold Enough to be Safe?

June 24, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

Careers and companies rise and fall based on being right about how much innovation to take on at any given time. Reach too far and you risk ridicule, delays in time to market, and slow market development. Not surprisingly, it often seemed safer to stick to the middle ground: Investments in product enhancements or business extension for which there is strong supporting data. But today, you shun the lunatic fringe at your own peril. A small leap may not put you on firm ground.

(The view straight down from High Bridge over Eagle Creek in the Columbia River Gorge)

A Case and Lessons Learned

I recently attended an EMBS talk on the latest scanning, parametrics, and 3-D printing developments. The speaker was Scott Summit. His company, Bespoke Innovations makes functionally and esthetically personalized prosthetic leg coverings. For the coverings to achieve their first objective – restoring visual symmetry to the wearer’s body – they need an accurate digital scan of the person’s body. What he recounted about the recent history of body scanning technology is a warning to all of us in any industry:

Approximately 3 years ago, to get a body scan he needed to take the customer to a lab that had a 1M machine and would provide scans at $800/scan.
Shortly thereafter, there were hand-held devices that cost $40,000 to $60,000 a piece and were very tricky to use.
Scott’s company developed their own scanner but it was soon overtaken in price/performance by…
A scanner that Microsoft developed. Shortly after that product became available…
Autodesk announced that anyone could download their 123D Catch software product for free. This enables anyone with a digital camera to take photos that the software then stitches together to create a 3-D model. For free.

Just hearing about this drop — from $1M to $0 in approximately 3 years — is dizzying. Can you imagine how each of those obviated product providers felt? There are Five Stages of Grief, and I have seen Four Stages of Losing this kind of competitive fight:

Denial: “It’s a much less powerful product. “ “We only see them in Germany.” “Our customers will never accept that.”
More Enhancement: “We will have better [fill in the blank: Specs? Bathrooms? You Tube videos?]”
Capitulation: “We have other more strategic businesses on which to focus”
Rationalization: “Sheila never invested enough in it.” “Joe wasn’t the right person to lead it.”

The lessons that people take away from competitive failures are not always right. Maybe there were other issues, but maybe the real lesson is this: “We lost by playing it safe. We did not target a big enough change; as a result, our investments went toward enhancements while others produced a much bigger leap in value for customers.”

There are definitely still situations that call for investments in minimally or moderately innovative projects. But my point is that there are fewer of them now than before. At the current pace of change and competition, many medium-impact projects simply do not make sense: They will be rendered irrelevant soon or even before they are out the gate.

Implications: How to Win in This Environment

Become the voice, in your head and in your company, for the “Is it bold enough to be safe?” investment criterion.
Become expert in the techniques for evaluating bold ideas. For every bold idea that is wildly successful there are 17 that turn out to be just wild. More on this in future posts.
Become expert in the techniques for implementing bold ideas in ways that manage risk. More on this in future posts.

Input Welcome

Have you changed your project selection to match a faster pace of change?

How have you mitigated the higher risk associated with bigger leaps in contribution?

The 60 Second Pitch that Will Get you 2-3 Minutes of Attention: Maybe more!

June 18, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

People decide in 30-60 seconds whether they will pay the slightest bit of attention to you. If you slay that dragon, and they decide to tune in, you get ~3 minutes (their attention span) to possibly earn an additional smidgen of their interest.

This is a “formula” for the 30-60 seconds. I will not do it justice. Its creator is communication expert, Sam Horn (http://www.intrigueagency.com/). She is extraordinary and I strongly recommend that you to try to hear her talk or buy her materials. In any case, I willshare my paraphrase of her ingenious and flexible formula for describing anything to anyone.

The power of the formula is that it engages the listener, tells your differentiation in that context, and gives the listener reasons to believe you. You are still You, just more Interesting. I think you’ll like You this way.

The Specifics and An Example

I will use the example of a startup company that I am mentoring, named salaUno. It is a Mexican eye clinic. Not excited by that description? Read on.

As Sam notes: This formula works whether you are answering the question, “What do you do?” at a cocktail party, or pitching your company at the biggest funding opportunity of your life.

What to Remember if You Don’t Remember the Formula

The formula works because it conforms to the human nature of the listener rather than the knowledge and ego of the speaker:

Our self-absorption halts briefly in response to new, surprising information.
Injecting an inspirational vision engages a different and valuable part of the brain. Factual small ideas may inform but they won’t attract or motivate.
The impact of a thing is always more interesting than the thing itself.
Dude, it’s not that you aren’t credible, but, well, bring external validation.

Input Welcome

Have you tried this with success? Send an example
Do you have suggested additions or modifications to this approach?

How to Spark Innovative Thinking

June 13, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

A process for innovative thinking sounds like an oxymoron, I know: It veers dangerously close to Dilbert territory. But it is risky to rely on individual brilliant ideas to surface at the right time and pace. So catalyzing everyone’s informed intuition and creative genius is very worthwhile. Free-thinkers and confirmed Analyticals alike can find something to like in this approach to coming up with innovations (something that is both new and useful). Last week I heard Bill O’Connor, Corporate Strategy and Engagement at Autodesk, describe it.

The Core Concept

Bill leads the very snappily named “Innovation Genome Project’ which is working on reverse-engineering innovation by examining 1000 significant innovations throughout history. (A cadre of MBAs may be harmed in the collection of this data, but that is the price of insight.) They are examining what kind of change from the status quo is involved in each of those innovations: So far, they have found that 7 kinds of changes account for most of the innovations. Bill is graciously sharing his insights. His team turned those 7 kinds of changes into set of 7 questions that anyone can use to catalyze innovative ideas on any topic.

Since Satisfaction is the difference between Expectations and Experience, here are a few expectation-setting observations of my own about what this tool is and is not.

Asking oneself these questions will not ensure good innovation ideas. After all it is just a process; the quality of the ideas will depend on the people involved. But it is a way to channel and spur people’s thinking in directions in which they might not normally go.
It is a way to structure a discussion, which can be useful, particularly in groups. It prevents a discussion that is so broad-ranging that nobody builds on or works off each other’s ideas. It provides focus while keeping each change domain (question area) is still large enough to evoke many different ideas.
It is an aid for coming up with innovative ideas. It does not claim to address the all-important implementation stage.
It is a checklist to feel comfortable that you have not neglected a significant dimension of potential innovation. Clearly, it is not a guarantee that you have actually considered all the potential innovations available to your business.

More detailed article by Bill O’Connor on this project and the questions can be found at: http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2012/01/09/the-innovation-genome-project/

An article by another Autodesk employee whose team came up with a successful innovative product/service using the tool can be found at: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679231/the-6-questions-that-lead-to-new-innovations

Retain and Develop Yourself / Your Employees

Inc. Magazine listed “Opportunities for Innovation” as one of the top 10 things that employees want from job. Founder Space lists “Feeling in on things” as #2 on the list of what employees say will make them happy at a job. These facts highlight how important it is to engage all employees in innovation. This is easy with naturally vocal and confidently creative people, or with those employees to like to start things rather than implement them. But I’ve found that some of the best innovative ideas have come from very conservative and implementation-focused people once they perceived a commitment to following through on innovation and were given the opportunity to contribute. A tool like the 7 Questions is a way to encourage and accommodate diverse employee participation in innovation at many levels.

Input Welcome

Would you use this approach?

Do you have better or complementary approaches that have the same impact?

Ask This at the Outset of Any Initiative

June 8, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

Preparing to launch an initiative? Avoid common and costly errors by asking one question at the outset: Process Task or Talent Task? This is a simple way to make everyone more confident in the outcome. I learned this from Peter Drucker and have used it often to troubleshoot how to address a problem. I thought it would be good to share with you because it is effective and also boosts employee motivation in a subtle but important way.

The Point

Drucker described that there are some problems/opportunities that can only be addressed by putting together a small team of people with specific talents: This is a Talent Task. He noted that there are other problems /opportunities -– usually those that where the answer must be implemented through lots of people at various levels of knowledge – where you need a process: This is a Process Task.

Ok, this is logical and everyone is probably nodding or even nodding off at this point. But wait. The important insight is this:

When you try to solve a Talent Task with a process, or try to solve a Process Task with talent, you fail. Aspirin is great, but not when what you really need is penicillin.

Example 1: Strategic planning. At HP in the 90’s strategic planning was a highly structured and well-documented process. Each year, massive numbers of large meetings were held to ensure that everyone was involved and bought in to the strategy. It was the “thundering herd” approach to strategy development. Huts were leveled, large distances were covered, the process was followed, but the correctness of the end-point was, well, mixed. Strategy is a Talent Task. There is a need for information and engagement from many people and solid processes for that should exist. But the critical framing of the strategic issues, the evaluation of alternatives, and the ultimate application of informed intuition to choose a truly strategic and competitive strategy should be done by a small set of people with those skills and responsibility. Good strategies do not automatically pop out the end of a process.

Example 2: Contract Review Team. My company had decided to offer a new service: Third party maintenance. Since it would require new responsibilities in the field, management hired experienced field managers to review and approve contracts before we accepted them. Soon, there was a bottleneck of contracts pending approval. Why? The processes for delivering the new services were incomplete and there was no established way of building them, so the contract reviewers were not approving any for delivery. The Talent applied was necessary but not sufficient. The real problem was a Process Task: Establish a process for building balanced sales and delivery capabilities to serve an increasing number of attractive contracts.

Watch for It

Once you start thinking in these terms you see the mismatches around you. How many times have you seen a big, systemic problem addressed by the naming of one person who “will focus on it”? One feels of them. How many times have you seen a recurring problem tackled by successive internal task forces that clearly could use (or be replaced by) an injection of talent — someone who is a real expert on the matter? As a colleague, Tom Redder, used to say “You don’t get wisdom by pooling ignorance”.

Which gets me to the Affective Action part of this. I’ve noticed that employees intuitively understand this Talent Task vs. Process Task difference. They are demoralized when opportunities and issues are not addressed with the right approach. Their own careers or products and in the balance. For this reason, employees buy in more readily and whole-heartedly if they see the right approach being used even if it means that they are not as directly involved.

Input Welcome

Are there other examples of cases where you have seen the Talent approach is better, but Process used – or vice a versa?

What Can Philosophy Contribute to Management?

June 5, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

The management toolset is full of processes, metrics, and strategies, but rarely contains philosophy tools. Philosophy and business are usually thought to be quite separate. But innovation is the useful juxtaposition of things previously thought separate. Here is one example of how philosophy’s main benefit, helping you raise and answer important questions that cannot be answered empirically, can serve modern business.

Thougth-Provoking TED-talk

This is the link to a talk I heard at TEDx Silicon Valley 2011. It came to mind again recently when I attended a different philosophy seminar and was struck by the clear relevance to business. More on that in another post! For now, enjoy this talk by Dr. Damon Horowitz, In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering at Google. He is also a philosophy professor and serial entrepreneur.

http://www.tedxsv.org/?page_id=1205

Everyone is aware of the toughest issues faced by their company. Being open to using philosophy to address them could have benefits on many levels. Employees may have philosophy training that they could bring to bear on those issues if they thought it would be welcome. In addition, by its nature, philosophy may cut through a lot of lower value approaches that we try to apply to big complex issues.

Input Welcome

What business questions do you think philosophy should help answer?

Are you a philosopher and business person? How does that make you more effective?

How (and Why) to Describe “Potential”

June 3, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

Who advances in the business world often depends on management’s assessment of people’s “potential”. But what constitutes potential is often not clearly described. As a result, employees can’t work on it and managers can’t be consistent in their assessment of it.

The Cost

Managers often feel embarrassed about not being able to describe this rather intangible trait, so they act as if it is not a real evaluation criterion. As a result, work is a game with rules that are posted and other rules that the judges actually use. Very capable people can end up puzzled, pointing to their 100%-met hard metrics as others sail by them into higher positions based on this unspoken evaluation factor, potential. Valuable people sometimes leave, seeking a company where the rules are clearer. Others stay, but commit less to a system that does not seem to work for them.

The Upside

Getting specific about Potential and helping people to envision and become their best, highest potential selves is inspirational. Just talking about it with employees is an affective action that is appreciated. And just talking about it with specifics puts people in an energized and more confident state of mind. People relax and outperform when the advancement criteria are real and understood.

A Tool

Here is a tool that I have refined over the years. It is a list of Indicators of Individual Potential for exceptional contribution and for continued growth.

Personally develops valuable new proposals and ideas
Inclination and ability to interact effectively with the world outside of the Company
Generative: Sees next steps. Anticipates. Makes more out of things than others.
Track record of Personal development & growth — eager to learn/grow
Proven to be able and willing to take on new roles
Demonstrated leadership of peers. Commands respect in the organization. Influential.
Able to mobilize an organization/team to effect change
Explicitly seeks out development opportunities: Actively learns from each experience
Takes initiative to perform beyond current task/job responsibilities
Willingly takes on greater responsibilities & broader assignments
Demonstrates creativity/initiative in problem solving, flexible, develops new approaches
Takes multiple perspectives. Is open. Is constructive
Sensitive to organizational dynamics required to get things done
Able to assess global, big-picture issues
Actively seeks opportunities to learn about industries, markets, technologies and trends relevant to the company
Able to work effectively across functions & organizational boundaries
Strong in many transferable skills (transferrable across roles or functions)
Clear adherence to a set of personal values
Proven track record of results
Demonstrates passion for the business.

For Employees

You do not have to exhibit all of these traits! Here is my suggestion for how to sort this list and use it practically

1. Identify which of these are most important.

I have marked the ones that I think are most universally important in green. But I am not writing your evaluations. (Too bad, because I am beginning to realize that you have unlimited potential!) Find out which ones are most important to the people who are evaluating you and are in a position to propose you for rewards and promotions. Use this list and ask them to pick their top criteria. It is a great conversation to initiate since it is a high-potential act in itself: You are showing ambition and dedication to growth, and you are contributing to the management toolset. You are giving a professional gift while getting info that is critical to fueling your meteoric rise.

2. Identify which of these require your attention.

If one of the indicators in green or one of the indicators that your managers have picked as very important is a real strength of yours, then develop at least 10 things you can do to make that strength have bigger impact on the business. Read that again. Notice that you start with your strengths, not your weaknesses. I heard Peter Druker speak once – an intense experience — and he said that he managed his executives so that their strengths were so blinding that their weaknesses did not matter. You could do a lot worse than adopting his management style for yourself. The key is that those strengths will always be your strengths and consequently that is how you can make the biggest contributions. Make sure you use your strengths fully instead of trying to do everything as well.

That being said, if one of the high important traits is an area of true weakness for you, then by all means develop a list of at least ten things that you can do to improve your performance and reputation in that area. While that trait may never become what you are known for, you can make sure that that is not a big liability either.

Finally, you may already have these desired traits, but they may not be visible to the people that matter. That is just like not having the trait. No whining: Justice always needs your help. As distasteful as it may seem to you, make a list of at least 10 things you could do to make your virtue visible. Most of them should be things that you do as an ongoing part of your job. A meeting with your boss that lays out your relevant past actions and accomplishments will be valuable ( See the May 6 post, “Thanks a Million, Kumar”), but you have to develop the skill of monitoring and managing your visibility on an ongoing basis.

To be sure that you are on the mark about your strengths and weaknesses, and also about how visible they are, you need input. Ask bosses, colleagues and friends.

3. Implement at least 3 of the actions you came up with for a chosen indicator conscientiously for 4 months. Look at them every week and assess whether you really did more of whatever you chose that week. Re-up after 4 months or pick something new if you feel you have established desired habits around your first chosen indicator.

For Managers

Possible ways to use this list:

Edit it to show your priorities.
Share the list with your teams (edited or not). It is a quick way to show support for their development.
Use this list at evaluation time to help you pinpoint and communicate specific behaviors to compliment or to suggest.

Input Welcome:

What do you think is the most important indicator of potential?

Do you have other behaviors that you look for when evaluating potential?