AffectiveAction

Because business has the heart to succeed

Menu

  • Home
  • Blog
  • General Management
  • Marketing
  • People Management
  • Innovation
  • Guest Bloggers
  • About
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Recent Posts

    • Renewable Fuel for a Brilliant Life
    • How to Manage Women: Tips #2 and 3
    • How to Manage Women Tip # 1
    • Compassionate Capitalism
    • Stop That Focus Group!
    • To really change people’s behavior: Use the right word.
    • Is This the Coolest Company Ever?
  • 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 Innovation

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.

  1. The horizontal axis is Time. It measures how long the two people have known each other and interacted.
  2. 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?

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...

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:

  1. Denial:  “It’s a much less powerful product. “ “We only see them in Germany.”  “Our customers will never accept that.”
  2. More Enhancement:  “We will have better [fill in the blank: Specs? Bathrooms? You Tube videos?]”
  3. Capitulation:  “We have other more strategic businesses on which to focus”
  4. 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

  1. Become the voice, in your head and in your company, for the “Is it bold enough to be safe?” investment criterion.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. It is an aid for coming up with innovative ideas.  It does not claim to address the all-important implementation stage.
  4. 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?

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...

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?

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...

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?

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...

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?

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...

What Can the Design World Contribute to Management?

May 28, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta


I recently saw a terrific documentary, “Objectified“, by Gary Huswit which is all about how things are designed and how design affects us.  (Available on Netflix — I highly recommend it for various reasons.)   When I heard the list of characteristics of Good Design put forth by Dieter Rams, it struck me that many of the elements of great design apply to management.

… should be Innovative.  In the case of management, it is not about a stream of new programs, but it is about being open to innovation and ensuring differentiation.

… should Make a Product Useful.  I think the important analogy here is that great management should maximize employee “usefulness” by enabling them to be engaged and productive.

… is Aesthetic design.   Just as a product’s look and feel feed our emotions and sense of value, a management system needs to be made visible and felt.  In fact, it is always visible and felt, but those impressions are not always the ones that management intends! 🙂

… will make a product Understandable.  It should be easy for people to understand how to get their jobs done, how the customer experience gets formed, and how to get decisions made.

… is Honest.   Enough said.

… is Unobtrusive.  It should feel like the system is serving the people, not the other way around.

… is Long-lived.  Things have to change super-fast, but every company has to build some fundamental principles that endure.

… is Consistent in every detail:  Well, there is a part of me that immediately rebels, with Emerson’s “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” as my shield.  But we’ve all experienced companies with big service messages that have rude representatives, or a great new product with no training for the sales force.  So yes, great management means focus for a critical mass of consistent implementation.

… is Environmentally Friendly:  Sustainability is no longer a matter of choice and it is definitely not a marketing message.  It is an inescapable set of forces that affect every business in the form of cost changes, voluntary and uncontrolled transparency, customer expectations and regulatory actions.

“Last but not least, good [management] is… as little [management] as possible.”  Whether we call it the self-organizing organization or the generative company, it is all about winning through “just enough” leadership and highly engaged employees. (See “Use the Force, Luke” post, April 2.)

The design world clearly offers a lot of catalysts for Affective Action.  I’m intrigued.  Are there other design principles or practices that you think can be used in management?

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...

Marketing is Sales, Sales is Marketing

April 27, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

Source: Africapic.com

Previously clear lines between Marketing and Sales are gone:  Instead there is now a Marketing-Sales Continuum. The technology, sociology and economics of B-to-B Marketing and Sales functions have changed fundamentally.  As a result either function can take over much of the ground of the other.  By all means, do panic a bit – and then, relax. Extinction is not at hand. In fact, the new realities offer new glory for people in both functions.  You can go get it.

FIRST:  WHY YOU NEED TO REBUILD THE PLANE IN MID-FLIGHT

Technology shifts. The noble and oh-so-loved Brochure cannot begin to compete with something like a multi-level micro-site with rich modular video content supplemented by a strong user forum.  Likewise, the continuous marketing din that surrounds every customer portends a sad fate for anyone doing one perfectly crafted Email Blast when his competitor is using marketing automation to do 5 orchestrated customer “touches” for the same price and effort.  Finally, social media is just hitting stride and has already created and destroyed businesses and sales models on a large scale.

The sociological shifts are as big and cross-generational.

  • Place:  Last Year’s Trade Shows are not where the majority of the world’s new young customers are getting and exchanging advice daily on what to see and buy.
  • Demographics are destiny.  Your geographic mix almost surely needs adjusting: Most people keep investing disproportionately in their past markets instead of the important new ones. And, yes, it will take a lot more work, because your biggest problem is not that your new customers are foreign to you, it is that you are foreign to them.
  • The dynamic of evaluation and decision-making have changed.  There is a network rather than a path to your customer.  How do you find out who is your desired customer’s most influential acquaintance and what and where he/she wants to know about your product?  Social media are the important new facilitators and accelerators of the primacy of customer communities.

The financial shifts are well known.  Corporations expect a steady rate of productivity improvement.  Sales forces are relatively expensive but efforts to limit them face the fact that those resources are difficult to leverage across geographies and product lines.  The picture is no rosier on the marketing side.  The effectiveness of Marketing spending often faces skepticism.

HOW IS MARKETING NOW SALES?

Marketing departments stagnate or decline if they do not get tangibly related to and accountable for creating real sales.  In the past it was safe for Marketing to create information and sales tools and then rely on the sales force to use them to reach and influence customers.  Marketing can now reach out very specifically and directly to the very people who were previously only contacted by Sales. OK, they can.  But should they?  Yes, yes, for at least two reasons:

  1. Because there is no alternative. The buying process has clearly changed and customers now conduct much of their product investigation and evaluation on line or in person with people other than a sales person. If Marketing does not understand that buying process thoroughly and get its company’s messages where the customers are conducting their investigations, those customers will be lost to the competition.
  2. Because generic information and sales tools have decreasing value. Customers don’t have the time or patience to figure out if or how your product meets their needs. Similarly, sales forces don’t have the time or knowledge to take all prospects through that process.  To surmount these barriers, information, messages, sales tools and communication channels must be very specific to each target market segment.

HOW IS SALES NOW MARKETING?

How does an experienced sales person meet a quota that goes up 12% with products that don’t increase in net price? Note that I said, “experienced”.  This isn’t a matter of learning to do the sales job.  You have become more effective over time and yes, you have cut into your personal time more and more to meet or exceed your quotas to date.  Now what?

The current sales force automation tools provide some of great capabilities including pipeline visibility, activity tracking and some outreach capabilities.  But progressive sales people need information and capabilities beyond that.   For example:

  • A CRM tool fully loaded with existing customers does nothing to expand the list of qualified prospects a sales person can address.  For that, there are services that mine public sources and can give you detailed information about what customers are doing, which products they currently use, etc.  But mining these sources requires a strategic marketing approach to sales development.
  • The capability to send automated check-in messages to customers does not provide the stratification and value added content that is really needed to evoke action or a response.  For that you need to:  1. Know your high priority customer segments and  2. Develop and offer each set of target customers a continuous stream of relevant content and non-transactional engagement opportunities.

Whether the sales objective is bringing in new customers (“hunting”) or building deeper buying from existing customers (“increasing share-of-wallet” or “gathering”), to reach the required new heights of their quotas, sales people need to apply focused marketing techniques.

RIDING THE MARKETING-SALES CONTINUUM WAVES 

As with all major changes, the technological, sociological and economic shifts described create waves of great opportunity for people who tune into them and act — and sogginess for those who don’t.  Here are three ways to ensure that you surf to success.

New You.

Each function had reached the point at which it’s productivity gains were slowing or coming heavily at the expense of the personal lives of its employees.  New marketing and sales automation and social media technologies are making large productivity and effectiveness leaps possible.  But you’ll only get their real value if you identify with the whole Continuum—not as a Marketing or Sales person, but as a Sales Development leader.

Through that lens you will see beyond arbitrary function boundaries and you will change your world.  You’ll probably become relentless about making tight, clear links from upstream of what you do through downstream of your actions, all the way to the ultimate results, sales.  Find the gaps and fill them — or make noise until someone else does so.

New Us:  Better Together

Marketing and Sales activities are often very loosely aligned. Everyone assumes that someone else is ensuring their disparate efforts and assumptions are adding up to the desired results.  Despite each group working very hard, relations between them often run from apathy to mutual sympathy to barely muffled acrimony.  Growth often falls far short of what can happen if both functions put collective effort into focused, aligned and technology-enabled sales development initiatives.

Marketing and sales teams can work together differently for higher aggressiveness and effectiveness.  Marketing can provide additional value added that feeds into a jointly developed blueprint for sales generation.  Sales can drive those sales generation blueprints that include:

    • Appropriate market goals tied to segment-specific customer intelligence,
    • An action plan with needed marketing and customer engagement tactics regardless of who does them and
    • The capture of leading metrics so that the marketing/sales effort can be adjusted frequently.

New.  Period.  Frontiers for Pioneers in both Functions

Find out what new inputs and outputs are possible by looking at competitors and, even more importantly, by looking at companies in other industries.  Learn and standout in your company by becoming a champion for a pilot in one new initiative every 6 months.  A few examples:

In the world of Big Data, many Marketing-Sales teams will soon be able to know every potential customer for their product and other relevant facts about them. Which function will make greater practical use of this capability?

Using Social Media, companies will truly be able to act as the “peer” and “partner” that they have always wanted to be for their customers. Which function will do so to create the highest quantifiable results?

The biggest value creators on Wall Street are now mathematicians whose algorithms exploit existing information in new ways to make profitable trades; is there analogous gold in your company’s customer information?

The future of your function is exciting — and it looks a lot like you.

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...

Use The Force, Luke

April 2, 2012 · by Taia Ergueta

*

Businesses and the people in them share a tension:  They want to succeed and feel woefully short of the time and money to do so.  They are so wound up, they hesitate to even imagine what they could do if they had access to a deep well of additional resources.  That source exists, though it is regularly ignored, avoided and underestimated.  It is the emotional motivation and energy of employees.

There is an immense quantifiable opportunity to create healthier, more successful businesses through affective action: Winning by engaging the hearts and spirits of employees, not just their hands and heads.

 WHY EXECUTIVES SHOULD CARE – A LOT

The Carrot: Free Money

 No other opportunity that can match the return on this.

The growing body of studies on just the value of employee engagement shows staggering numbers*:

    • At the national level: More than $370B annually just in the US
    • At the company level: A 27% increase in profit
    • At the personal level: 2x the likelihood of being a top performer and 43% less illness time

 All that money is just sitting there or, more accurately, blowing away. And it costs nothing to harvest it. In fact you save money while doing so.

In addition, unlike technology-based growth and profit drivers, this one is accessible to every organization and industry.

The Stick: Industrial Age model crashes and burns in the Information Age.

It has probably been over 10 years ago that I heard Gary Hamel note that the prevailing management models are based all too closely on the control systems set up for factories in the Industrial Revolution.  At this point I know you are off checking Wikipedia, so I’ll wait.  …Oh good, you’re back.  As you now know, this means that we are using 200-year-old models in the Information Age.  This must stop.  Industrial workers were often treated as extensions of machines and that control-oriented management migrated to offices as well.  Business management theory progressed — and became an industry in itself; but even so it usually still bears hallmarks of the factories of the 19th century:

  • Direction from the top executed by the middle and bottom
  • A belief in devising the “right” plan and executing on it more and more comprehensively over time.

In the Information Age, a management system in which small numbers of people direct large numbers of people to perform repetitive tasks in an ever more solidified strategy/infrastructure will surely fail.  What we need are systems in which all employees actively regenerate parts of the business as needed or opportune.

WHY EMPLOYEES SHOULD CARE

You do what a friend of mine calls “your highest and best work” in a work environment where you:

  • Feel inspired and emotionally engaged
  • Understand, use and expand your particular talents
  • Are expected to be an influential change agent.

Anything short of this is underutilizing you and your time.  Happily, individuals can help create these conditions for themselves and others.

USING “THE FORCE” OF AFFECTIVE ACTION

Future posts will explore useful tactics that individuals and managers use to create inspiring, engaging and generative work environments.  By “generative” I mean naturally generating and exploiting a stream of innovations that propel the company forward successfully in the face of continuous change.

This topic is not entirely new or isolated.  As Figure 1 illustrates, it overlaps and complements several established management and individual development topics.  Many articles and books offer rich and valuable advice on those topics.

On this site I want to focus on going beyond improving within current norms.  We need to create and thrive with new models that match the possibilities of the 21st century.

Imagine what would be possible in a workplace if:

    • 100% of the employees were active and effective scouts for important opportunities for the company
    • Everyday communication created as much inspiration as information
    • Customers proactively shared all the information they have that is relevant to your decisions
    • Every initiative was executed with fervor, not just a sense of duty
    • Market uncertainty was a source of competitive advantage rather than a threat.

The dynamism demanded by the information age won’t come from extracting more bursts of brilliance and superhuman effort in the old model.  Luke Skywalker tapped into The Force.  We can tap into Affective Action, creating new, generative organizations by helping people find deep personal connections to their work and each other.

________________________________

* Source: These are extracts of statistics from ”99 Incredible Employee Engagement Statistics“, a very interesting document put together and made available by a company named Beyond Morale (beyondmorale.com).

Gallup poll:

  • The lost productivity of actively disengaged employees costs the US economy $370 BILLION annually.
  • Those business units in the top half of engagement scores had 27% higher profitability than those in the bottom half.

Watson Wyatt study:

  • Highly Engaged Employees are more than twice as likely to be top performers.
  • Highly engaged employees missed 43% fewer days of work due to illness.

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Like Loading...
Page 2 of 2 « Previous 1 2
  • Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • AffectiveAction
    • Join 41 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • AffectiveAction
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d