System-bucker management

Before I set out on my current micro multinational (my clients span across continents now) adventure, I did a couple years consulting stint at $412 M Percept Group, a 360 degree entertainment, communications and media major.  While playing an in-house investment banker diligencing and advising on M&A deals, I had the privilege of closest access to quite a bit of cross cultural, multi-national operational teams spread across its divisions (Film Production, Mainstream Advertising, Media planning, Sports & Celebrity Management, Fashion & Lifestyle, Web Ads) right from CEO, down. 

Like in every large company, there was abundant top-down mediocrity.  Some divisional CEOs were absolute caricatures.  But there were occasional creative brilliance that flashed and I kept tracking them, befriending them in the process. I did learn a lot from them. Eventually, I sensed what was so unique about these creative powerhouses.  I can share with you the list of qualities that stood out. They-

-         worked at their own pace, setting their own goals; 

-        never break for lunch on the hour; take short work breaks.

-         never worried `what others will think’  ; live with no signposts

-         hardly had any airs about them; were simple to the core.

-         were self-effacing; gave credit to every team member. 

But like Jack and Suzy Welch say in Business Week, “businesses aren’t museums.  You have to wield the occasional velvet hammer upon this non-conformist lot. Businesses exist not to showcase creative output but to capitalize on it. For that to happen, something has to give. And that something is the typical creative person’s underlying notion that he’s a free agent.”  Left to themselves, their disruptive pursuits will lead to organizational anarchy.  While it calls for no heavy handedness, an occasional reminder of authority will help them drink the enterprise Kool-Aid. 

I figure the trick to control these freaks is in tethering them to the stake while they upstart.  It was Vivek Paul (Ex-Wipro, currently partner at TPG) that gave this anecdote and it went like this –

“The first [lesson] I learned in the jungles of Bangalore, at an elephant camp. When you visit such a camp you see these gigantic elephants tethered with a small stake. I asked the trainer: ‘Why do they stay tethered when they could so easily pull up the stake?’  He told me: ‘Well, the elephant is tethered as a small calf; when it tries to pull up the stake, it learns it can’t do it … and it never tries again.’ That’s an amazing parable about how we always tend to underestimate ourselves. The lesson for me is: Don’t let self limitations hold you back.”

The lesson can wait. While managing creative devils that love to buck the system,  learn the art of tethering the calves.  Before taking up the hot seat, figure out the form of creative leadership that’s called for.

.

What a week…

Had one helluva’ stress box for a week. Diligencing Indian companies with unbending UK consultants will give you anything but that (you have to understand and explain business processes on both sides – they come up with way too many why’s – before nodding in agreement).

First two days were hell. Then they acquiesced and unwounded as they realized things are just different, not so much to worry about. I asked them how they can do global business if they stay so stiff. They conceded it is much easier to do business anywhere but UK, where everything is questioned. They’ve become a victim of local context. So much so that almost half of the UK’s company directors and senior managers believe that even a plummy or posh upper-class accent is now a hindrance rather than a help when it comes to succeeding in business.  Earlier, in Britain, merely speaking with ‘the right accent’ was a prerequisite to rising in the business world.  They have now all but gone, although being an effective communicator is still paramount.

I was really surprised but then I could find some good reason. The rise of the UK’s self-made men and women, often from working-class backgrounds, such as BHS boss Philip Green or Ryan air’s Michael O’Leary, reflects the changing profile of the successful boss. These are people who aren’t afraid to speak their minds, and are proud to make a virtue of the fact that they have worked their way up from humble beginnings to positions of influence. In both cases though, they are better known for their forceful and charismatic personalities than for their class origins.

I might as well use this occasion to pay homage to Dame Anita Roddick, of Body Shop fame, pioneer of green capitalism and fair trade. By the time she sold the business last year to L’Oréal for £652m ($1.1 billion), of which she received £118m, Body Shop had 2,000 shops in 53 countries.  Farewell Anita, wherever you are…

The Duke of Wellington may have thought that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, but today’s business leaders of U.K were clearly educated elsewhere…

.

The celebrity CEO

. 

Blame it on scoop scarcity or dumb journalists. Business channels have a lot of weekend programs featuring many a mediocre CEO making “announcements” (and none claiming “execution”).  I’ve often racked my brains trying to figure out what makes this guy (for what he “will” do) newsworthy.  Some well wired spin doctor has clearly been at work. Watch it at your own risk.

I dug out this old article from Slate.com.  Excerpts -

The idea of the businessman as an outsized, even heroic, figure seemed like the legacy of a long-forgotten past when men like J.P. Morgan and William Randolph Hearst were still around. In fact, in 1982, Forbes magazine wrote, “Tycoons are fairly rare birds in today’s business world. We seldom hear of moguls.” Within just a few years, that had all changed, with business journalists turning every clever executive with a good idea into the next Henry Ford, and with the Rupert Murdochs, Sumner Redstones, and Donald Trumps of the world actively cultivating the “mogul” label.

Blackout the screens till we get our moguls…..

Schmooze your way in

I liked the opener in this K@W article on “Two minute schmooze” - coined by the COO of Lee Hecht Harrison, a globar career management firm – that stresses the importance of greeting the receptionist. It goes on to enquire whether ethical behavior can be legislated as opposed to compliance that could be mandated. Though long, it has some good anecdotes. I suggest you read it.

“A receptionist is a corporate concierge.  She talks to more customers, suppliers and even CEOs in a day than you will in a year” according to “Ray”, the COO.

My work involves calling on a lot of offices and schmoozing the receptionist comes naturally to me now.  For good reason ; (a) I get treated well and I am a priority next time (b) I get a headstart about the firm, its business and as my visits add up, I even get tipped when a competitor tries to break in  (c) My messages do get in and I do get called back as soon as people resume at their workstations. Cut the frills, isn’t it the natural reaction to the first face that smiles at you ? ….As simple as that ! 

What sort of people could loath it ?  What would you call the creep that fails to schmooze a smile ?  I get quite a few New Year greetings from companies where I couldn’t close deals or haven’t visited lately – but the bounce in their voices is unmistakable even as my memory fails to catch up with all of those I may have schmoozed.

It’s nice to know people do care. Perhaps it’s a fantastic way to start a year and believe me, I haven’t had a bad year because of that.

.

No templates please

As a freelance deal sourcer, I’ve encountered many species.  In some of the boutique investment banks to which I take my researched ideas, I often get a lukewarm, if not a cold response. On occasions I get facetime with the primary owner / investor, I get a more productive response that is often followed by instructions to the owner’s associates to probe it further and see if the deal is do-able.   

The associates clearly don’t like it.  I call these guys “stuffed shirts”.  They want the client to pin point an acquisition target, bring along a funding idea or even the choice of instrument so that these shirts can just fill in the template and engage a lawyer for due diligence and documentation.  Anything that calls for a little bit of proprietary research upfront - that gives a client an opportunity or even a dream that he has never had himself - is out of bounds for them. Did you say customer delight?  You must be mad. Why would they? They get paid by the end of the month anyway. 

That’s clearly not my style.  I left the job scene purely because of my zero tolerance to this habit of many a colleague.  When I tried to right a few wrongs, they scorned me for being pushy and ambitious.  Ambitious I am and always will be.  I was born with it.  Where it comes to exercising my choice between stuffed shirtism and street smartness, I cling to the latter.  I know it’s all about making early calls, doing thankless un-sponsored research, bare knuckles, debates and if you luck out, negotiations for the deals to get done.  

Life’s of course tough and revenue streams have significantly dried up compared to my day job life earlier.  But this is what I enjoy doing, my state of bliss.  Period….!

.

Go ahead…

Do you really need a website to start marketing your product / service ?

I never had this doubt because I hip shoot. I wait for nothing. If something has to be sold, I just go ahead and sell. This is a habit that I had learnt from the Stock Market. If you expect to buy / sell your stock at a certain price and if you waver on the moment it hits that price, often you’ll be left to grieve. This is even more risky since that grief would push you into a bad decision often.

What did we do before the web came? Didn’t we market ourselves without it ? I sure don’t think having a website is a prerequisite for getting clients.  Yesterday, I had a tough time convincing my client over it.  Has the universe really changed that much ?

I got my first few clients as a result of pre-existing personal connections. These clients are people I already knew, or the friends and colleagues of people I knew.  I never needed a web presence to land clients like these. I still put off composing my website because I am sure I can develop a much pointed site after having had the opportunity of broadbasing my clientele.  Real sales conversations give you insights, so you’ll know more about what works for you. If prospects need more information about you, use an e-mail or send a letter. Having a website is no guarantee for closing a sale. 

Rely on action instead.  It always works. 

.

Timing a risk

Good friend Ben Casnocha, has this thought provoking post on Risk and Entrepreneurship.

Ben Says -

“I think a misconception about business entrepreneurship is that it entails a tremendous amount of risk at the outset.

Particularly when I talk to folks from non-entrepreneurial cultures overseas, their stereotype of entrepreneurs is crazy people who bet the farm and max out their credit cards……”

To that, I had offered the comment below -

The best of entrepreneurs demonstrate an impeccable sense of `timing’ their risks than `assuming’ them. If you wait till you get the complete facts as are requried to make a decision, someone else would’ve eaten your lunch. And if you show haste, you’ll be done in by competition. It’s all about practised gut feel and succumbing to the intuitive epiphany.

What if Bill Gates had accepted IBM deal to buyout his OS. He declined the deal then (timing) but later chose to license it out…now that’s how Microsofts gets made - by timing the risk.

It could be a disaster if you bet the farm early on; but it’ll be a catastrophe if you don’t when you have to. 

Do you agree?

.

Using silence

I like smart people that always find ways to sell something without being pushy.  That tempts me to think of ways of doing some of it myself. I keep reading a lot on that and write some myself.  Sample my earlier pieces here. 

Recently I read a very insightful post by Jill Konrath on the topic of selling.  It’s a long post, but I would excerpt and edit the moot aspects for the sake of contextual brevity.

All managers would love to but struggle answering the question “What is the one single thing that you or your company could do in the upcoming 12 months that would dramatically impact your sales?”

It makes them stop and think, “Hmm. What would that one thing be? New offerings? More calls? Additional allocation to our marketing budget? Which would have the most impact?”

When they answer you’ll learn a whole lot about what’s going on in their organization, what the big challenges are, the decision maker’s perspective on the issues and solutions and so much more.

But they can’t think of all that in just two or three seconds.

They need much longer to ponder the question, to play around with it in their mind and to sort through their options.

In fact, research shows they need 8-10 seconds to formulate the start of their answer. And once they get talking, they think of more ideas.

If you’re like most sellers, silence drives you crazy. When you’re talking with a prospective customer and there’s a brief lull in the discussion, I bet you jump right in to fill it. When you cut them off at only 2-3 seconds, you lose in more ways than you can imagine.

• You don’t get the benefit of your good question. You never learn all the good stuff they could be telling you if you’d just kept your mouth shut a little longer.

• When you don’t learn all this info, it’s so much harder to sell anything because you don’t know how your offering can make the biggest difference to your customer.

• Besides that, your customer thinks that you’re self-serving and only interested in achieving your own objectives. (Isn’t that what you think when people keep cutting you off?)

• You don’t establish a positive relationship with the person, so they really don’t want to meet with you again.

And all this happens because you don’t know how to count beyond three.I think it’s a great insight.  The value of silence in selling is rarely talked about. Mostly people focus on what they’re going to say. 

Get Jill’s full post here.  Anyways tell me what do you think.

Getting them on board

When managements don’t let you get involved with something that you think you are capable of, but do let someone else deal with it who mucks it up, what would you do?  May be you will carry on for a while.  But if it persists, helplessness gets the better of you and some day soon you will quit in sheer disgust. This has happened with several talented people I know of, who have eventually found their moorings elsewhere and became rock stars.

If you were a hiring manager, who would you rather hire — someone who could deliver the results, or someone who had all of the skills? Having the skills and experience listed doesn’t mean the person can do the work or wants to do it.  If you want to hire superior people, first define superior performance.

Most managers know it’s not the skills and experiences that matter; it’s what the person does with their skills and experience. Lou Adler suggests the use of what he calls – a Performance profile, that provides a handle to identify this important difference.

Some great tips that I found in this post by Marc Andreesen, co-founder of Netscape communication division.  Excerpts -

“I define drive as self-motivation — people who will walk right through brick walls, on their own power, without having to be asked, to achieve whatever goal is in front of them.”

“Driven people don’t tend to stay long at places where they can’t succeed, and just because they haven’t succeeded in the wrong companies doesn’t mean they won’t succeed at your company — if they’re driven”.

“If a candidate has just followed the rules their whole lives, showed up for the right classes and the right tests and the right career opportunities without achieving something distinct and notable, relative to their starting point — then they probably aren’t driven”. And you’re not going to change them.  Motivating people who are fundamentally unmotivated is not easy.  But motivating people who are self-motivated is wind at your back.

“I also like specifically looking for someone who comes from some kind of challenging background — a difficult family situation, say, or someone who had to work his/her way through school — who is nevertheless on par with his/her more fortunate peers in skills and knowledge”. [This is my favorite too. These types have their back facing the wall and would do all it takes to deliver the results so that they can move ahead in life.]

Happy hiring !

Patenting se(x)nse

I was recently commissioned by a startup client engaged in biotech research to explore the possibility of patenting its new discovery.  As we were discussing it, I realized that its claim for innovation looked more incremental than generic. Though it’s not my business to argue with the subject matter experts, to highlight what occurs to me as an error apparent out of my not so short experience is indeed part of my job.

Currently, India allows patents [on derivatives] for incremental innovations in which the efficacy has significantly increased. But if one is making a tablet of a product and then develops a paediatric dosage by way of a serum, this is not innovation because any person skilled in chemistry knows how to make that. There is no invention or innovation on that and permitting this sort of patenting, would mean evergreening. Or take usage - a drug which was used for epilepsy was granted a [second] patent for obesity. Do we want such new uses to be patented?

On hearing this, the Research Head grew wild.  He started quoting recent examples of how liberal the US patent laws have been in granting patents even on minor variations.  Rather he started using this as one more tool to blame the favorite whipping boy - the Indian IP laws – the laxity of which allows widespread counterfeiting on almost everything from valuable formulations to movie CDs.

If it were, does it augur well for the Industry and Public health? Patents granted for such devices, for such “inventions”, would derail innovation and would be detrimental to the progress of science. Research labs would focus only on these low-hanging fruits, which are low risk and high reward. This is why we have section 3(d) of the Indian patent law on incremental innovation. If everyone can patent small changes, why would anyone go in for high-end research? There, the fruits are at the top, where risk is high and rewards are uncertain. If we want medical science to progress, that is what should be the bar.

We have seen the high prices of medicines, which are off-patent but still have a single source of supply. Patents will ensure that there is only a single source of supply and the pricing power remains concentrated. Not many would like to let go off that handle, don’t you agree ?

I was drawn to a facetious metaphor at this point which I thought aloud. Imagine if Vatsyayana, the author of Kama Sutra, lived during our times and had been allowed to patent his “inventions” (which are essentially techniques and creative postures that maximize pleasure in an orgy), you would be ending up paying Royalties to him each time you climax.  Worse if you don’t since you face a the prospect of having to prove it before a judge that you did `it’ differently !

I think that was the clincher. Sex not just sells, makes sense too. After some lengthy conference calls with my friend, a famous patent attorney that confirmed my observation, grudgingly they relented. While on my way back, I realized I had saved them quite a fat sum by way of attorney fees (should have dawned on them much later) when I was browsing thro the meeting docket in which there was an estimate of attorney fees. Hmmm…I’ve been foolish enough not to have factored in these tangibles while offering my quotes.  I resolved to be careful with my quotes in future !

Some good reading material on the subject here and here.