“007″ Style Succession Planning

Posted on May 13, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

[For the past several weeks I have focused my writing efforts on an upcoming book my business partner, Moss Jackson, and I are writing about Succession Planning and have been ignoring the blog.  Erin Palmer, who works with Villanova University’s online human resources programs, and writes about project management including the  PMP certification training  training and business intelligence topics such as business intelligence certification, saved the day by authoring this guest post. Thanks, Erin!]

There aren’t many characters as cool as James Bond. He has the cars, the gadgets and the charisma to get out of even the most difficult situations. With such high standards to live up to, casting James Bond is no easy feat. Every actor that played him had to live up to all of the 007’s from years past, which is not an easy suit to fill. The James Bond franchise is a great example of the importance of succession planning. Over the past 40 years, the 007 franchise has been able to almost seamlessly transition from one lead actor to another while remaining a blockbuster success.

Succession planning is the key to longevity in any business.  Many companies focus energy and resources strictly on a retention plan, but it is a misstep to put all of your focus into this particular strategy. By concentrating on succession planning, you ensure that leadership roles will be filled with the right candidates who are properly aligned with your organization’s goals.

Benefits of Succession Planning

Whether it was Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan, the numbers at the box office and the enthusiasm of movie goers reflect how succession planning can be so critical to your bottom line. If the audience can’t connect with the actor playing Mr. Bond, the films would falter. When casting a new James Bond, the film’s producers look for specific qualities to assure that the actor is right for the job.

Succession planning forces businesses to look within and identify those key individuals who possess the leadership qualities and essential soft skills that may have otherwise been overlooked. Many business leaders, however, miss the incredible potential right under their noses. When Daniel Craig became James Bond, there was an initial flood of outrage at the idea of a blonde James Bond. The filmmakers looked past his hair because they saw his talent. Examining the talent within an office can yield unexpected results.

Looking within for successors also has a positive effect on company morale. Knowing there is not only room for advancement but potential grooming for a leadership role incentivizes employees to stay put instead of looking for greener pastures elsewhere.

Succession planning also ensures there will be no break in productivity should a project manager depart the company unexpectedly. This also means customer satisfaction and loyalty can remain high. Work can’t cease when an employee departs, so it is smart to consider long-term plans for your company.

Finally, one of the biggest benefits of incorporating a succession plan is the competitive edge it offers. By developing employees from within, rather than hiring new employees who have little experience with the company or its clientele, you are decreasing learning curves and increasing potential time to market.

Make a plan before it’s too late

The James Bond franchise has stayed one step ahead of the game during its entire 40 year big screen run. When the lead actor even hinted at the idea of stepping down, or when the studio felt the need for a fresher, younger Bond, all hands were called on deck and the search for the new Bond began immediately, before the veteran actor stepped down.

Your business would be wise to follow suit. Waiting until the day after your key project manager retires is NOT the time to start hunting for or training his or her successor. Ideally a succession plan should be put into place long before the actual changing of the guards. This ensures a seamless transition with minimal risk.

Also, the selection committee needs to develop a crystal clear understanding of the most significant challenges the company is likely to face over the next five to ten years, and the skills and experiences the project managers will need in order to lead the company past those hurdles. Do not simply look for younger versions of current leaders, but find those who are endowed with the necessary leadership qualities of the future. Succession planning is an ongoing process, not a one-off job.

Get outside advice

When it comes time to find a new James Bond, the franchises’ key players seek outside advice on the direction they should go next. For instance, studios research an actor’s box office potential, they study the numbers and make predictions – and producers and casting agents watch auditions with a keen eye toward finding an actor who possesses that certain quality – who has what it takes to become the next 007.

When the time comes to start looking for successors within your organization, remember to seek advice from others who may offer fresh perspectives and the ability to think outside the corporate box. You don’t want to overlook the human potential just beyond your office door.

From box office to board rooms, succession planning is key to any business that wants to grow and adapt with the changing times. Implement a strategy early and take into consideration the future of your company and those skills that will be needed, and you will no doubt find the right candidates whose goals and vision align with your own.

 

Posted in Life in General | Leave a comment

Fathers and Sons – Part Two

Posted on April 5, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

In my previous post, “Fathers and Sons – Part One,” I wrote about PGA professional Russ Cochran and his son, Ryan.  They weren’t the only father/son player/caddie duo that I followed during the 2012 Toshiba Classic.  On Sunday, March 18th, the final day of the tournament, I was the walking scorer for the trio of Gary Hallberg, Michael Allen, and Stan Utley.  Entering the final round, the golfers were in the middle of the pack.  Allen was 2-under par, tied for 25th and six shots behind the leader; Hallberg and Utley were at 1-under par and tied for 32nd.  When they stepped onto the first tee at 10:04 a.m, all three started the round with hopes for a strong finish and a nice check.

When the golfers, their caddies and the three volunteer scorers/standard bearers were introducing ourselves to each other, Stan Utley’s very young-looking caddie turned out to be his 14-year old son, Jake.  Gary Hallberg’s caddie asked Jake if he regularly carried for his dad, and Jake replied, “I’ve been on his bag for every Champions Tour event he has played.”  I was a bit surprised at that, until I learned that the 2012 Toshiba Classic was Stan Utley’s very first event on the Champions Tour.  [Utley, failed to earn a Champions card at Q-school last fall and got into the Toshiba Classic via Monday qualifying.]

Stan is widely recognized as one of the game’s best short-game instructors. Even though he won the PGA Tour’s Chattanooga Classic in 1989 and three times on the Nationwide Tour, he is much better known as an instructor, especially for other pros, including well-known stars like Jay Haas and Peter Jacobsen.

As the golfers teed off, the volunteers walking with the group noticed that Utley’s swing appeared to be very short and restricted, almost as if the act of swinging a golf club was painful to him.  We later learned that Stan had been surprised by back spasms on the first green on Friday, and further back pain after he completed his first round.

Although being outdriven by 35-40 yards or more by Michael Allen and Gary Hallberg that day, Stan “bunted” his ball around the course very effectively.  Despite hitting more than a few shots that were downright ugly – the kinds of shots I am used to seeing coming off the club face of my own clubs, not those of a tour professional — Stan utilized his splendid short game to make three birdies on the front nine.  Sitting at 4-under par with nine holes to play, Utley had moved into the top ten for the event.

Meanwhile, things didn’t go so well for his longer hitting fellow competitors.  A bogey on #2 and a ball in the water on the short, par-three 4th hole effectively took Michael Allen out of the hunt.  Gary Hallberg’s hopes were dashed by a 5-putt on the ridiculously difficult 7th green.

The back nine wasn’t as friendly to Utley, though he snagged two more birdies against three bogeys to finish the day with a 2-under par 69, 3-under for the tournament. Afterwards, Stan told an interviewer, “I came here with no expectations, and it’s been a fun week.” His check for finishing tied for 12th was $31,750.  Jake’s caddie earnings, at current rates for PGA Tour caddies, would have been between $2,000 and $2,500.  Not a bad week for a 14-year old.  But I’ll bet that the real reward, for both Jake and his father, was the opportunity to work together at a game they both love.

 

 

 

Posted in Life in General | 1 Comment

Fathers and Sons – Part One

Posted on March 25, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

For the past eight years I have worked as a volunteer Walking Scorer at the PGA Champions Tour Toshiba Classic at Newport Beach Country Club.  It has given me the opportunity to meet, talk with and observe at close hand over fifty Champions Tour golfers, including major championship winners such as Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Wayne Grady and Fuzzy Zoeller, as they ply their trade.  This year, during the Pro-Am, I was on the course as Walking Scorer with Russ Cochran.  Russ has the distinction of being one of only eight  left-handed players to win on the PGA Tour, and he is currently the only left-handed player on the Champions Tour.  His biggest win as a professional is probably his victory in the Senior British Open Championship in 2011 at Walton Heath Golf Club in Surrey, UK.

I met Russ nearly twenty years earlier, when I played in the Pro-Am at the 1993 Buick Classic [now known as The Barclays] at Westchester Country Club in Rye, NY.  I remember almost nothing about the golf that day, but I still recall what good company Russ was on the golf course for his amateur team, and how the five of us talked about how we all wished we could more easily take time away form our jobs to be with our children as they played  baseball, field hockey and other sports, and otherwise went about the business of growing up.  That day with Russ was memorable because he was simply “one of the guys” having a pleasant day on the golf course.

So, I was pleased to be scoring for Russ and his amateur team that morning.  As we all introduced ourselves to each other, we learned that Russ’s oldest son, Ryan, was caddying for his father.  Ryan, an excellent golfer in his own right, played college golf at the University of Florida, and would like to follow in his father’s footsteps and play professional golf.  As the morning wore on and we made our way around the golf course, one of the amateurs asked Russ how he enjoyed having his son working as his caddie.  Russ indicated that it was a perfect situation for him; Ryan handled all of the travel and logistics arrangements, in addition to manning his bag, so all Russ had to do was play his best golf.

Later, when I asked Russ how it felt to win the British Senior Open Championship last year at Walton Heath, he proceeded to relate this great story.

Russ told us how Ryan had been his regular caddie since he started playing on the Champions Tour three years ago.  Because Russ enjoyed great success on the Champions Tour — he was Rookie of the Year in 2009, and won two consecutive events in 2010 — both he and Ryan did well financially.  Before they headed to England for the 2011 Senior Open, Ryan suggested to his younger brother, Reed, who had recently graduated from law school, that Reed take a turn as their father’s caddie.  If Russ continued his strong play, Reed would get a nice payday for his work.  We already know how this story turned out for Russ and Reed.  [That's Russ and Reed in the picture on the left, hugging after Russ holed his putt to clinch the victory.]  But things worked out well for Ryan, too.  He wound up caddying that week for Mike Goodes, who finished tied for seventh.  At the trophy presentation ceremony, Russ said:

“It feels great, I had my son (Reed) on the bag, I told him I was going to work hard and come away with something good and I think he was the lucky charm.”

But when he told us the whole story, you could tell that Russ was equally proud of both of his sons.

 

Posted in Lessons from the Golf Course, Life in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Playing in the Wind

Posted on March 21, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

Golf is a game played in beautiful surroundings.  Golfers play out in the open air, on golf courses that are usually carefully cultivated and highly manicured playgrounds, where their bright white golf balls gleam against the green grasses that fill the fairways.  Even the hazards the golfers try to avoid can be visually appealing.  Bunkers are filled with fine-grained white or nearly white sand, shaped by the golf course architects to be visually distinctive and placed so as to present shot-shaping challenges to even the most skilled players.  Water hazards can be small ponds, large lakes, babbling brooks, or virtually any manner of  water form, again designed to balance visual appeal with golfing challenge.  But the most treacherous of all hazards — the hazard dreaded by even the most skilled professionals — is invisible.  It’s the wind.

A golf ball is 1.62 inches in diameter and weighs only 1.62 ounces, so it’s easy to see how a strong wind can blow a golf ball well off its intended line of flight.  Even the best players in the world have a tough time with the wind.  Wind speed is hard to read and wind gusting makes it tough to predict the effect on the golf ball, and to commit to the shot. The average score in the first 4 rounds of the 2009 Bob Hope Classic was 67.0 (there was very little wind). The wind picked up in the final round and the average score was 70.4, which is 3.4 shots higher. The wind really makes it difficult for all of us, even the pros.

The better a player you are, the more the wind bothers you.  Think about it.  Highly skilled golfers practice, practice, and practice some more.  They work to establish consistency with their golf swing, so that they can control the trajectory and the distance that they hit shots with every club in their bag.  Then the wind starts blowing and all of that consistency can go out the window in a heartbeat.  Because the wind is fickle, even capricious; it blows in one direction, then shifts and swirls to blow in a different direction.  Then, when you least expect it, just when you have taken a stronger club to compensate for the 20-mile per hour breeze blowing directly in your face, the wind will “lay down” and you launch the ball over the green into an impossible lie.  You can almost imagine the wind laughing at you as you walk dejectedly to your ball and try to recover by pulling off some kind of miracle to save your par.

The wind gets into your head, sapping your confidence.  You’re never sure exactly how the wind will affect your shot, so you have an extra degree of difficulty trying to picture the shot in your mind before you hit it.  This weekend I watched professionals at the PGA Champions Tour event in Newport Beach, California, the Toshiba Classic, struggling with winds gusting to as much as 30 miles an hour.  On almost every shot, the professionals conferred with their caddies, studying yardage books, looking at the trees and tossing loose blades of grass in the air to try to decipher the direction and speed of the wind, then factoring all of that information into some kind of mental equation to determine how much the wind would affect their standard or “stock” shot before selecting a club.  But it was clear that doubt had also entered into the equation, and doubt can infect a golf swing and cause all sorts of bad things to happen. The wind will then gleefully multiply the error and send the ball to some wildly unexpected landing place.

The wind can take a game that is fun to play, even when you aren’t playing your best, and turn it into a tedious, tiring, almost painful slog.  Wind can make an eighteen hole round seem like it lasted 18 hours.  Wind can wear you out and break you down.  Wind can make you feel helpless.  And wind can make you feel old.  On Sunday, I watched Peter Jacobson, Craig Stadler and Hal Sutton, three stalwarts on the Champions Tour — between them they have won 35 regular PGA Tour events, two of them  major championships, and 10 Champions Tour events, including 6 “senior” major championships, and collectively have earned more than $45 million in prize money — almost staggering off of their final green, looking not so much like professional athletes, but more like three tired old men, happy to be finished with their golf so they could head for the bar and a whiskey or two to restore their damaged spirits.  The wind can do that to you.

This isn’t only due to the wind’s affect on the flight of the ball. No, the wind also affects the way your brain works; kind of like being upside-down or submerged in water, you can become easily confused.  Everything about playing on a windy day will be more difficult; that part is beyond your control. When you hear about people being  good wind players, it’s because they’ve developed the ability to scale back not only their golf swings, but also their egos and their expectations. A good analogy is going from driving a Corvette to driving a Volkswagen Beetle. Trying to get the same performance from the Beetle simply is not possible. Yet when many golfers play on windy days, they feel as if they’ll be able to play the same shots as when it’s calm. At the end of the round, the numbers aren’t pretty.

Good wind players realize that nobody scores better, or has an easy time of it playing in breezy conditions, and that realization seems to calm their brain’s initial apprehensions. and inspires them to high levels of performance.  Tom Watson, one of the greatest golfers of all time — a five-time winner of the British Open and two-time winner of the Senior British Open — often said he loved playing in the wind.  Watson figured that most of the other competitors would try to fight the wind and complain about it, rather than accept that they had to adapt their swing and their expectations to the conditions.  As a result, Watson felt that he really only had to beat a few other solid competitors, since most of the field would play themselves out of contention.

All of this may be interesting, but what do you make of it if you are part of the 91% of the US population that doesn’t play golf?  Here’s my take:

  • S**t happens.  You rarely are in complete control of your circumstances, so it pays to be flexible and adaptable.
  • Stay calm.  When things start going wrong and most people rush around in a panic, the cool, calm and collected few usually turn out to be the winners.
  • Check your ego at the door.  It doesn’t matter what you did on your best day, what counts is how you perform today, getting the best out of the situation you find yourself in.

 

Posted in Lessons from the Golf Course, Life in General | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Tale of the Peacock’s Tail

Posted on February 26, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

Have you ever wondered why peacocks developed such long, beautiful tails?  It’s simple evolutionary biology.  Peahens show a reference for large-tailed peacocks.  In the earliest days, this made a lot of sense.  A showy tail was a marker of a good, healthy male who knew how to feed himself — a good breeding partner, and thus a smart choice for a  peahen concerned about preserving her hereditary line.  Well-feathered males thus had more opportunities to breed and pass on the long-tailed trait. Successive generations of peacocks had longer and longer tails.

This turned out to be a good thing for a while, but after many generations the extremely long tails created problems for the strong peacocks.  The peacock’s long tails are physically “expensive.”  They require a large amount of nutrients to grow and maintain in good health.  But the bigger problem is the sheer weight of the peacock’s tail.  The heavy tail slows the peacock, making them highly susceptible to predators.  Over time, the tails got longer and longer, while the population of peacocks got smaller and smaller.  For peacocks, it was a form of biological suicide.  The only thing that has saved peacocks from extinction is human intervention — we protect them because we feel they are too beautiful to allow them to disappear from the face of the earth.

What does a peacock’s tail have to do with any of us?  Under pressure, we all revert to our strengths, whether or not the behavior pattern is appropriate. We come to believe that our perceived strengths are always going to be able to win the day for us.  As a result, we “do what comes naturally,” even if it wasn’t always “natural,” but is simply a habit that we have fallen into because it worked most of the time.  It’s easy enough to figure out why this is so.  We crave approval, so we overreact to praise for strengths.  We become a sort of one-trick pony, even when that trick is inappropriate.

Of course, sometimes we can fall into the same type of habit without being encouraged by praise.  Instead, we simply listen too well to conventional wisdom. We follow the rule that if taking a spoonful of medicine is a good thing, then drinking down the whole bottle should be a great thing.  It’s easy enough to pooh-pooh this idea as ridiculous, but consider how often it plays out in our own lives.  For example, many of us exercise to improve our strength and overall health, but there’s always a break-even point. When we over-exercise, we no longer become stronger.  Instead, we strain our muscles, hurting ourselves in the process, and actually decreasing our performance.

The same kind of thing can occur with over-exercising our strengths. Our overall performance could decline, because we continue to repeat behaviors that worked for us in the past, but no longer serve to get the job done.  Our former strengths, when overplayed, can actually become a weakness. When that that happens, the same strengths that supported our successes can turn into professional liabilities.  It’s important to make sure that doesn’t happen to you, or to the people that work for you.

Consider these examples:

  • Joan was considered one of the best people in her department at consensus building.  When she was placed in charge of a large, deadline-sensitive project, Joan spent so much time trying to make sure that everyone on the project team was in agreement on every aspect of the project, that the project fell hopelessly behind schedule and she had to be replaced.
  • Bill was able to inspire his team because he always spoke and acted with supreme confidence.  He ran into problems when his self-confidence led him to arrogantly dismiss anyone who disagreed with him.
  • Ricky’s persistence helped him push through to completion on projects that stymied others.  He finally lost his job when his persistence turned into blind obstinacy, and he kept pushing forward on a project in spite of compelling evidence that there was no chance for success.
  • Marie’s attention to detail saved the day on many projects.  But when that diligence started to border on perfectionism, her team rebelled.

Any of the individuals in these examples could be a valuable contributor to your team, but it’s easy to see how their strengths, overplayed or used at the wrong time or in the wrong place, could turn into a debilitating weakness and impair overall team performance.

If you are like me, you may see a little bit of yourself in Joan, Bill, Ricky or Marie.  So far, so good. Recognizing that you want to improve is a good first step. Figuring out what to do about it is the trickier part. On one hand, you need to be able to build, grow and flex your strengths to achieve personal satisfaction and professional success. On the other hand, you also need to be able to learn when over-exercising your strengths gets in the way of personal and professional growth.

How can you learn to change your approach while still maintaining confidence in your own strengths? These ideas might help you find the right balance:

Look first at how your strengths have contributed to your success.  Describe your strengths; take the time to write them down in your notebook.  Think about when you normally exert them? How have they contributed to your success? In which situations do the strengths have the most positive impact? How do others react to these strengths? What are the outcomes after flexing the strengths? The goal here is to determine when the strengths were demonstrated appropriately and effectively.  If you have a coach or a mentor, make sure to get their perspective on the situation.

Consider the flip side — when your strengths have detracted from your success. Describe a time when exerting one of your strengths did not produce the intended results. What was the circumstance? Who was involved? What was his or her response? What was the ultimate outcome?  Dialogue with your coach or mentor can play a particularly helpful role at this stage, since we are often completely unaware of how people react to our behaviors, especially when they are our “go-to-at-crunch-time” behaviors.

Identify the cues that can help you see when a strength becomes a liability or when the break-even point is reached.  Compare the successful and unsuccessful scenarios. How did the circumstances or environments differ? How did the individuals involved in each circumstance respond differently? What other cues were present to reflect whether the strength was exercised effectively or not?

Create a plan to make yourself more aware of the break-even point in future situations. How will you modify your approach when cues arise indicating that a strength is becoming a liability? What feedback or other information will you need to ensure you are flexing strengths to support successful outcomes? Who will provide this feedback and when?

Because you have used your strengths and subsequently reaped rewards in the past, you might be reluctant to examine the possibility that your strengths have the potential to become problems.  It’s easier to simply defend your current approach, blame others for being jealous of or threatened by your demonstrated strengths, or excuse your behavior by telling yourself that others are misinterpreting your intentions.

Don’t let it happen to you.  Pay attention to how you use your strengths.  Remember the peacock’s tail.

 

Posted in Life in General | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Consequences and Accountability

Posted on February 3, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

One of my clients likes to talk about the importance of accountability. He believes that it is critical that the people who work for him feel a sense of accountability for the results of their efforts.  I think he may be a bit confused when he talks this way about accountability, as if it arises naturally or intrinsically within people.  Maybe he is confusing a sense of responsibility for results with a willingness to be held accountable.  [I have to admit that it is easy to get confused when talking about responsibility and accountability.  According to Thesaurus.com, the synonym for the word responsible is "accountable," while the synonym for the word accountable is "responsible."]  Let’s take a closer look at the two ideas to see if we can find what I believe is a critical distinction between the two.

The Latin root word for responsible is responsus, which originally conveyed a sense of moral obligation.  The more common definitions of “responsible” include this idea of being responsible for something. That’s the sense that most of us take when we use the word. It connotes an internalization of obligation; a personal ownership of the duty.  Failure to deliver when you are responsible for something can be the root of feelings of guilt and shame.

The origin of the word accountable in the English language occurs sometime between the early part of the 14th century and the late 16th century, from the combination of the words “account“ and “able,” meanst “liable to be called to account.” [Of course, the concept of account-giving has ancient roots in record keeping activities related to governance and money-lending systems that first developed in Ancient Israel, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome.  One of my personal favorites in this vein is Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:14-30.]  In any event, that early English usage is not far from a current dictionary definition of accountable, an adjective meaning:

“subject to the obligation to report, explain or justify something; answerable.”

The noun accountability, first appearing in the late 18th century, is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as follows:

“the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.”

Andreas Schedler in his 1999 essay,  ”Conceptualizing Accountability,” offers this conceptual definition of accountability:

 ”A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A’s (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct”

I like this definition a lot, as it makes perfect sense to me.  The critical element of the definition is that you have to be accountable to someone.  In turn, someone has to hold you accountable.  Accountability is something that is demanded, and, if it is to be more than simply the idle use of a word, consequences must accompany the accountable actions. There is very clear “Do-X-or-Else-Y-Will-Be-Done-to-You” element involved.

This is where many organizations let things slip.  They sing the praises  of accountability.  They acknowledge accountability as a core value. But when push comes to shove, they threaten negative consequences but don’t follow through. They fail to uphold the Three Commandments of Consequences:

  1. Make consequences Personal
  2. Make consequences Immediate
  3. Make consequences Certain

Personal:  Consequences should be as personal as you can make them.  It does not matter if consequences are real or imagined. Perceived consequences are real for that person.

Immediate:  When someone you are holding accountable for a result fails to deliver as agreed, you don’t want to wait to deliver consequences.  You want the consequences to be felt as immediately as possible.  The impact of short-term consequences is far more powerful than long-term consequences.

Certain: Always deliver the promised consequences.  The real tragedy is that by failing to hold people accountable for the little things, by delivering a small dose of negative consequence in a timely fashion, you make it so much harder to deliver consequences when someone fails you in a big way.  Realize that if you pull the trigger on little things, you never even have to get the gun out on big things.  In this regard, I will always remember a quote from coach and trainer, Tom  Conellan:

“A well aimed, well-timed BB is more significant as a deterrent than a poorly timed, poorly aimed howitzer.”

Here’s the bottom line:  Consequences are where the rubber meets the road for accountability.  Without consequences, there is no accountability.  If you are not getting the results you expect, don’t complain that your people don’t behave as if they feel accountable for results. Ask yourself, “How well d0 I hold people accountable?”

Posted in Leadership and Management Wisdom, Life in General | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Strategic Business Analysis is Messy Business

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

A while back I asked my son-in-law, who works for Cisco in San Jose, what kind of job he would pick if he were able to choose from anything available at his company.  He told me that he’d really like to work on business strategy, maybe performing strategic business analysis.

Everyone who has been subjected to a traditional business education in North America or Europe, in particular anyone who has completed an MBA program, is –  or at least thinks they are — familiar with the concept of Strategic Business Analysis. I, for one, thought I knew what the term  meant: a rigorous examination of a firm’s strengths and weaknesses in its current competitive environment, coupled with an assessment of what its capabilities might allow it to achieve within some reasonable future time frame.

I got curious and decided to google the phrase and see what kind of results would appear on my computer screen. Try it for yourself and you’ll find over 19 million items showing up in the specific search result for “strategic+business+analysis.” [If you just type the words "strategic business analysis" in the search bar you'll get over 95 million results.] Unfortunately, you won’t find out exactly what it is.  What you will find out is that most schools with a business curriculum teach it, many consulting firms say that they do it, lots of companies are looking for people to fill jobs where they will do it, and hundreds of thousands of people want to land jobs as strategic business analysts.

I wasn’t happy with that result, so I checked in with Wikipedia, one of my favorite reference resources.  While Wikipedia has no entry for strategic business analysis, it does provide a lengthy article on business analysis. The closest I could get to something that looked like what I would recognize as strategic business analysis was detailed in the Wikipedia article under “Enterprise analysis or company analysis” and included the following description:

Focuses on understanding the needs of the business as a whole, its strategic direction, and identifying initiatives that will allow a business to meet those strategic goals.

That seemed to fit closely enough to my originally offered definition that I was willing to work with it.  Looking deeper, though, I got mired in what I feel is the fundamental problem with most approaches to strategic business analysis.  Just about everyone doing strategic business analysis relies on one or more analytic techniques, all of which are designed to get those performing the analysis to look broadly and deeply at the firm’s competitive situation in order to select strategic options most likely to lead to success for the organization. The Wikipedia article lists eight widely used techniques, some of which I am familiar with and a few I’ve never heard of:

There are enough acronyms on this list to keep you busy for a week, trying to figure out what they mean.  Each approach suggests that if you diligently follow the step-by-step process outlined, you’ll get a great result. But these and other techniques overlook a simple truth.  People do strategic business analysis, not robots.  People get distracted. People work under deadline pressure and hurry to complete tasks.  People tend to rely on only parts of an analysis model, and ignore others.

Most importantly, just like with crossword puzzles, we often get disconfirming information about previous assumptions we have made. When that happens while working a crossword puzzle, we erase and try again. In business, when we get disconfirming information, we tend to ignore it or deny it. We look even harder to find something, anything, that seems to confirm our earlier assumptions. Maybe that’s because there is no answer key in business.  Nobody created the puzzle, so there is no single solution.

The world is a messy place.  It is unpredictable.  As a result, strategic business analysis will always be messy, iterative and nonlinear.  We should get used to the idea.

Posted in Leadership and Management Wisdom, Life in General | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Sometimes BS Isn’t All Bad, Especially When Dealing with SMAPs

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

No, I’m not writing about bulls**t.  I’m writing about an approach to problem solving that my friend and colleague, Alan Engelstad, has dubbed “Benevolent Skepticism.” [Hence the somewhat misleading "BS" tag in the title of this post.  I hope it worked to get your attention.]  SMAPs are Solutions-Masquerading-as-Problems, but more on that later.

Benevolent skepticism is not really a technique; it’s more of an attitude or a philosophical approach to be taken when someone comes to you and says, “I have a problem.”  Rather than simply accepting that statement as a fact, a benevolent skeptic would get very curious about what is really going on.  She would ask questions.  ”Why is that a problem for you?”  ”What would things be like if the problem were to disappear?” “In situations like this one, why does X always happen, and not Y or Z?”  In essence, the benevolent skeptic is deeply curious about what is really going on, and is always non-judgemental.

My goal here isn’t to tell you how to become a benevolent skeptic.  I’m really more interested in pointing you toward a blog post that Alan [that's him in the picture on the left] authored with a colleague, Karl Moore, and published at forbes.com this past week. In the article, titled “SMAP Solutions Masquerading as Problems,” Alan gets to the essence of both SMAPs and benevolent skepticism so elegantly that I won’t even atttempt to paraphrase him.  I’ll just quote him:

When you’ve been SMAPed, you’ve been given the wrong problem.  You’re so busy trying to make your solution work you’ve obscured what it is all in aid of.  Give up. Acknowledge that the problem-as-defined is proven intractable.  Move on.

Then get curious.  How can the problem be recast into a more solvable form, without losing anything important in the process?  Get someone to help you describe the end game assuming your “solution” was successful, and drill down: If homeless people were no longer lazy, etc, then what?

When you are handed your next problem, stop, think, and be curious. Force yourself to delve beyond your immediate and instinctual understanding of what the problem (and its solution) entails. Taking these actions are likely to illuminate the redundancies in the “obvious” solution, and produce more creative and fruitful results. Perhaps some of the more intractable problems we face are not as bad as we think, we just need to not jump so quickly to the ready made solutions.

I have to acknowledge that I am shamelessly promoting an article that gives me a nice plug at the end.  Overlook that and read the article [click here to read the SMAP article].  It may help you resolve, or even dissolve some of your biggest “problems.”

 

Posted in Leadership and Management Wisdom, Life in General | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

Earlier this week at the Palm Springs International Film Festival we watched a new film, “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.”  The film, adapted from the 2007 novel of the same name by Paul Torday, tells the story of  feckless British fisheries expert  Dr. Andrew Jones [played by Ewan McGregor], who is approached by consultant Harriet Chetwode-Talbot [played by Emily Blunt] to help realize Yemeni Sheik Muhammed’s audacious but seemingly impossible vision of bringing the sport of fly-fishing to the desert highlands of his home country.

I really liked the movie, and highly recommend that you see it when it is released to the theaters in early March of this year.  It’s a feel good movie with  nice mix of comedy, drama, and romance, along with just the right dose of political manipulation and intrigue, helped along by strong performances by an attractive and accomplished cast of actors and another fine directorial job by Lasse Hallstrom.  But this isn’t intended to be a movie review.  It’s more of a sermon, albeit a very short one,  about swimming upstream, audacity, impossible dreams, and the importance of faith in making dreams become reality.

If you are at all familiar with salmon, you know that salmon typically are born upstream in fresh water rivers or streams, then migrate downstream to the ocean, where they live and grow for a few years, returning as adult fish the exact spot where they were born to spawn and re-start the cycle for succeeding generations of fish. Studies have shown that the fish rely on olfactory memory to guide them to their hereditary spawning grounds.  They literally follow their noses. Their return journey from the ocean to their spawning grounds is accomplished against seemingly impossible odds, swimming many miles against the flow of the river’s current, and often faced with the challenge of literally leaping out of the water to climb not just upstream, but uphill, to reach their goal.

Sheikh Muhammed’s vision to bring salmon fishing to the Yemen seems at first to be so far-fetched that it is laughable.  When you conjure images of Yemeni landscapes, green hillsides and flowing streams are nowhere to be seen.  But, below the surface lie aquifers which, if supported by proper hydrological controls [dams, sluices, etc.] are capable of supplying sufficient water to fill the usually dry wadis, and, theoretically at least, provide an acceptable habitat for salmon.

But the Sheik’s bold vision, even when shown to be theoretically possible , was not sufficient to propel the project forward.  The project was never going to be easy, despite being backed by the Sheik’s huge financial commitment;  a lot of hard work would be needed.  I’m reminded of a wonderful line from the 1992 movie, “A League of Their Own,” when Dottie Hinson [played by Geena Davis] tells Jimmy Duggan [played by Tom Hanks], “It just got too hard,” and Jimmy replies

“It’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard, everyone would do it. The hard… is what makes it great. “

Somehow, though, audacious vision and hard work don’t always deliver the goods. In many cases, as in “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen”, the necessary additional ingredient is faith. The Sheikh believed it was possible, and he insisted that all of the key players on the project were not simply going along with the idea because he supported it with lots of money; they had to believe they could make it happen, and be committed to making it a success.  Their faith opened their eyes to possibilities that would have been invisible had they worn the blinders of skepticism and had their perspectives been limited by the boundaries of conventional wisdom.

Seemingly impossible dreams become possible when a bold vision and hard work are combined with faith and commitment.  Examples are everywhere.  We closed the hole in the ozone layer.  We eradicated smallpox from the planet. We sent men to the moon and returned them safely to earth.  But, like the salmon, we have to swim upstream, going against the flow to make it happen.

So dream big, work hard, and have faith.

 

Posted in Leadership and Management Wisdom, Life in General | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Real Leaders

Posted on January 1, 2012 by Dave Franzetta

During the 2000 presidential campaign, David Foster Wallace, the novelist, essayist and humorist best known for his 1996 novel “Infinite Jest,” covered John McCain‘s unsuccessful bid to become the Republican Party’s nominee for President for Rolling Stone Magazine.  He rode with McCain’s Straight Talk Express for a week in February of that year and wrote a 15,000 + word essay titled “The Weasel, Twelve Monkeys and The Shrub” that took a look at everything from the campaign’s political strategy to the food it catered for the staff. [To read the edited version published in the magazine, you have to subscribe to the Rolling Stone On-line edition. Or you can buy a copy of  the book titled McCain's Promise: Aboard the Straight Talk Express with John McCain and a Whole Bunch of Actual Reporters, Thinking About Hope, which includes the entire essay.]

In one section of the essay, Wallace writes that younger voters can’t identify with political leaders because they instinctively sense “bullshit.”  He feels  that the entire generation born post-1970 [Generation X]  was raised with commercials and can’t help but look at the political process as one big commercial. Wallace goes on to argue that voters “below the age of 35″ [make that voters under the age of 45 today, considering that the essay was penned over ten years ago]  can “smell” the self serving interests a political candidate has when they ask for votes. No matter what they promise.  Wallace says, “We  may vote for them the same way we may go buy toothpaste. But we’re not inspired. They’re not the real thing.”

Wallace then goes on to describe what he means by a real leader.

“A real leader can somehow get us to do certain things that deep down we think are good and want to be able to do but usually can’t get ourselves to do on our own. It’s a mysterious quality, hard to define, but we always know it when we see it, even as kids.  [Real leaders] help us overcome the limitations of our own individual laziness and selfishness and weakness and fear and get us to do better, harder things than we can get ourselves to do on our own.”

In my leadership programs over the past few years, I’ve asked each group of participants to create their own definition of leadership. Every group seems to start out with Wallace’s thought that it is hard-to-define-but-we-know-it-when-we-see-it.  Then they start stringing together lists of traits and behaviors that are characteristic of people that they recognize as leaders.  Finally, they boil down the lists and arrange the terms and phrases into pictograms that display their definition of leadership.  Here are a few of them:

The elements they have in common are pretty obvious.  Leaders want to influence other people; to get them to buy-in to some shared vision, to something that is important and gives meaning to their lives.  Real leaders know that the foundation of the relationship with those who follow them is acting with integrity and being worthy of trust. We won’t follow someone if we think that they are acting solely out of self-interest.  We won’t follow someone we can’t trust.  Even kids know that. Why is it so hard for our political leaders to figure it out?

Posted in Leadership and Management Wisdom, Life in General | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment