Total Pageviews

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

The Strategic Gourmand: The Perfect Margarita

(from my April, 2005 newsletter)

Lime juice, something sweet, something salty and tequila. The best remedy for anything at the end of a hot day. No restaurant any where can beat a well mixed margy at home.

It’s hard to go wrong on this one as long as you follow some basic rules. Top shelf tequila is a must… not Cuevo, we’re talking Herradura or Patron. Even medium grade tequila tastes like and is as toxic as regular gasoline. Stick with the expensive stuff and your margarita will be tasty, refreshing and smooth.

On the rocks with salt on the rim. A frozen margarita is an abomination of nature and an insult to any citizen of Mexico. This is a margarita NOT a slushee from the mini-mart. The salt replenishes what you’ve lost from a hard day of work or play in the sun.

Here is the ultimate recipe, with eternal gratitude to Sanders Thompson who taught this northwestern mossback how to fix a real Texas-style margarita.

1 part top shelf gold tequila

1 part Rose’s lime juice

½ part Triple Sec

Splash (or more) Grand Marnier.

Mix in a pitcher, salt the rim of a glass,

add ice, toss in a slice of lime.

Sanders did teach me that it’s best not to have more than one of these if you have an early appointment the next morning.

To keep the theme strategic, if you’re really adventurous save the Grand Marnier until the end. Pour it on top of the drink in the glass… and more than a splash. Garnish with an orange slice and you have a Cadillac margarita. You may never go back.

Buena suerte!

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Culture Counts: Why Values are Important in Defining Successful Organizations

Theres a tendency to look at things like values or vision or culture as the soft stuff of management, at least when considered alongside harder elements like finance or production. Im arguing that none of that money or any of those processes makes sense unless you consider the values that explain why we get up every day to produce things in the first place.

Introduction

Some recent mergers and acquisitions have gotten me thinking a lot about organizational culture lately. I find it hard to accept that I can’t find a trace of WaMu in the Chase branch that replaced it. I’m still steamed that Boeing has appropriated the Douglas Aircraft logo my father so proudly wore 50 years ago. I’m sitting now on an airplane that has a Continental tail and a United fuselage, staffed by a CO crew flying out of a UA hub. It’s enough to drive you crazy.

Maybe I’m showing my age, growing nostalgic at the loss of childhood trademarks, but as heretical as it sounds, I believe businesses are about more than making money. I realize that’s what they have to do… profitability is the mission of a business. But businesses are much more than revenue generating engines; they are a home to those who work with them and an experience to their consumers.

I’ve flown a lot of miles on the old Continental and United; indeed, I flew on the fabled Continental gold tails. They were very distinct experiences yet I doubt that either culture will survive the merger and in the end, like their sister carriers, Northwest and TWA, neither is likely to leave a meaningful trace on the consciousness of American travelers.

The new UAL culture will retain something of their parent airlines, but the two distinct original experiences I’ve known from the past will disappear.  And that makes me sad, because what made Continental continental or United united, in the end, were differences that caused flyers to pick one over the other… it wasn’t just fares and routes, it was how a flight attendant greeted you, the snacks you were served, the magazine in the seatback pocket you read.

Life in mass society becomes increasingly homogenous, so much so that it is hard to see much difference in anything, be it airlines, department stores or newspapers (to the degree they still exist.). Even cities have lost the things that made them special, so much so that Baltimore, Seattle or San Diego, which except for differences in geography and weather, are today basically all the same place, with the same Cheesecake Factory, Banana Republic and Courtyard by Marriott.

So let me mount my hobby horse and make the case why corporate culture is critically important and why preserving its values is a worthy goal of executive managers.

Organizations are held together by two things: structure and culture. The structure of an organization is the bone; the culture the sinew that connects it all. You need both, but some managers spend way too much time on the structure, building and maintaining systems and processes, and not enough on the culture, the values that make all that activity meaningful and satisfying.

Both are necessary and you’ll not make a dime in business if you don’t attend to organizational structure. But if you squeeze the cultural values out of an organization you lose the satisfaction of earning that dime much less the reason for pursuing it in the first place.

Ever watch kids play? Theirs is highly purposive behavior and even young children are trying to get something done with each other, but take away the fun of playing and kids lose interest fast.

Work is no different. Every one of us knows we have to do our job to earn money to support our families. We also understand our work enriches shareholders (citizens in the public sector) who employ us in their interest. That’s why we work, but that’s not why we work hard. People need more incentive than financial survival to bring out their best. Add in the value that comes from working and we become motivated.

Watch morale, enthusiasm and joy disappear when you take the cultural values out of the work and leave just a way to make money. Don’t believe me? Take a close look at the expression on the next flight attendant you meet, and then compare it with those flying with Southwest and you’ll see my point.

Two recent events renewed my interest in organizational culture. The first was the acquisition of NAI Global by a large real estate/finance corporation. Their acquisition caused me publicly to wonder how NAI's culture, crafted by the Finn family and shaped by exceptional leaders like Peter Hanson, Mike Mooney and Mike Zugsmith would fare in the future.

The other event came during lunch with Ted Fowler, president and CEO of the nation's largest buffet-grill restaurant chain, Golden Corral. We were eating at one of their new, impressive, "pavilion" stores when Ted noticed two 8-year old girls sitting across from us with their mother. He glanced over at them and commented, "Those two little girls are going to have a great time here today."

Thinking about these two interesting events raises some challenging questions to those of us trying to build strong organizations: how do we assure the values that define a company like NAI Global don't get lost, how do you develop employees whose view of their work is as value driven as Ted's?

Let me explain what I mean by the idea of organizational culture. The concept, borrowed from anthropology, suggests that a business or agency is partly understood by the values, customs, traditions, icons, even stories, it uses to define itself. This culture supplements processes and structure and manages organizational behavior. Indeed, the organization’s values… the real “stuff” of culture to me… can carry normative even moral implications in assessing what people do and how well they do it.

A strategic plan is an important part of any organization’s culture. The preface to most strategic plans, the mission, vision and value statements are (or should be) the most tangible components of that culture.

I stress this point because in a time of process and systems analysis it’s easy to overlook an organization’s culture and its values.

For me, organizational structure explains people’s behavior in much the same way that seating in an airplane explains what passengers can and cannot do. Adding the cultural dimension allows me to understand why people are sitting there and what they take into consideration as they make decisions within that structure. I’m not saying one is more important than the other, only that both need to be considered if you want to understand organizational behavior (and presumably manage it).

Extraordinary leaders are almost always successful because of the powerful, motivating values they endorse and their ability to use those values as criteria for even the most minute and mundane decisions. Indeed, when people talk about management or leadership “style,” that’s just another way of talking about what managers and leaders value.

If values are important in defining the best organizations it follows that anything that threatens or compromises them needs to be handled with care. That’s why the issue of mergers and acquisitions makes me uneasy.

Not all organizations, mind you, but some, maybe some of the best, rely on values to manage their operations. They are great because managers adhere to a set of values and built commitment around them as the primary way to lead their organization, top to bottom.

My initial concerns about the acquisition of NAI Global, had nothing to do with merits of the deal, I don’t know enough about it or the acquiring parties at C-3 to even speculate about its implications. What I do know is the old NAI Global was a special organization and a very good example of one that has prospered because its members held to a set of values that engendered trust, in an industry (commercial real estate brokerage) where trust can be an issue.

Here’s what’s always impressed me about NAI Global. Over 40 years ago Gerry Finn created a network of independent commercial real estate brokerage offices, first in North America (hence the NA), and later across the world (thus the Global). NAI was not a franchise; instead independent members affiliated through contracts with NAI, but were free to operate with considerable autonomy. I once referred to their network as fragile. I didn’t mean that as a criticism, it was a compliment that highlighted the fine job the Finns had done in crafting a successful value-driven network where trust, the most fragile of all values, held it all together.

The astounding part of this is that the independent firms affiliated voluntarily. Sure they signed a contract, but what they did as members of the network arose out of an understanding of the need for collaboration and a commitment to the support of the network (and their fellow members).

I’ve emphasized the word independent, because in the sometimes free-wheeling, gun-slinging environment of commercial real estate it surprised me to find an effective organizational model built on trust and collaboration. NAI Global’s members are some of the best brokers and sharpest business owners in their markets. These are leaders in their communities and operators of top notch firms… you’ll never meet a more entrepreneurial group and they aggressively protect their autonomy. Talk about herding cats… alligators or cheetahs might be a better example. These are not corporate types.

Yet, they worked together quite successfully. Cooperation and collaboration was high and leader-like participation in governance was expected and freely given. Remember, NAI Global was (in majority) a family owned company and most of these affiliates had no ownership in the network. This level of affiliation would be remarkable, in any kind of organization, remarkably so in a family-owned, quasi-franchise.

My regard for NAI and how it managed to strike this careful balance between the wishes of its family owners and the needs of its independent affiliates (who found their own balance between being part of a network and maintaining their local autonomy) may explain my initial concern when the acquisition of NAI was announced.

I must confess to a degree of nostalgia here. I hope the old NAI values of trust and collaboration, mutual support and comradeship persist. But there is no denying that something will be lost. These enterprises are no longer part of a group of firms who swore affiliation to each other and a family… they are now part of a corporation, for better or worse.

And anyone who thinks that being a branch office of a corporation is the same as being an independent affiliate of a voluntary network hasn’t thought about the difference very long. This is a huge change and the values that have grown up around NAI affiliates could be lost unless the owners of the affiliates themselves work to keep them alive. There is no reason to believe that the new owners of NAI understand those values much less even know they exist, or that they should. They have their own values and those will and should be of concern to them. The acquisition is, as it should be, a business decision. It does, however, carry cultural implications.

The story of Ted Fowler’s genuine interest that little girls eating at his restaurant have a good time raises another cultural issue altogether. I don’t think Ted is unique in his concerns for his customers. I suspect most CEOs have a similar gut reaction when they actually see clients in their place of business.

My worry is whether this instinctive, very human reaction to the sight of a customer consuming is felt at all levels of the organization. Knowing Golden Corral I’m not too concerned on that point, the people who greet you at the door and cook food behind the grill seem distinctly attuned to the satisfaction of their guests. I’m less sure about other companies.

The best organizations I’ve been involved with “live” the mission statement. But for many the sad truth is that few outside the organization’s planning team even know their company’s mission and fewer take it into account in their daily activity. In the great organizations it seems like every activity, even those most remote to the mission are all connected to it.

The best example I have of this goes back to work I did with a REIT, Highwoods Properties. As part of their strategic planning process, their CFO (now CEO) Ed Fritsch and I visited each Highwoods office where we tag-teamed a presentation that rolled out the plan to every employee.

We were in the Orlando office where the number of staff was so large and the meeting space so small we had to split attendance into morning and afternoon sessions. That morning I asked, as I did at the end of each presentation, what they were going to do differently after lunch now that they had been apprised of their employer’s new strategic plan. I’d always ask Ed last and this morning, as a prank, he countered by asking what I was going to do differently after lunch. I told him I was going to try to make the small meeting room more comfortable for the next group.

That’s all I said. I didn’t ask anybody to do anything, I just made the comment. When I turned to walk to the door to bid farewell to the participants I watched four Highwoods building maintenance techs, wearing their overalls, rise, pull out some tools, disconnect a board room table top from its stanchions, kneel and remove the legs from their floor brackets. They moved the table aside and rearranged the chairs.

All without a word from me. They had listened earlier when Ed and I talked about the value of helping each other out and when I mentioned the condition of their room, they acted on their own, unbidden or commanded, in a manner consistent with Highwood’s culture. That’s what I’m talking about.

My hope is that I could come into your organization, encounter someone changing the toner in a printer and to be told, when I ask them what they are doing, that they are fulfilling the mission of your firm, association or agency.

Far-fetched? I don’t think so. The almost unconscious reference to values that causes us to do the better thing is found in many other CEOs like Fowler and regular employees like the maintenance guys at Highwoods. But it isn’t there by accident.

One more powerful example.  As you know, I fly a great deal and with my patronage comes the privilege of slightly more comfortable seating on my “home” airline, United.  When you come on board, you recognize us right away, tucked into slightly wider seating between first class and the last exit row, with blanket, pillow, iPad and noise cancelling earphones.

A couple of years ago I was on one of my favorite flights, United 200, the late-afternoon Seattle to Chicago ORD run (gives me all morning to work at home and gets me into the Windy City just in time for a steak at Gene and Georghettis).  United offers a feed of it Air Traffic Control traffic as one of its complimentary audio channels and I and many other frequent flyers stayed tuned to be alerted to weather or equipment delays.

One afternoon I’m on this flight and just as the aircraft pushes back from the gate, the captain comes on with an announcement.  I listen with some trepidation, because I’ve never heard any good news seconds after the pushback.  This time, however, he intones, “Ladies and Gentlemen if you listen to ATC on Channel 9 today you will not here us called, as we would be, United 200.  Today we are ‘Lifeguard United 200.’  We’re carrying a kidney to Chicago for transplant!”

I am convinced that every one sitting around me, a bunch of jaded, airline-weary, United 1Ks and Premiers, sat up a little straighter, maybe even combed back out hair.  We weren’t on just another four hour grind business flight to Chicago, we were on a mission!

All of these stories are true and each says a great deal about what happens when value is interjected into the otherwise hum drum of our daily work lives.  What we do becomes meaningful and the people we do it with are suddenly special.

Whenever I have these experiences, whenever I see people working together with a sense of purpose, I know they are part of an organization that values them and me.  And I know this is no accident.

These values got there because they were expressed, shared and followed by leadership. I’d go so far to say that advancing the organization’s values is what leadership is all about. Values and missions posted on walls or printed on business cards mean little to me. Actions that are clearly motivated by those values do.

So when I get on my soapbox and worry aloud about the loss of values in our organizations it is because I know that culture counts. Those values are what separate great organizations from the also-rans.

A Hard Lesson Learned… the Case of the Counterfeit Coin

When I started this newsletter the intent was to draw from my casebook of clients something that others could read and learn to advance their managerial or leadership capacity. Since the lessons learned usually came at my cost, I hoped I could save you some pain by avoiding the worst of the mistakes I made. My initial newsletter format was too limited to allow for the full exposition of the cases, so I kept the title but dropped the feature.

With a new format I can now use real cases, camouflaged to protect the guilty and innocent, but illustrative of the kinds of things that really go on in organizations. These cases give you a chance to play against me and test your wits as how you would handle it.

The fun thing here is you can work these cases a little like contract bridge. You can play my hand as the consultant or try to figure out how to handle this from the executives side.

In the Case of the Counterfeit Coin I learn an important lesson about how the assumptions we act upon in the workplace can produce results quite different than those we intend.

The Case:

A young man called me. He was the executive director of a small non-profit professional association and his job was to lobby the legislature encouraging policy favorable to his members' business and blocking things that weren't. He was particularly skilled at doing this and proud that he and his small staff of three could point to some real legislative successes over the past couple of years.

He was troubled, however, his staff and, who as he described it over the phone, seemed disinterested if not uninspired by their work. He described to me a group of women who did very good work, providing him with the sound analysis, persuasive materials and other supports to help him protect his members' interests on the Hill. But they seemed dispirited.

He told me that he honestly could not have achieved what he had without their help and that he was really disturbed that when he returned to the office to share with them what they as a team had accomplished, their response was muted if not lackluster. He had wracked his brain as to what was wrong, what made them so indifferent to their work. Lacking an answer he had come to worry that a serious morale issue was dogging his team. In desperation he sought my help. I agreed to meet with him and his staff to uncover the why his staff's passion didn't match his own.

[Lets handle this like a Harvard B-School case study. You have all the details. What do you think? What would you do next?]

Before revealing what I learned let me share a little wisdom I've picked up along the way about organizational problems. Whatever I'm told in that first call is almost always wrong. More often and not the problem is presented (framed) in terms of a person or persons and these are not usually the true culprits, indeed many times it is not a person at all who is the problem - the issue actually resides in the organization's culture or structure. If there is a culprit, ironically it is the person who called me. All this has taught me to enter the deconstruction and analysis of these situations with care, avoiding presuppositions and working to arrive at my own independent and well informed opinion of what the problem is (if there is one) and who is responsible (if it is even a person at all).

I drove downtown and began a set of interviews with him and each of his staff individually. I was honest, but vague, about my interests, masking my curiosity about his concerns about motivation and morale with my own questions about the effectiveness of internal processes.

In meeting them I was immediately struck by a demographic anomaly. He was a young man, recently wed, they were all women all at least 15 years older than he, with older children and, in one case grandchildren, and a couple of divorces to boot. He was a college graduate with an advanced degree; they were technically trained some still pursuing their undergraduate degrees. Except for the fact that they all worked for the same employer with a common mission, he and his staff came from and lived in very different worlds.

I was surprised to hear staff speak with considerable passion about their work and the pride they took in its quality and professionalism. If anything, they were disappointed by their boss's lack of appreciation for the excellence of what they did on a consistent basis. They liked him although they granted he had a pretty big ego and saw these legislative successes as the result of his valiant and clever efforts. This was not what I expected to hear.

I drove back to my office more puzzled than I had been than before I started these interviews. Something didn't add up; there was a huge disconnect between what the EO reported and what they told me. It was possible, but not plausible they were lying. They seemed genuinely proud of their work.

I began a second round of interviews and this time around one of them provided me just the clue I was looking for. In asking what it was like to work for him, a staffer told me: "you know, all he ever talks about is work. That's all he's interested in. Just once I'd like him to come into the office on Monday morning and ask what I had done for the weekend or my kids are of what I thought of the Seahawks game. Anything but work!"

Informed of this I probed the other respondents and while they were generous and charitable about chalking up his lack of interest in them to his youthful inexperience, driven ambition and self importance, they surely felt he didn’t care much about them except as part of a machine to get the work done.

[What do you think? What would you recommend be done?]

This was a powerful lesson for me, a classic example of a mistake I have seen managers, teachers and all sorts of professionals make repeatedly: they assume that the people they manage, teach or support understand the world the same way they do. Later on popular culture coined the term "to get it (or not)" to describe someone just can't see something from another person's point of view, doubling down on the error by substituting their own interpretation of events. Psychologists call this projection... where you project your own values or motives on others.

What I had here was an office where different values operated side by side and in mutual ignorance. This wasn't a communication breakdown, they exchanged information about the job quite efficiently. This certainly wasn't a personality conflict they were cordial enough to each other. It was most surely not a morale problem, but based on a much different set of issues than the boss assumed.

It was simply the fact that what he and his staff thought was important and valuable about their work was very different. And he, as manager, had no clue as to what was important to his workers. At the time I labeled the phenomenon I had discovered as paying off in the wrong currency. His recounting of their legislative coups was the same as paying off in Zlotys when they were looking for Dollars.

Despite available data to the contrary we read and react to social situations employing the personal frame or paradigm we've gained through experience or learning. Sadly, however, we all have plenty of instances where a manager or a teacher or a coach committed just such a vanity, presuming that you and I think, feel, are motivated in the exactly as they are.

Know how to test for this error? If you find yourself saying to someone,” just try this it is easy, you can be sure you are assuming just because it’s easy for it is easy for someone else. When you hear yourself say those words, stop and think twice. Things are not always what they seem.

So what did I do? Nothing very dramatic. I met with him; I met with them; I met with him and them. And the message was the same, try to understand what each of you value and recognize that you are not motivated by the same things. Did it work? Not really. The director and his staff were firmly rooted in their respective worlds and while I could get them to see that, logically, value systems are relative and need to be acknowledged and respected, neither party really cared.

They went through the motions, but it felt artificial because it was. He thought they were bourgeois drones, they thought he was an arrogant elitist… and they were both right. Eventually he moved on to another more prestigious job, they stayed and contended with a new boss. I’d like to think that I opened their eyes a little and I know he approached his new staff with a greater sensitivity to what motivated them, but it is really hard to get people to understand, much less regard, value systems significantly different than their own. Maybe you learn this from your parents or you never learn it at all.

The person who learned the most from this case was me. Upon reflection I realized, to my relief, that I had not committed this error as a teacher. I realized early on as a teacher that I hadn’t been a student like most: my enthusiasm for learning and they ways in which I acquired, sorted and applied knowledge was really different, pretty unique, maybe even odd. This is not shared judgmentally, because I do not think my personal learning style is somehow superior to anyone else (although I must admit teachers liked it and rewarded me for it). I can cite a thoughtful statistic: in 37 years of teaching, covering thousands of students I met five who approached learning the way I did.

This was a sobering thought because I could have missed the boat with thousands of students if I had stood there and taught to myself (and the five who were wired as oddly I). Sadly, however, we all have plenty of instances where a manager or a teacher pr a coach committed just such a vanity, presuming that you and I think, feel, are motivated in the exact same way they are.

There is nothing wrong in relying upon our own paradigms to make sense out of new situations. Indeed, generalizing from one social experience to find footing in a similar one is usually a sensible tactic. But making that generalization, particularly when ascribing motives to others, is a risky business. It makes even more sense to develop the skills to understand motives and sets of value markedly different from your own.