Total Pageviews

Sunday, December 13, 2009

How to Successfully Compete with the Big Dogs & Eat their Lunch

Like the kid who worries at bedtime about what's hiding in the closet, EOs and managers have a recurring nightmare in which they are confronted by the BIG dog, in the form of a well organized corporate competitor. In these horrifying visions, the better known, bigger and stronger "Big Dog" inevitably eats our lunch.

It's time to assign the scary and worrisome image of the Big Dog competitor to the same category of myths as the closet bogey monster. Oh, sure, they're out there, but the risk they present comes mostly from the energy we waste in worrying about them.

The fear the Big Dog inspires is real to the extent we allow it to be so. And in response to the scary presence of the big competitor we sometimes make poor decisions, stupidly positioning ourselves to forfeit the our own competitive

There are strategies to avoid getting crushed by large, well organized and resource rich competitors. The best advice is avoid direct competition. I'm not advocating surrender - just the opposite. To compete successfully pick your fights with the Big Dogs when it is to your advantage (and you have plenty of them), adopt a stealth mode in taking business away from them and compete hard where they are most vulnerable.

Know Yourself

All competition is about relative positions held in a many-dimensional marketplace. Whether you are big or small is not the key to understanding your market position… where you compete in terms of product, geography and level of services is. You need to know for sure where your organization is positioned in relation to those dimensions. Just as importantly you need to know the market spaces occupied by your competitors and the niche your clients perceive yours to be.

The aim is to occupy an unassailable position, closely identified with and connected to a steady client-base (by product/service type, geography and level of service). I know a very successful firm that dominates a peripheral urban market, specializing in good, not great, products. They make a ton of money, are known and respected by their clients and operate well below the radar of the local Big Dogs who cannot and do not want to compete in that market. Even if they did, the costs for a competitor to challenge the "little" dog would be prohibitive and marginally profitable.

Stealth Marketing

That's an unassailable market position and fortunes are to be made gaining a dominant niche in a well, precisely, defined market.

No competitor, except a monopoly, can dominate all the market space and even if they do, their coverage is unstable and vulnerable. Large organizations are always week on their borders and that's where you can slice off some of their marketshare. If you know and understand your competitor's market position, you know where their central unassailable strength lies. Stay away from the center and don't begrudge what they've worked hard to control. Look, instead, to the edges, where they are less equipped to meet client needs, quite likely to provide lower levels of service and less vigilant. Compete there.

Follow the lead of the Japanese auto industry. When they entered the US market in the early 1960s they sought the only position available… the lowest end, inexpensive, under-sized, utilitarian cars and trucks. Early Nissans and Toyotas were hardly luxury cars. For the next three decades the Japanese penetrated the market from the outside-in, using quality as a wedge on Detroit, slowly but surely slicing off higher priced brands… in the end becoming the Big Dog eating Detroit's lunch.

What's most interesting is that Detroit never saw it coming. Like the lobster slowly boiled alive in heating water, the American auto industry was so sure of its market dominance it overlooked, until it was too late, successful incursions from Japanese and Korean auto makers.

Exploit Your Competitor's Vulnerabilities

When it comes to competition, big is definitely not better. Big can mean slow to act (because decisions are made bureaucratically), hard to change (ruled by policy and procedures) and reluctant to offer customized service (their unit costs decrease with standardization). You can, however, respond in moments, you can adapt, you can customize.

There are other advantages on your side. Since many big competitors are nationally based, you always have the advantage of being local. You can exploit your local ties, knowledge and credibility as a competitive advantage.

Let their Big Dogs eat their lunch while you eat your own. When you compete, if you compete, pick do so where your clearly defined local market position (and knowledge), and adaptable style prevail.


 

For my Friends in Public Administration: Let’s Get Rid of the Public Meeting!

Having endured hundreds of hours of public meetings I can say, without the slightest equivocation, they are a waste of time. Not only do such meetings fail to provide the informative public input sought by policy-makers, too often they produce uncivil exhibits that demean public discourse.

The repeated broadcasts this summer of angry constituents confronting home-visiting Congress-members and Senators over health care reform should reassure no one. These were not displays of democracy at its best. We did not see a knowledgeable public illuminating an important policy debate. Instead we saw a system run amok, exploited by political interests.

I say it's time to get rid of the conventional public meeting and replace it with something that does a better job of guiding policy makers to better decisions.

It helps to realize there is nothing in our Constitution or history that requires public meetings. Yes, there have always been public forum all the way back to Greek and Roman city states, but they were never the open free-for-alls we see today.

Today's public meeting is a recent invention, a variant on the legislative public hearing, which emerged at the end of the 19th Century. It was a tenet of the Progressive movement that citizens had a broader role in the policy process than voting and paying taxes; the public meeting was seen as a way to tap this community wisdom.

What began as focused legislative inquiry turned into a method for assessing public opinion. That was a mistake. The finite time decision-makers had for thoughtful discussion was diluted to allow for public input. That noble enterprise turned into the political performance art we see today. Worse, over time, the public came to believe they were entitled to their time to testify in front of legislative bodies.

I am not suggesting public opinion and input aren't important in the promulgation of good public policy. I'm simply saying the current devices of the public hearing or town-hall session are not the best way to accomplish inform the policy process.

If the public meeting no longer works, what does? The best way to capture public sentiment in a useful fashion is to keep function ahead of form. The function of public input should be to gather information that helps make policy. What the public can share of real value are their opinions as to what would be good policy… period. Many forms can do that.

The public is not making the policy (that's why we have elected officials), they are informing policy. It's really a matter of collecting data on a policy issue in which the question is: what would good policy in this area look like?

Note: you are not asking them what the policy should be. And unless they are experts in the policy area, you shouldn't. The general public is rarely knowledgeable enough about policy issues to make specific recommendations. What they do know better than anyone else is what they want (or don't) a policy to accomplish.

They may not agree and that's actually good, because the diversity of opinions over policy outcomes frames the debate. Once the criteria for acceptable policy are set, a good policy-maker can go to work finding an option that meets the greatest number.

I admit this is a centrist approach. I confess to believe the best policy is found somewhere between the extremes. Too often today, however, policy makers only hear the most extreme positions expressed. The great in-between, where most reasonable policy positions lie, is never revealed.

I do know there is a way to conduct public meetings in a manner that uncovers an array of policy options from one end of the discussion to the other and all points in between.

A model that works is what I call "managed discourse." It has a particular intent, it operates by specific rules and it is managed by the policy-makers who need to hear the discussion.

For this to work, it's necessary to keep this point in mind, the meeting is for the policy-maker, it is not for the presenters. People presenting already know what they think and have a good idea what they would decide if they had the authority.

But they are not making the decision… the people who convened the meeting are. And this is the conveners' precious time to do research into what the people want.

Managed in this fashion, the public meeting aims to solicit positions from the extremes, but strongly encourages moderate, intermediate expectations to be shared. Indeed, for the purpose of the policy-maker there is no necessity that any one position be heard more than once.

The rule of proportionality, that opinion is heard in quantities equal to the percentage of people who hold them, need not apply here. A hearing is not a straw vote or plebiscite. It is designed to draw out ideas as to what would make for good policy… it just might be that a value held by a single citizen opens the door to consensus.

Of course, there are times when decision-makers may want to know how ideas or opinions are distributed quantitatively. The best tool to learn that is not the public meeting, it is a survey.

The other key to a successful managed public meeting is for policy-makers to pose specific questions to the public. Open ended commentary does nothing to educate the policy-maker or the public. It is the responsibility of policy-makers (or their staff) to frame the questions and to ask them.

I use a process that keeps public input focused… I call it the accordion technique. The session starts when, with the accordion closed, policy-makers ask a specific question of the public in attendance. It could be, something like: what benefits would you expect to come from a proposed change in policy?

The accordion opens wide. Much like a brain-storming session people are encouraged to get as many ideas out as they can. I want decision-makers to hear and understand the full range of responses the question prompts.

The accordion closes by synthesizing everything that's been heard, restating the public input into clusters of ideas, option or criteria. It's useful to have a facilitator do this, but however it's done, the idea is to bring the discussion to closure (or at least a resting point).

Being able to show the public that they have been heard is validates the citizens who have participated; being able to organize the "data" (their comments) into a sensible array sets the stage for meaningful policy debate.

For my Friends in the Association Management: a Solution to the “Value Proposition” Problem

Associations continually struggle with the issue of what is commonly referred to as the "value proposition. From coast to coast the story is the same: leadership believes members don't recognize or appreciate all their association does for them… they don't see the value gained from the dues they pay.

Actually it's there to be seen, but you need a special lens for value to become visible. In this sheet I'll show you how the use performance measurement to reveal to your members the value proposition of your association.

Performance measurement refers to the system of determining goal achievement and tying it to association efforts. So far, so good. Don't let the technical aspects of what follows derail you… performance indicators refer to the items that are measured as representative of the association's efforts and achievements.

There are three kinds of performance indicators:

OUTPUTS indicate the variable amount of effort, expenditure or use of resource an association puts into achieving a specific program goal.

OUTCOMES indicate the variable amount of results or goal achievement that come as a result of the amount of OUTPUT applied.

EFFICIENCY indicators allow the ratio between OUTPUTS and OUTCOMES to be assessed in terms of the unit cost of a given level of output to outcome. It's assumed that there is one optimal ratio.

Sounds pretty technical… and it can be, but a little commonsense can turn this jargon into straightforward managerial practice to highlight the value proposition.

It easy to get started if your association has a good mission statement: whether it already conforms to a straightforward DO:GET format, e.g. this is what we do and what we expect to get.

The DO and the GET conform directly to the OUTPUTS and OUTCOMES of performance indicators. And the quickest way to get a list of performance indicators is to break the mission statement into its various components (program evaluators call this "deconstruction."

Don't get hung up on numbers and statistics, yet. It's the logic that matters here. While, by definition, performance measurement requires quantification, that does not mean that distinctions about quality cannot be made. Indeed, making quality distinctions for outcomes lends itself readily to performance measurement. I'd prefer to express all performance as numbers, but sometimes qualitative distinctions of good and bad is the best I can do.

The idea of performance measurement is not to create the perfect set of indicators (that would be an ideal worth pursuing), the aim is to determine how well we are doing at a specific point of time and point to directions for improvement.

Referring to a point in time releases the power of performance measurement. Measurement has little utility unless it is taken in comparison with something else. Those comparisons are called bench-marking… a way of determining whether your association's performance is better or worse when compared to something else.

There are three useful points of comparison:

  • To yourself at some previous point in time.
  • To similar organizations.
  • To industry standards.


The first option is particularly useful because once measurement begins, the first assessment sets a baseline and over time it is used as a stable reference point from which to discern trends, even make forecasts.

Pushed a little further, it is possible to see whether budget allocations (spent dues dollars) produce anticipated results. That is the value proposition. Done properly performance measurement encourages viewing spent dues dollars as investments and levels of outcomes as ROI.

Pushed even further, good performance measurement can lead to performance based budgeting (PBB) a system by which leadership makes allocation decisions based on past performance. With PBB it is possible to "dial in" the exact level of service members want by adjusting allocations upward or down.

Pushed to its furthest extreme, an association could employ a "dashboard" with instruments that monitor real time performance along key dimensions.

The idea of the dashboard instrument panel may seem extreme, but a more modest approach, the association "report card," is a workable approach. Remember the report you got in elementary school? The teacher scored you on the topics relevant to grade school education in a way that communicated a lot to you, your parents and other teachers.

The same logic holds here. An association has a handful of really key performance indicators meaningful to members and leadership alike. Performance tracked on a quarterly or annual basis and noted on a report card, graded A through F (incompletes are allowed) can quickly show where the association stands. Put two reports back to back and you have a true bench-marking comparison.

The items to be reported should come from leadership and members. It's not difficult to pull together a couple of focus groups of regular members and ask them what they expect to see for their dues contribution.

The only tricky part in all of this is the actual process of measuring specific do:get pairs. As a social scientist, I can get pretty serious about issues of validity and reliability, cause and effect. When you get to this point you might want to get assistance from someone who understands the statistics of performance measures.

I do not, however, want to discourage you from starting, even though measurement may be qualitative and subjective. ANY form of measurement is preferable to none at all. Gaining consensus on what the report card items is a major step forward.

Here's an example. In June I worked with Rick Rielly and the Columbia-Greene Board of REALTORS® located in the beautiful Hudson Valley. These are the items they identified for their report card:

  • Education and Training (# courses provided, attendance, evaluation).
  • Quarterly meetings (# held, attendance)
  • Newsletters (# sent, response)
  • Financial Viability (revenues, perceived member value).
  • Engagement/participation of members.
  • Effective and efficient use of resources.
  • Community involvement.

This is a good start. As performance measurement its heavy on the do's, but there are outcomes specified. The selection of "perceived member value" is good.

The report card is an excellent management practice as well as helping explain to members the value proposition. It can point to areas that need improvement and demonstrate to members any increase in the value received from the investment of their dues dollars.


For my Commercial Real Estate Friends: More on Eating the Big Dog’s Lunch

The lead article on competition is an expanded version of a presentation I made to the IREM-CCIM Success Series in October. In this sheet I want to expand on the topic and speak directly to the commercial real estate profession.

Along with the points I made previously (know when and where to compete, adopt a stealth mode and hit them where they're vulnerable) there are seven things you can do to win against the large, well-organized, corporate competitor.

I asked a number of my friends to share their best strategies.

Know and solidify your market position.

As Patricia Lynn, of Lynn + Associates in San Francisco advised, "It's really a question of knowing how you best fit your clients. You have a unique set of skills and a deep, but boundaried knowledge of your market. You could, in theory, help any client, but in fact, there is a set whose unique needs are well fit to your unique talents". Ross Ford, the CEO of TCN Worldwide in Plano, adds: "Don't waste time pursuing business better served by your "big" competitor."
A point that Charlie King of King Industrial Realty in Atlanta reinforces: "We stay focused… and our focus is industrial real estate." Brian French of Realciprocity in Toronto adds: "Show absolute confidence in how assignments will be done."

Compete by slicing off the edge of their market position.

I think Scott Revolinski of RFP Commercial in Milwaukee has the right idea, "I go up against [one of the Big Dogs] all the time and my line is: if you want to list it use them; if you want to sell it use me. Then I promptly show them several similar projects they've listed but never sold. It's very easy since they email available properties every week. I just collect them and save them in a file."

Pick your fights

Josh Levering in Parsippany (NAI Hanson) says, "Know your competition intimately and know when (and how) to walk away… say no." Jeremy Larkin of NAI Miami contends, "Avoid trophy properties for sale. Target small value properties… fewer competitors. Even fewer qualified competitors. Higher commission rates." In Dallas at Transwestern, Sanders Thompson says, "Don't compete in their game; fly under their radar."
Or as Bill Almon of Almon Commercial Realty in Yakima says,
"Know when to say 'that's outside our area of competence.' "

Exploit your advantages, their disadvantages

Owen Rouse of Manekin in Baltimore advises, "People hire national firms out of fear – fear that something will be missed… that will result in a negative event to the client. Sell against that fear." And Steve Blau at NAI Mertz in southern New Jersey expands on the idea: "The big boys are hamstrung by legacy systems… and cannot quickly adopt emerging technologies." Hans Hansson in San Francisco (Starboard TCN) is clear on this point: "Very simple. We can make quick decisions that our larger competitors cannot." In Chicago, NAI Hiffman's Dave Petersen adds, "We have no distractions. We have no unwieldy corporate structure to define business practice and process." David Zimmer of Zimmer Real Estate Services in Kansas City says, "We are the fabric of our community."

Supplement your size

Real little dogs turn sideways to look bigger when they meet a bigger one. Ross Ford of FM Stone in Elkhart understands, "We are the "big dogs" in our own market… most brokers, most listings, most SIORs and CCIMs." Dean Cotlow of Tucson's Cotlow Company agrees, "You must appear larger than life. Work on branding. It must be consistent and absolutely first class." From Toronto, at NAI Ashler, Howard Meier adds, "Act like the big ones. When we attend a broker's function, we attend in mass; we seem bigger than we are."

Establish your brand with superior, customized service

John Frager in San Diego at GrubbEllis BRE counsels: "You have to invest in your own brand… and have a well thought out marketing plan with consistent advertising and aggressive PR." Rick Kimball of GVA Worldwide in Boston suggests: "it can be harder for a smaller firm to build a relationship at the highest corporate level, especially when that person is not local. However, chasing down local or regional relationships can be just as valuable." Jeremy Larkin adds: "Out work them. Out service them. Be available 24/7. Respond quicker with more knowledge." From NAI MLG in Milwaukee, John Henderson says: " I make sure the client knows they are dealing with the people who will do the work, not someone brought in to get the business."

Adopt better tools, faster

Robin Zellers at NAI CIR in Harrisburg makes it clear: "We arm our professionals with every available tool to conduct business in an efficiently professional manner. We will not accept the notion that the big boys have better resources."

Great counsel from some of the classiest dogs in the business.

See the PowerPoint slides for this at:
www.pnwconsult.com/iremccim2.pdf


PROFILES IN LEADERSHIP: Jeff Lyon

We have worked together for so many years I tend to take his exceptional leadership skills for granted. So, this notice is long overdue. I met Jeff, a commercial realtor in Tacoma 20 years ago. He was just beginning his term as President of the Washington (State Association of) REALTORS®. He told me he wanted to get a lot done in his year and he wanted to team up with me, WAR's strategic planner, to streamline the association's operations. He did it, too.

That was just the first of many experiences I've had watching Jeff take on a challenge to leave a distinctive mark for the better. I learned what a force for change Jeff could be and, years later, can cite many times when Jeff's leadership made significant changes for his firm, his industry and his community.

Jeff is chairman and CEO of Kidder, Mathews in Seattle, active on the Board of GVA Worldwide, a CCIM instructor, an SIOR and a resource to his state and community. Although he would deny it, he's still an accomplished golfer.

What impresses me as much today as it did years ago is Jeff's bold vision and willingness to act on it. He has the foresight and courage to push organizations to unprecedented levels of performance and has never been one to settle for good. He demands of excellence, first in himself, then others.

Jeff's creative innovations and commitment to see others succeed, make Kidder, Mathews an industry leader.

The Strategic Gourmand: A Cheery Holiday Milk Punch

Please, pass up the grocery store egg nog and mix up a real holiday drink. This one has become such a family tradition in our household that we don't wait for holidays… it's great any time and always a treat at breakfast.


 

Remember, as with any great drink, presentation is as important as preparation.


 

  1. The day before: mix up a batch of simple syrup (for enough to fill a pitcher (10 drinks) you'll need 2 cups of sugar and one cup of water. Mix them and bring it to a boil for five minutes. Pour into a container, chill down overnight).
  2. Chill a large glass pitcher.
  3. Into the pitcher add:


 

1¼ cups Bourbon (I prefer a smoother blend like Maker's Mark)


 

2/3
cup Simple Syrup


 

¼ cup. Vanilla extract


 

5 Cups Half and Half


 

Stir gently, but make sure everything is well blended.

  1. Pour into high balls glasses, add several ice cubes, add a shake of nutmeg.


 

The drink is potent and it can sneak up on you if you're not careful. Of course, don't try driving, operating heavy equipment or even wrapping Christmas presents after two of these.


 

Happy Holidays!

You Have to Read This:

This book taught me to travel: Paul Theroux, The Great Railway Bazaar.

Published in 1975, his account of traveling by himself by trains roundtrip from London to Tokyo provides as many lessons about dealing with life's challenges as it does with travel. He taught me to look at things for myself, to distrust guides (written or human) and to arrive at your own conclusions. Theroux can be judgmental, even innocently ethno-centric at times, but he trusts his eyes and accepts what he meets on his own well reasoned terms. There is a recently published (2005) companion-piece, Ghost Train to the Eastern Star, in which he retraces his '75 bazaar. His keen observations are presented in lean, incisive prose that's satisfying to read and conducive to personal reflection.

Duke’s Rule #19: Data inform decisions; leaders make decisions.

There are systems that can be managed directly by changes in data without human intervention, but even my thermostat needs a tweak by me occasionally. Data are great for what they tell us, but people need to superimpose their values and judgment to add meaning to numbers. That's the hard part; and that is leadership, especially when data come at us from different directions suggesting the need for contradictory actions. We need data to inform decisions, but we need good human judgment to make them. (Thanks to Shannon Richards for stimulating me to think about this new rule.)


 

The Facilitator’s Toolbox: Making Order out of Chaos

Decision making is a messy process. What looks (always after the fact) like a logical stepwise procession from problem identification to solution is usually a series of explorative forays. Indeed, in the course of trying to solve most problems, it's likely you'll reach a point where the process is so overloaded with information
that conditions resemble the chaos of Thanksgiving morning.


 

You know what it looks like: a thawing turkey, raw cranberries, potatoes and yams and a bunch of vegetables, bread crumbs and hard-boiled eggs… no indication of the feast to come and plenty of evidence to predict a last-minute Chinese dinner later in the day. Somehow it always comes together, because as anarchical as it seems, there is an underlying order to cooking that leads to a successful meal. You realize, after a few years, to trust the process.


 

And that's the lesson to be learned about decision-making. There is an inherent process and once you understand, trust and follow it, the chaos of crisis and the mid-air uneasiness of not having a solution disappear and order prevails.


 

What's the process? In keeping with our metaphor, it's as simple as cooking Thanksgiving dinner. First, gather and prepare all the ingredients… for problem solving this means to collect all the necessary data.


 

Second, follow the recipe, assembling each dish with its proper ingredients. In decision-making this means to organize the data… convert it into information that will "inform" your decision.


 

Third, keep in mind what you are preparing. Good cookbooks offer up more than recipes, they give you an idea of what a dish will look like and how it will taste. For problem solving it's important to have a vision of what you are trying to solve and what represents an acceptable solution (or resolution, which may be a very different thing). Solving a problem is not just about making a decision, it is about changing conditions from problematic to "non-problematic."


 

Finally, taste it before you serve it. Try out proposed solutions. Small prototypes, even simple models, point up how a good solution can become a better one.


 

The trick is to stay organized and trust the process.

Looking Forward to the NEW Year!

The best thing most of us can say about 2009 is that we survived… and that's a pretty strategic achievement all by itself. I've never a published at the end of the year, so whatever you chose to celebrate, from Christmas to Kwanzaa, Chanukah to the Winter Solstice, accept this newsletter as my gift to all of you with best wishes for a prosperous, healthy and happy new year.


 

Duke Kuehn

December 11, 2009

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Strategic versus Tactics: Keep the Order Straight

Words are important to me; I hold them in reverence. Having started as a journalist I learned early to write with economy. Choosing the right word when you are on deadline and have limited space is good basic journalism. We're talking parsimony.

It frustrates me when I see a good word diminished through overuse and/or misuse. And two of my favorite words, strategic (and its cousin strategy) are losing their true meaning as politicians, newscasters and even bloggers appropriate them to mean something else.

I'm afraid the term strategic has become a trendy word used to add gloss to otherwise mundane things. The abusers apparently think a noun gains importance when preceded by the adjective, strategic. In their thinking a plan is just a plan, but a "strategic" plan… well that's something special.

As a strategic planner, I would agree a strategic plan is very special, but not just because we slap a fancy label in front of one or another kinds of plans.

I want to recapture the simple, but correct meaning of the word because, used appropriately, the term strategic is plenty powerful. Those who commit the sin of making the term strategic mean too many things rob us of real value of the word and the process it implies.

Strategy refers to the process of determining the position you want to be in the future. It is always a better position than the one presently occupied. The term has roots in military science and is best understood alongside a similarly misunderstood term, tactics. Tactics are the things you do to achieve your overall strategy. A good example: the Allied strategy in June, 1944 was to put pressure on the German axis by adding a western front through the tactic of invading France through Normandy.

The difference between strategy and tactics is easily seen in business and foreign policy. Coke wanted to strategically hold the dominant marketshare, so it tactically launched New Coke (and when that backfired, just as quickly adopted the tactic of retreat. Hey, there's no guarantee that the strategy is correct or that the tactics will succeed. That's why developing a good plan demands attention to both setting the "right" strategy and finding effective tactics).

One more example, close to our daily lives: the US aims to protect strategically its economic interest in the Middle East while assuring the survival of Israel; how the American government addresses a nuclear threat in Iran is all tactics.

The precise meaning of these terms affects your strategic plan. In most cases, the overall strategy adopted by businesses and associations is derived from its vision: the idealized statement of the position its leadership wants the organization to occupy in the future. What follows in goals, objectives and action plans are tactical choices of what needs to be done to gain the desired position.

I my mind, for something to be strategic it must meet one of three criteria:

  1. Left unaddressed, the issue threatens the ability of the organization to meet is mission (that is, to continue to occupy a position of any advantage).
  2. Presents the possibility for unprecedentedly high levels of performance in pursuit of the organization's mission or fulfillment of its vision..
  3. Represents a response to a future opportunity (or threat) to accomplish the organization's vision.

All the stuff necessary to keep turning the crank to achieve the mission is still important, but it is usually not strategic and is rightfully addressed in a business plan.

My advice, a kind of corollary to a Duke's Rule (make it 34b): don't confuse strategy with tactics; reserve for strategic those things most likely to shape the future welfare of the organization.

-30-

Friday, June 5, 2009

Welcome to New Visitors



If this is your first visit to my blog here are a few tips to make it useful.

1. I update the blog frequently and try to keep a running commentary on a few topics of interest to me: strategic planning, leadership and performance evaluation. My target audience is CEOs or those aspiring to executive leadership in business, associations and government. Be sure to consult the directory of previous posts to see the topical threads I'm running.

2. Every so often, I gather up the content of my posts and put it together as a news letter called, "Notes from Duke's Casebook." Back editions for the last six years can be downloaded from my website www.pnwconsult.com/page6.html


3. There are a lot of useful background materials in the form of papers I've written, presentations I've given and examples of work also to be found at the website. If you want more about me, Pacific Northwest Consulting Services and the work I've done as a consultant, teacher and scholar check out the main page of my website http://www.pnwconsult.com/


Have a great time poking around here and, please, feel free to add your comments. I hope to inspire some new thinking on old topics.


Duke

Friday, May 29, 2009

The Strategic Gourmand: A Tasty Summer Drink from Across the Pond

When you live in the Pacific Northwest you come to appreciate the summer and the sunny days and long evenings. The maddening damp from late October to mid-April is made tolerable by nearly 18 hours of daylight in summer.

The Brits understand this. That’s why the coming of summer is met with a wonderful drink, the Pimm’s Cup. Altogether unknown in the US (as it the liqueur that fuels it) this is a beverage that will make any summer day just a little sunnier.

Pimm’s is the trademark for a spirit (specifically Pimm’s No. 1 Cup, even though it’s in a bottle) that as best I can figure it out is a spiced brandied gin. By itself it’s a nice aperitif. In the cup, mixed with ginger ale it is a snappy base for the cocktail.

It’s a staple in London pubs and throughout southern England in the summer, think of it as England’s marguerita. It’s easy to mix, easy to drink and it will put you on your behind if you don’t watch out… Pimms is 25% alcohol by volume.

Take a tall glass, fill with ice-cubes. Pour about a 1/3 of a glass Pimms and fill the rest with lemonade or ginger ale. The garnish is important here… lemon and a long stalk of celery are preferred. The adventurous might go for a carrot or asparagus I guess, but the celery adds a clean taste to clear your palate for the next one.

Pimms, by the way, makes an interesting mix with gin. One way or another, drink enough Pimms and you’ll need you sunglasses.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Things I Wish I’d Said and Why

I Wish I’d Said This:

In Carol De Giere’s biography of composer and lyricist, Stephen Schwartz (Godspell, Wicked) on getting started: I tend to follow the “path of least resistance,” rather than trying to write sequentially. When starting the score for a show, I tend to start with the song that seems easiest to me, the one that comes most naturally. Often, it’s trying to get at the emotional or philosophical center of the story… but not always. It’s most important just to open the door and step into the show somewhere. (Defying Gravity, p. 299)

Why?

Schwartz captures an important principle here, planning is hard enough without having to make it harder by taking on the toughest pieces first. What he expresses is a keen sense of priority. Something’s have to be done right away. They are so critical to the organization’s sustained fulfillment of its mission there is no choice. Most of us can figure that one out as priority number one. What next? Finding the “dunk shots,” or “low hanging fruit,” is smart strategic planning. Just getting started is reassuring; getting quick results is motivating (and the perfect antidote to skepticism and cynicism). I look at the easy ones as portals, their early achievement opens the door to getting started on other objectives.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The Facilitator’s Toolbox: An Effective Approach for Solving Problems in Groups

This is a quick and efficient tecnique I use to help groups work through problems. I must have learned it somewhere, but I don’t know where. I call it the accordion technique because it starts “closed,” opens up fully and then comes to a complete close.

Here’s a step-by-step guide to how to do it.
First, clearly define the problem. Be clear about what you are trying to solve. Make sure that everyone agrees and understands what the issue is.
Second, identify the conditions that would not make it a problem. Yes, it’s counter-intuitive, but identify what it is you want as an outcome. Use the desired outcomes to identify criteria for a satisfactory outcome.

Third, consider multiple options. Not just one, at least three: do nothing (that’s always an option), resolution (mediation) and total solution (cure). This is the fully open accordion.

Fourth, compare the options with the criteria, determine the option that best fits. At this stage it is often wise to modify options to fit criteria or to prioritize or add weights to criteria.

Fifth, close the accordion, select the desired modified option, identify strategies for implementation.

The key to making this technique work is in the beginning, making sure there is a clear understanding of what needs to be solved and in the middle, when an array of options needs to be considered. Watch out, groups lose energy the minute any option is identified. Don’t let them stop there; consider multiple options for the best decisions.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Getting More out of Strategic Planning Part 4 (Final Installment)

Along with the unexpected consequences of improved leadership and management, simply doing strategic planning tends to boost employee commitment (and in associations, member involvement). This beneficial outcome occurs because of two things: the manner in which employees and members are engaged in the planning process and from the focus the plan brings to everyday operations.

A correctly facilitated strategic planning process should use a team that engages the whole of an organization, not just executive and board leadership. Not only is the perspective from on the ground needed, involving the folks who will do much of the plan’s implementation assures it actually gets done and with buy-in. As referenced in my last post, it’s easier to get buy-in before the fact than to sell an idea after the fact. I’ve seen disasters averted and shortcuts discovered because an employee or member well down in the hierarchy, by part of the planning team, could see what was going to happen.

Planning provides a focus that make most people’s work easier… often linking apparently disparate acts into a whole unified by the organization’s mission. People want to feel part of something and the clear mission and compelling vision spelled out in the strategic plan creates the foundation for a community.
To see the Powerpoint presentation I used at NAR follow this link: http://pnwconsult.com/NAR DC 2009 VO.pptx or http://pnwconsult.com/NAR Midyear 2009.ppt

Friday, May 22, 2009

Duke’s Rule #13: It’s Easier to Get Buy-In Before than to Sell it Afterwards.

This is one of the most commonly violated management rules in the book. In the isolation of their office, managers dream up all sorts of ideas which get shared in a memo found in everyone’s mail slot the next morning. Grumbling follows, mistakes get made in implementation and after considerable misgivings, discomfort and passive aggressive comments the manager starts the process of getting influential employees to support the new idea.

All this could be avoided by following the codicil of this rule: if you are going to ask people to do something, find out beforehand what they think of the idea. Many times you’ll learn of an obstacle that needs to be addressed. Even if you encounter resistance you’ll be a step ahead in trying to dissolve it. And by sharing your ideas with others beforehand you’ll get their enthusiastic support later on.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Getting the Most out of Strategic Planning, Part 3

Along with the benefits of better leadership strategic planning’s need for a clear mission and performance measures has a direct, positive, impact on the management of organizations. The focus provided by a strategic plan comes from the clarity found in the organization’s mission… not some flowery, Dilbertesque string of platitudes and bureaujargon, but a simple declarative sentence of what the organization must do and must get for those efforts. It’s no accident that most strategic planning facilitators begin by writing a mission statement, because everything in an organization begins and ends there.

Having worked through dozens of such statements, and sharing the frustration that participants do at the constant word-smithing and hair-splitting consistent with the exercise, I discovered folks were making it too hard. And in the process robbing their organizations of the focus a good mission should provide. I spent some time analyzing mission statements and came to the conclusion that the best ones were nothing more than do-get declarations. I have often cited, although I’ve never found it written anywhere, a mission attributed to Alfred P. Sloan when he became President of General Motors in 1923. Supposedly surveying the diversified GM empire he said, “We bend metal for profit.”

Pretty straightforward stuff: noun, verb, object. The beauty of such clear thinking is that it leads to clear action so that anyone at GM, CEO to the person sweeping out the factory after the shift, gets it: his or her job is to make that mission happen. It worked so well GM was, until recently, the model of the superiorly managed corporation. I know your’re curious. GM’s contemporary mission statement:

G.M. is a multinational corporation engaged in socially responsible operations, worldwide. It is dedicated to provide products and services of such quality that our customers will receive superior value while our employees and business partners will share in our success and our stock-holders will receive a sustained superior return on their investment."

The current mission seems accurate and detailed next to Sloan's, but it lacks a more important property: clarity. Sloan's is a rallying point, what I like to call the "north star" of the organization, a point of reference that instantaneously tells everyone who you are and what you are about. This allows, as Tom Peters once put it, for folks to "stick to the knitting."

A well done mission statement doesn’t have to be as linear as Sloan’s I like the one I did for General Parts, Inc. a few years ago: we distribute and sell auto parts for the benefit of the customer, our employees and our shareholders. Same idea.
Conceived of in this manner, the mission statement lays the foundation for the powerful management device of performance measurement. As a simple proclamation of what an organizations does and what is expected from those efforts the mission provides what, using the technical language of performance measurement, is needed to determine whether efforts produce results, definitions of both outputs and outcomes.

For many organizations this is a huge step forward and a signal effort towards holding an organization accountable… not for just what it does, but for what it achieves. Such thinking leads quickly to the idea of an organizational report card or, as Kaplan and Norton put it, a balanced scorecard. To their thinking any organization really has four bottom lines to attend to: financial outcomes, customer satisfaction, organizational capacity (internal business practices) and the adequacy of its knowledge base (this latter equating with organizational intelligence).

An organization that can measure, monitor and manage itself with these four general performance standards in mind is going to be strong… rooted in its commitment to meet customer needs, cognizant of financial imperatives for sustainability and profit, aware of a need to grow, improve and to learn.
The unfortunate thing is the development of performance measures is often skipped in the strategic planning process. Identifying them is difficult and, for the uninitiated, time-consuming especially when there are a lot of other things to do. Over-looking this step, however, compromises the plan and assures confusion as to where an organization is going and whether it ever gets there. The sad truth is that most CEOs have cars in the corporate parking lot with more instruments on the dashboard than they have performance measures in the board room.

Once measures are identified it is possible to track organizational performance over time. The first year of measurement establishes a baseline against which every succeeding year can be compared. Similarly, performance can be benchmarked against other organizations. These are effective ways of determining whether goals are being achieved as well as allowing for analyses of “gaps” to set future performance goals.

The fundamental impact of the introduction of performance measurement as a management tool is to shift the organization’s analysis and thinking from opinion and myth to data and fact. While care needs to be taken to assure the validity of these measurements and their application, their use to inform management decisions can be transformative.
To see the Powerpoint presentation I used at NAR follow these links: http://pnwconsult.com/NAR DC 2009 VO.pptx or http://pnwconsult.com/NAR Midyear 2009.ppt



-30-

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

You Can Look it Up: Some Thoughts on Baseball

There's just no way I can talk over any period of time and not get around to baseball. It has been a passion since I was 8 and today still represents a major interest… all of it, the game, the history, the statistics, the physical activity. Tom Boswell used to speak of the "flash of the green," that first glimpse of the field seen as you enter a stadium tunnel: so full of promise, so inviting. Baseball has been a pastime, both active and passive, and a metaphor for a lot of things in my life. Not a day passes, at least from the start of spring training in February to World Series' final out, that doesn't find me thinking about it.

I grew up a Dodger fan. They abandoned Brooklyn but liberated southern California when I was in the 8th grade. Somehow I'd already become addicted to the game, following from the west coast the exploits of the Cincinnati Reds and my hero Ted Kluszewski starting a couple of years earlier. The arrival of the Dodgers three years later was truly a dream come true.

June 28, 1959 (exactly 14 years to the day my son Matt was born) marks the moment of the first major league baseball game I'd ever seen. By then, an aging Big Klu had been traded to the Pittsburgh Pirates. Although he didn't play that day (another poor managerial decision by skipper Danny Murtaugh) I did see him hit a ball out during BP. I failed to get his autograph after the game; he rebuffed me with a "get away, kid" and boarded the team bus. He wore a shiny green silk suit and clamped the biggest cigar I have ever seen in his mouth. My mother never forgave him, but he remained a God in my mind.


Later, now residing in the Pacific Northwest, my allegiance… suffering allegiance I should say… shifted to the Seattle Mariners. The one-year wonder Pilots preceded them and I may belong to a very small club of people who have attended every opening day of major league baseball in Seattle, starting with the Pilots in 1969, then picking up again with the Ms in 1977. Sicks Stadium to the Kingdome to Safeco… with a few notable exceptions I've seen a lot of mediocre baseball.

If I'm not mistaken, the Mariners are the oldest franchise to never make a World Series appearance and several that came into existence with or after them have: Toronto, Florida and, most recently, Tampa. Perhaps not as long-suffering as the Red Sox fans were or the Cub fans are, but still pretty sufferable. But like all dedicated Mariner followers, I'll always have 1995 and 2001… soooo close.

Today the Ms are still in recovery. The loss of Lou Pinella as manager and the unproductive reign of Bill Bavasi as General Manager brought us to where we are today: a slightly less than .500 club. Don Wakamatsu, the new manager and the new GM Jack Zduriencik have made some good moves, but the years of neglect have dulled the need to win and the failed the instill the hatred of loss that propelled the Pinella teams.

As much as I find little to support my dreams in this current Mariner teams, unlike many, I'm not in despair about the game in general. The discovery of widespread use of steroids over the last 20 years certainly taints the records and character of many of the players. But I never held baseball players on a particularly high moral pedestal anyway… at least not after being shoved aside by Kluszewski.

Baseball players were among the first professional athletes, an accomplishment regretted by many purists at the time when amateur athletics was looked at as a virtue. No one under the age of 50 can remember what a non-commercialized and subsidized Olympics looked like, but there was really a time when we glorified those who competed for the love of the game. Baseball players were already tainted when the game became an industry in the late 19th century. They were money-grubbing, hard-drinking, tobacco-spitting, rough and tumble players. The Black Sox scandal on 1919 was an unsurprising result of many seasons of dirty baseball and marginal on-the-field ethics. It was, is and probably always will be a game of cheaters.


Today we look at the exploits of Ty Cobb or the excesses of Babe Ruth as though they are examples of a by-gone, gladly departed age. Nope. A-rod and Clemens are born of the same lineage and they and many of their peers will do just about anything to win. While Alex Rodriguez closes in on Aaron's all time home-run record (the pursuit abandoned by Barry Bonds as he struggles with his own performance-enhanced shame) I have to be fair. I have a pretty good idea what chemical fueled his taters. I have a suspicion Babe Ruth had his own enhancers and maybe even the mythical Aaron did, too. Maybe Babe's beer and hot dogs, while legal, kept him loose enough to hit them out of the intentionally designed short porch of right field in Yankee Stadium. As honorable as Aaron is, I can't believe that he didn't make use of the pharmacy of pain-killers and cortisone discovered and freely prescribed in the 1950s and 60s, which while legal, helped him keep playing until he was 42.

What the 19th century purists detested about professional sports has pretty much come to pass. They could never have imagined the greed, addiction, cheating and debauchery that came with a paycheck, but they had an idea that sport itself would be transformed in some undesirable way.


I'm not turning a blind eye here. I never attached heroic status to the players and owners. But the sheer beauty of the game, the brilliance of skill required to play it and the inherent drama of two evenly matched players, pitcher and batter, is as compelling to me today as it was to me as a kid.

I was reminded of this last night. My 7-year old grand-daughter Larkin is playing her first season of baseball. Yesterday was team photo night for the Fircrest Giants. She's got a good hitting eye and is a real ball hawk. She's getting the game inside of her. The real game. She has no idea who A-rod is and couldn't care less.

While the kids were playing catch and running around I heard the unmistakable sound any baseball fan loves: solid contact of a bat on ball. I looked over. A local beer league softball team was practicing and the guy at the plate had power. He was really ripping ball. Long looping fly balls and screaming line drives. There was no sophistication in his hitting at all. He was strong with good reflexes… a righty - everything he hit was pulled to left field. His cut-off sleeves brought by memories of Klu.

And oh how that ball rose in the twilight. It looked like it would go on forever.


-30-

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Taking Strategic Planning to the Next Level, Part 2

In my comments to the folks attending the National Association of REALTORS(r) Midyear Conference last Friday, I tried to elevate thinking about strategic planning. I wanted to get beyond the usual recitations of the cookbook techniques (or to my credit, I think) a pitch for my services. My aim was to shed light on some of the more nuanced benefits that come from planning.

The first “unexpected outcome” I talked about was the impact the planning process has on the continuity and consistency of leadership. This issue is of particularly relevance to associations, most of which have a unique governance structure not found in business or government. The leadership of associations is generally based on a partnership between an elected President who, as a member, volunteers to serve and a professional association executive who is hired to manage.

It is most common for the elected leadership to change annually, although most REALTOR® associations ask a three year commitment as the elected leader “works through the chairs", first vice president, president-elect to president. Associations execs (AEs or EOs) continue in their roles as long as the association board allows.

There is a kind of majesty and lunacy to this model. Elected leadership changes frequently, guaranteeing fresh ideas and a sense of urgency to the roles… strong associations are good examples of representative democracy. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the constant turn-over in leadership can results in a series of disconnected and unrelated presidential initiatives… at worst, flights of ego-driven fancy reminiscent of Roman emperors.

In most cases what presidents want to achieve in their year of leadership is consistent with what the association is trying to accomplish in the long run. But more often than I would like, well-intentioned presidential goals distract from the strategic plan or, occasionally, actually subvert the association’s long term goals.

AEs walk a narrow tightrope trying to strike just the right balance between honoring this year’s presidential passion with the on-going strategic initiatives. A well done strategic planning process can do much to generate consistency and continuity in the tumultuous world of association governance.

The idea is pretty simple: use the plan to channel presidential interest. If the plan focuses on a sustained effort to involve new members, wed the incoming President’s interest in education to an objective to start a new or revised member orientation program. Plan focuses on cutting costs? Tap the new President’s passion for the affiliate members to look at ways to develop strategic financial alliances. If the plan focuses on improving the profession’s public image, use the President’s interest in getting a foundation started is a perfect way to link those two ideas.

Done correctly, annual Presidential initiatives flow into and reinforce the association’s three year plan. Even better, leadership teams have an ability to support and advance each others annual agenda long after a President is out of office.
If the association is organized along a set of progressive chairs – usually First VP, President-Elect, President and Past President – it is possible to create a span of seven years. It works like this: assume the current President started as First VP in 2006. In the system I describe in 2006 she would have been introduced to the initiative promoted by the Past President three years earlier in 2003. By the time she becomes Past President in 2010, she’ll get to know the 2010 First VP who will pursue his Presidential agenda in 2012. Sorry for the numbing numbers, but add it up… there is a direct link between 2003 and 2102.

The key here is to honor both the passion of the association President with the focus of the association plan. It can be done with results that reinforce and supplement the strategic plan.

To see the Powerpoint presentation I used at NAR follow this link: http://pnwconsult.com/NAR DC 2009 VO.pptx or http://pnwconsult.com/NAR Midyear 2009.ppt

-30-

Monday, May 18, 2009

A Belated Valentine to REALTORS(r)

Of the many conventions and meetings I attend each year, I especially enjoy the National Association of REALTORS® Midyear gathering in Washington DC each May. It is smaller than their annual meeting and the focus on leadership, policy and legislative issues adds a degree of political brio lacking at most professional convocations.

It is for me a reunion. Working with REALTOR® associations across the nation, the Midyear Conference brings me into contact with friends and clients I haven’t seen for awhile. It is an undeniable truth that real estate professionals are among the most gregarious and hospitable folks you’ll ever meet and these sessions are productive, informative and fun.

An amazing unpredictable quirk of fate brought me into the multi-dimensioned REALTOR® world… a chance event, totally beyond my knowledge or control 22 years ago truly changed my life. I had started a few years before a consulting business as a supplement to my life as a professor of sociology at a small liberal arts college. I was getting my practice on the ground. Operating in a state capitol my initial clients were mostly state agencies, boards and commissions.

I could have never predicted that Marilyn Watson, the wife of the director of the Washington State Energy office would be lunching with her close friend, the political affairs directors of the Washington Association of REALTOR®. She mentioned to Marilyn an organizational problem vexing WAR and Marilyn, to her never-ending credit and my enduring appreciation, uttered twelve momentous words: “You should talk to the guy who is working with my husband.” Later that day, just as we were leaving to attend our son’s graduation from middle school, WAR’s EO Steve Hyer called. And nothing has been the same since,

As much as I've pondered this fortuitous shift in fate, I've puzzled even more over the great compatibility I share with my REALTOR® friends. I feel it viscerally. I can walk into a room of complete strangers and, if they’re REALTORS®, feel instantly at home. Did I in some prior life sell houses or cut deals for office buildings? I don’t know, but I do know that of the dozens of professionals I've worked with from engineers and museum curators to foresters and legislators there is none better, for me, than REALTORS® (okay, maybe appraisers).

In my years of work with them I've come to find many possess admirable traits worthy of some praise. They are obsessive about their code of ethics and exhibit at every level, commercial and residential practitioners alike, a marked dedication to self improvement and professionalism.

I recognize I have been exposed to a sample of elite REALTORS®, those who become involved in leadership roles through the local, state and national associations. But if they are the visible spokespeople for their industry, they do a great job projecting and exemplifying honesty, hard-work and ingenuity.

Two things really strike me about REALTORS®. The first is their willingness to take on community leadership roles. They recognize their centrality in the culture and commerce of their communities and it’s a sure bet that a REALTOR® active in her or his local board will be found as a volunteer on a half-dozen other local associations and committees. Of course, such activity and visibility is good for business, but I've known enough folks like Mike Flynn in Tacoma or Sylvia Miller in Lakeland or Randy Scheidt in Indianapolis to comprehend how much they care about their neighbors. They are leaders of the highest order.

The other trait is optimism. Maybe too many dead weekends in the office or sparsely attended open-houses generate a way of finding the silver lining, but even in the worst of times, like, well, now maybe, they exhibit a healthy attitude about the future. Maybe that’s why they are so good at strategic planning and readily take to my approach. They truly believe that through their efforts they can make the world a better place.

I was reminded of the power of this positive thinking when I ran into a friend I hadn't seen for nearly a year, yesterday, Lee Odems, a broker in northern Virginia (Buyer's Advantage Real Estate in Woodbridge, VA). After sharing quick updates on our common interest in politics and national affairs, I asked the salient question these days, “how’s business?”

His reply is worth quoting verbatim: “You know, Duke, I realized something a few months ago. There are two economies. There’s the national economy and there’s nothing I can do about that. And then there’s my economy, Lee’s economy, and I can do a lot about that. And, I’ll tell you, since I started working on my economy things have been going much better.”

I find that kind of thinking very motivating. All my belief in planning is based on the wisdom in Lee’s statement, be it the economy or education or environment, the most effective mechanism for change is a single person with a desire to do something, anything, to make things better. Get a bunch of those people in a room and you've just come upon a committee of REALTORS®

This is, I guess, a belated Valentine to REALTORS®. Thanks for being such good friends. I can’t wait to catch up again at the Omni Shoreham in May, 2010!

-30-

Friday, May 15, 2009

Taking Strategic Planning to the Next Level, Part 1

Today I will be making two presentations to the Leadership Express series at the Midyear meetings of the National Association of REALTORS®. As I have for the last few years I will speak to the benefits of planning in hopes of encouraging, in this case, association leaders and managers to think and act strategically.


I’m using this appearance to take a bold step. For years my comments on planning have touched on the basics: what is planning, how do you do it, what is gained from it. I think I’ve taken some basic nuts and bolts material and distilled out some powerful insights: planning is not about process, it is about results; sustaining an organization’s mission is paramountly strategic, even more than vision; ultimately this is an extraordinary tool for achieving continued organizational improvement.


In today’s presentation I’m taking the discussion to a new level, what Tim Galwey years ago referred to as the “inner game.” Galwey realized that conventional coaching in tennis and golf often got in the way of both mastery and enjoyment of the games. I never met him, but I consider him to be a mentor and both his books occupy prominent spots in my bookcase.


For NAR’s leaders I hope to show the real value to be derived from planning: consistent and continuous leadership, more accountable and effective management and, a big deal for volunteer associations, better service to and involvement with members. These are big claims and, to be truthful, 300 plans ago when I started, I couldn’t have made these assertions with confidence. I have, however, seen it happen again and again… the very act of planning, quite independent of the plan’s goals and objectives, has a beneficial aspect on all aspect of the organization’s operations.


I first discovered this when I had the good fortune to work with school board members (directors) through the Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA). Governing a public school district is a tough job and directors have to work through really difficult policy decisions in the most basic of legislative formats, a five-person school board. Chuck Namit, a friend and mentor, devised a great program to get good counsel to those boards and their directors. In working with boards I noticed a change in the directors, both individually and as a legislative body, as they worked through the strategic planning process in their districts. They actually got smarter.


The planning process’s emphasis on getting answers to questions did two things: it replaced opinion and myth with fact and it created an appreciation for data. And they did, in fact, get smarter. They learned a lot about their districts through the scanning process… realizing that the district’s many constituencies and stakeholders often had quite different opinions on a given issue and that it was the board’s responsibility to ask the questions and to listen to the answers.


The plan itself, of course, contributed to a broader perspective: a more strategic way of thinking and talking about district issues. Board members who had been part of the planning process started to pay close attention to the district’s mission, vision and values, thus creating a strategic context for discussion of problems. You could hear this new, broader perspective in the language they used.


I was surprised when I first saw this. I have, over the years, done lot of leadership development training and education. In all the hours of class and training room work I’d never seen people make such significant changes, not just in thought but in action. I watched these directors become better leaders. This realization was the inspiration for the thoughts I shared with the REALTORS® today. There are great, unexpected benefits to be gained from strategic planning. In my next posting, Monday, I’ll give more detail about the “inner game” of planning and share the reaction I received from NAR members.
To see the Powerpoint presentation I used at NAR follow these links: http://pnwconsult.com/NAR DC 2009 VO.pptx or http://pnwconsult.com/NAR Midyear 2009.ppt


-30-

Thursday, May 14, 2009

WELCOME TO MY BLOG!

The internet has been good to me. I would never have gotten to know all of you nor been able to transact business from London to Guam without a global computer connection. Until now I've used my website www.pnwconsult.com and an occasionally published e-newsletter to communicate with my friends and clients.

I've come to the conclusion that both of those methods are too passive and slow to get my ideas into the flow of the decisions you need to make everyday. So I'm taking a big leap here. I will continue to maintain my website and to send out my newsletters, but I am going to open this blog as my main portal to you.

It's a big undertaking, because I plan to update it two or three times during the business week. To maintain the highest quality of service to my clients, whose leadership responsibilities challenge them on a daily basis, my information and counsel needs to be out there every day, too.

I'm choosing to officially launch this blog on Thursday, May 14. Tomorrow I will be in Washington DC attending the National Association of REALTORS(r) annual Midyear Conference. I have been invited to make a presentation to NAR's leaders from boards across the country. The topic is my favorite: strategic planning.

I'm going to try to do something different today, for them and for you. By now most people understand what planning is and have an idea of its utility and process. What I plan to share is the hidden power of planning, the impacts that go well beyond setting long term goals... strengthened leadership teams, powerful bonds of commitment among everyone who is part of an organization, more effective and accountable management and unprecedented levels of achievement.