The Perfect Manhattan Revisited

I’ve discussed the merits of a well-made Manhattan before. I’ve even gone so far as to claim the definitive recipe for the “perfect” Manhattan. Pride truly goes before a fall. It is with bittersweet emotions that I am forced to concede that my championship Manhattan recipe has been unseated, replaced by one concocted by my son, Matthew.


Matt, having spread the gospel of my Manhattan-shaking prowess provoked the curiosity of his colleagues in the Washington State Attorney General’s office. As one might expect, inquiring legal minds demanded evidence to support my claim, so at the invitation of John Long, a fellow AG who agreed to act as host, I entered the first, perhaps annual, “Manhattan Project.” When the last glass was drained, I fell aside defeated at the hands, irony of ironies, of Matt.

So how did Matt do it? It has to do with cherries and sweet Vermouth. He took the fundamental Manhattan dictum to heart: if you err, err to the sweet. He found truly exceptional tasty sweet Vermouth, Vya, crafted in the Central Valley of California. Not too sweet and very smooth, this vermouth is an aperitif and a couple of glasses of Vya may cause you to set aside the mixing of cocktails altogether. Matt also figured out that the cherry makes a big difference and he dismissed the traditional Maraschino in favor of regular canned cherries marinated overnight in Vya. Matt adds a dash of bitters, too.

Matt’s recipe:

Start with a chilled metal cocktail shaker. Add ½ cup crushed ice.


Pour in 3 ounces of top shelf bourbon (I prefer something smooth like Makers Mark).


Add 1 and 6/10 ounces of sweet vermouth (Vya preferred, Martini and Rossi is a good second).


Splash a dash of cherry juice and a dash of Angostura bitters.


Shake vigorously, until the OUTSIDE of the frosted shaker is really cold.


Pour gently into a chilled glass (add a Vya marinated-cherry to the bottom of the glass before pouring).


Enjoy

Next newsletter I’m ready to take on the challenge of the best cheeseburger again. Recommendations?

Comments on the End of a Ballplayer's Career

On April 10, 1989 I saw Ken Griffey, Jr. hit his first major league home run.  The news of his mid-season, but not unexpected, retirement last week still came as a shock.  In my life as a baseball (more on my life through baseball) fan no player captivated me the way Griffey did.  If I were at home listening in the background to a game on radio or TV, I’d always stop what I was doing if Junior came to bat… as much out of expectation that something special would happen as out of respect.

Even when he was young… and he came to the big leagues when he was 19… he carried himself with an easy confidence and expressed a joy of the game that just made you watch him.  And he delivered.  Not just through his hitting, but with extraordinary feats in the field and on the base-paths.  He simply did things I had never seen before.

Every Mariner fan (and I assume Cincinnati Red fans who rooted for Griff when he went there as a free-agent) has those moments locked into their memories… the Spiderman catch or the Wetteland home-run or the dash from first to home on Edgar’s memorable double.   These are events so well known that any resident of Puget Sound recognizes the meaning and significance of those iconic images at first glance.

My son Matt and I were privileged to have a great view of Griffey’s daring race to home in the fifth game of the ’95 Yankee play-off.  On October 8, he and I were sitting up a little ways behind third base… high enough to see Edgar’s line drive hook down the left-field line and then look back to catch Junior already around second bearing for third.

Griffey was fast and I’ve seen plenty of runners make that cut, but I have never seen anything like Junior as he turned.  He ran with a power and urgency, a resolve and focus… every part of his body seemed to be pumping hard.  He flew more than ran and Griffey, who was a bigger man than he looked, resembled the biggest most powerful running back I’d ever seen.  He reminded me of a thoroughbred race horse, every muscle and sinew stretching to its limit.

As Junior closed in on third, the realization emerged that he wasn’t going to stop and I remember yelling to Matt through the din of the crowd’s upraised voices, “he’s coming home!”  A glance to left, to see if the outfielder, Gerald Williams, had started to throw home, then back to Griffey who blew through third.  The throw, the slide, the euphoria!  He was safe, the Mariners won, there was more October baseball in the offing.  It was a moment. 

It was the moment and in that second every Mariner fan felt what fans felt when Thompson belted Branca’s pitch or when Don Larsen threw his last strike or when Mays tracked down Wertz’s line-drive deep in the centerfield of the Polo Grounds.  All the “next years”, the promising Aprils turned into galling Augusts, the missed pitches, errors, passed balls and zeroes were replaced by the elation of winning when it really counted.

Remember, before and since, the Mariners have been a pretty dismal team and until 1995 they had never made the play-offs, much less contended for them.   Quickly down 0-2 in a five-game divisional series the fresh thrill of winning was about to be replaced with the familiar taste of disappointment.  Somehow the team, under the gruff leadership of Lou Pinella, fought its way back.  They won games three and four.  So, as Griffey hurtled towards home, he truly carried the hearts of every dedicated M’s fan with him.

Many claim that he saved the franchise and that may not be hyperbole.  The team’s winning at that moment turned the tide of public and political opinion, which led to a new ball park and conditions that motivated ownership to stay in Seattle.  If he didn’t save baseball, he surely got enough people to feel the team was something they wanted to keep in their city.

Later photographs show Griffey with a huge smile at the bottom of a pile of celebrating players (who were surely as astounded at Martinez’ double, Griffey’s dash and the team’s extraordinary comeback as Matt, I and everyone else who watched).   That image of “the kid” captures the contentedness that anyone who has ever played baseball, at any level, knows to be found in a game that takes place on open green fields in the soft twilight of a late summer afternoon.  

I have another, personal memory of Griffey, one I can’t be document, but remembered clearly.  I know it happened and while I am sketchy on the details, the image is clear in my memory and, once again, rich in meaning about Junior, the Mariners and baseball.  A few days before the M’s improbable comeback against the Yankees, the Mariners had been involved in an even more unbelievable series of events: a pennant race.  They crawled back from seven games behind to catch the Angels and force a one-game play-off for the division lead (and the right to play the Yankees for the division championship).

A one-game play-off!  Again as a baseball fan, living under the gloomy skies of the Pacific Northwest, our first foray into any kind of baseball post-season play turned out to be a wonderous gift:  a dramatic, winner-take-all contest… the stuff of legend… 1951, Bobby Thompson, Ralph Branca… could we be any more blessed?

And the day was perfect… sunny, crisp.  True October baseball.  Dreamed of but never seen in Seattle.  I’d managed to get three tickets and Matt and I along with my teaching buddy, Chuck Nisbet, joined the throngs headed into the Kingdome.  A domed stadium is not an appropriate venue for an outdoor sport, but this is what the Gods of Baseball meted out to long-suffering, dedicated M’s fans.  This over-size, mushroom-shaped cement palace was what we got and it was home. At least the domed acoustics amplified the crowd noise.  It was loud.

We entered the stadium, way back beneath the second-deck overhang on the first level, between home and first.  Here’s the hazy part. I don’t know when this occurred.  Was there infield warm-up before the game?  Was it as Junior ran out to the center before Randy threw his first pitch?  I know it was before the game started, I’m sure of that. 

The dome was packed and there was an electric feel to the moment… a heightened anticipation that often surrounds a big game, elevated by the fact that this was a new experience for all of us, expanded by the astonishment that the Mariners, a joke of a baseball team for many previous seasons, were actually playing for something.  Everyone was tense, all of us were waiting to see what would happen next.

I looked down and saw Griffey trotting out of the dugout across the infield (on his way to center?).  When he reached the pitcher’s mound he stopped.  He turned around and stood there.  He looked toward home (was Dan Wilson there?) and he went through the motions of throwing a pitch!   Here it is minutes before the biggest game in Seattle’s dim baseball history and Griffey (who was fully aware of the tension everyone, most likely himself, felt) breaks the ice by suggesting he’s ready to pitch the game!  He shrugged and gave a hearty body-shaking laugh, as he would, then turned and continued on his way, but in that moment he let everyone know… this is just another game and the kid is here to win it.

And the funny thing?  I am certain that if Griffey had taken the mound, he could have pitched a winning game.

He’ll probably never read this.  But if he does.  I want Junior to know.  He was the greatest baseball player I’ve ever seen and I mourn the end of his playing day

Getting to the Truth of the Matter: Honesty and Lying in Organizations

My brother-in-law, Rich, raised an interesting question the other day (isn’t that what brothers-in-law are for?).  I was explaining to a newly graduated sociology major how I used my academic training in that field to help organizations improve their performance.  Describing the deep interview techniques I employ to get to a version of organizational “reality” Rich asked, “how do you know the people you interview aren’t lying?”

Good question, but there’s an even better one … how do I know when people are telling the truth?

Not that I believe every one lies, at least not intentionally; rather I think most folks tell you what they think is true.  Occasionally I’ll run across someone who concocts a story with the intent of deceiving someone (me, others, themselves) about the truth, but those persons are rare.  And as any good detective knows, liars give themselves and their “tells” are easy to spot.

Remember lying in an organization is not like bluffing in a card game.  The bluff may win the poker pot;  lying to colleagues and friends has messy consequences, the least of which is the loss of trust.

For me the issue is not about catching liars, it’s about getting to the truth of the matter. 

For now, I’ll skip over the complexities of what truth and, ultimately, reality may be.  Epistemological considerations aside, I operate on the assumption that there is some inherent truth to be found in any social situation.  And it is part of my diagnostic process to step in as an outsider and determine what that truth is.

The function of my interviews is to gather up those various personal versions of the truth.  In my collection I usually come across a lie or two, an occasional delusion, lots of guesses, some myth and, every so often, a nugget of data.  From these various “accounts” I construct a landscape and search for themes and clusters to make sense of what’s going on in the organization.

A mosaic emerges and I look for a coherent pattern that explains events.  This is similar to the practice of triangulation in navigation, where the intersection of multiple bearings locates a ship on a chart.  I position each of the accounts in relation to all the others… the intersection or overlap of accounts often highlights what the real issues are, my hypothesis about the truth.

Many times I’ll re-interview some of my informants, but this time I’ll present my analysis to get their reaction.   Sometimes I’m dead wrong and the reasons always point to a new truth.  Sometimes I’m close and an interviewee will use my theory and discover a missing piece that adds to the mosaic.  Oftentimes, I’ll reach what a mentor of mine, Malcolm Parlett, called a “recognizable reality,” where my account of the truth brings words to something the participants have been feeling but could not express.

My approach is hardly original.  It’s an amalgamation of a bunch of things, including a technique I learned from the famed criminologist Don Cressey.  To write a seminal work on embezzlers, Other People’s Money, he devised a nifty way of constructing case studies, called analytic induction. There are some elements here of  Rogerian non-directive therapy, Edgar Schein’s process consultation, techniques borrowed from market research focused group interviewing, belle hooks’ concept of center-boundary analysis and a little bit of common sense borne of  being the adult child of an alcoholic parent (thanks, Dad). 

To answer Rich’s original question, liars are usually exposed through this technique of deep interrogation, because their accounts are so contrary (and obviously self-serving) that they stand out from the rest.  On first hearing I have to treat each of the different accounts as realistic, but as versions accumulate those at variance with the rest fall into one of two categories: distinct analysis from a much different perspective (thus requiring it be fit into the scheme of all the stories) or a misconception.  Some misconceptions are true to the teller, usually the result of a set of presuppositions held by the observer.  Some are lies.

In probing an account it’s always possible to ferret out the motives behind the story and liars give themselves away by always eventually tipping off the resentment or jealousy that fuels the deception.  You have to watch for it, but liars do things that honest people don’t.  Here’s what to watch for:  liars always make themselves look good in the story and they always try to construct an account that is “air-tight;” there are no loose ends that if investigated would unveil the deception.  Liars always try to “sell” their story and the more sincere they become, the less sincere they sound.

I’m reminded of the old joke about the neighbor defending himself after returning a lawn-mower to you broken:  “I didn’t break it, it was never broken, I never borrowed it!”

There’s one more lesson to be drawn from this inquiry.  In my experience most people don’t lie.  I’m not saying they never lie, but when it comes to organizational problems people really try to seek explanations they believe to be true.   Unlike a poker hand, organizational problems are just that: problems.  Whatever has gone wrong, most people are genuinely concerned to get things right.  Their search for answers is genuine and most of the accounts I hear are authentic efforts to get to the truth.

Certainly people try to protect themselves by providing accounts that make them look good.  But accusing others by shifting the blame from yourself or your team to others is a risky venture.  You may deflect responsibility from yourself momentarily (listen to Bill Cosby on spilled milk to see where this tactic goes), but ultimately truth will out and your face is spattered with two eggs:  the original mistake you tried to cover up and the lie you told.

I’ve discovered that most of what people consider lies are really the result of ignorance or insensitivity on the part of the accused deceiver.  People usually say things inspired by the truth as they know it.  The boss who says he’ll get you a promotion is not lying when it fails to come through… at the time he made the promise he thought he could do it;  turns out he didn’t have the right information or enough power to make it happen.  The disconnect between what he promised and what happened looks like a lie; is really an example of over-promising out of ignorance.  The person who tells you that they don’t like your tie is not lying… they are just insensitive, mistaking their personal judgment for a collective fashion truth.

Unfortunately appearing to tell a lie, whether excused by insensitivity or ignorance, has the same impact as intentionally deceiving someone for your benefit.  Any lie, even a well-intentioned one (no, I like your tie) corrodes the elemental fabric of all social life, trust.  In any organization, managers especially, need take care that nothing they say is dishonest (or give the appearance of dishonesty) because such statements chip away at the trust that holds any social group together.

As long as we’re on the topic, I’ve had the unique opportunity to work behind the scenes of many different types of organizations - governmental, business, public sector.  In my experience, it saddens me to report that where I’m most likely to hear a lie is in educational institutions.  College presidents and school district administrators are the worst… to the point I wonder if it’s part of their job-training.

For more on the meaning and consequences of dishonesty, Sissela Bok’s academic treatise, Lying, is highly worthy of inspection. She’ll leave you feeling uneasy about “white-lies” or even deceptions used to protect others.

Beyond the issue of veracity, Rich’s question points to a broader range of issues concerning truth in organizations.  What I’ve discovered in analyzing hundreds of organizational problems is that the reality described to be to me is often flat wrong.  There’s no deception involved, people just misread social situations altogether. 

The error in their accounts is almost always a fallacy, what scientists call reductionism… in this instance, reducing complex social phenomena down to individual personalities.  Fallacy or not, most managers explain and act upon organizational problems as if the cause of the issue is located in individuals (or groups).  They commit the fallacy of reducing the analysis to the personality attributes of one or more parties.

The most common explanations I hear for breakdowns in organizational performance are:

·         A personality conflict.

·         A communications breakdown between individuals.

·         Someone lied.

While there is some truth to each of these explanations (obviously people carry out actions) the truth of the matter is that breakdowns in organizational settings are more likely rooted in the setting itself, not the people.  The two most over-looked explanations of why things go wrong are organizational structure/systems and organizational culture.  

The way in which organizations structure how decisions are made, implemented and communicated and the cultural values that guide how those decisions are made, communicated and interpreted is many times a better explanation of what has gone wrong than the deficiencies of any one person or a group.

Of course, individuals and the personality traits of people surely color the way in which these problems are expressed, but the “spin they put on the ball” should not distract from the fact that the ball was already in flight.  Good analysis looks beyond the individual and seeks the source of the problem deeper in the organization itself.

Here’s an example.  Sally and George are having difficulties over the company’s sick leave policy.  Sally is a division manager; George is a human relations specialist and he routinely holds up and sometimes denies her trequests.  Their public discussions and private communication have become increasingly acrimonious, to the point that George’s supervisor, Shelley, has complained to the COO Jeannette, that something has to get done.

In this example, this is where I get called in.  The COO tells me there is a “personality conflict” between two of her key managers and I’m asked to fix it.  Sure enough, I interview everyone and the accounts are pretty much the same.  Sally lists all of George’s undesirable traits and writes him off as “impossible to work with.”  I hear the same story about Sally from George and he tells me “I can’t work with her anymore.”


There's plenty of data to point to a personality conflict, but the problem is really with the roles.  Put too close friends in the same situation and the organizational structure will bring them into conflict.

Now is the time to look beyond the personal aspects of the conflict.  The personalities are relevant, but not central to the explanation of what’s gone wrong here. I interpret their conflict to be a symptom of something wrong in the organization itself, either a systematic problem or a conflict in cultural values.   

In this example, my inquiries revealed that the real problem with Sally and George had to do with the roles they were assigned.  Sally really objected to having to get her employee sick leave requests and other decisions approved by George who was neither her superior nor in her reporting line.  In carrying out the responsibilities of his  role, George was perceived (correctly) by Sally as a road-block and a time-sink that got in the way of her trying to carry out the responsibilities of her role (which made led George to see Sally [correctly] as pushy, impatient and disrespectful).  And, of course, the more Sally objected to George’s “interference,” the more he felt disrespected by Sally and the more difficult it became for her to get assistance from him.

That’s just an example, but I hear them every day. If it isn’t a dispute about roles and responsibilities it’s a conflict over contrary values bred within the same organization.  I could have taken the same example and shown how it exemplified the values of productivity and efficiency held by the operational manager, Sally, and the values of policy and law held by an HR staffer, George.  I’ll use another blog post at a later date to describe the conflict inherent in any social enterprise as operational, managerial and technical values collide (it ain’t pretty). 

Ok, so what is the truth?  I believe it’s there, but you have to work to figure it out.  Whether you hold to the Rashomon or elephant and blind men metaphors, the conclusion is the same.  Everyone’s position in an organization allows for a unique, but distorted view of the truth.  To solve organizational problems you need to learn how to combine these various accounts and come to a sense of what may be true.  In fact, understanding the source and nature of the distortions may explain much about why people think and act as they do.

The Six Most and Five Least Effective Tactics for the Successful Implementation of a Strategic Plan

Along with unfulfilled New Year's resolutions and empty political campaign promises, there are plenty of unfinished strategic planning goals… many of them never started. My friend and colleague Ralph Spencer posed an interesting question to me the other day: what are the five best practices (and by inference, the five worst) associated with the successful implementation of a plan?

The failures are pretty dramatic, so I'll start with them first:

1. 
   
   Lost in the Clouds: I've already written reams about how to do planning well… the key is to make sure the plan is focused on outcomes and results. Too many plans are all about vision and lofty proclamations. A bold view of the future is a part, but only a part, of a good strategic plan. At some point vision needs to be translated into achievable goals. The more tangible, realistic and clearly stated those goals are, the more likely they'll actually materialize. Saving whales, achieving world peace, curing malaria and removing us from the scourge of junk-e-mail forever are noble thoughts, but plans need to come down to earth and connect to things we can see and feel in our everyday lives.
2. 
   
   Fourth and Long: A corollary to being lost in the clouds is failing to finish the plan by converting visionary goals into action plans. Stating the goal is necessary, but not sufficient… goals need to be clarified with detailed objectives and action plans that spell out just exactly what is to be done, who is to do it, under what timeframe and with what resources. Failure to specify any one of these items, action, accountability, time and resource requirements is a sure way for something not to happen. Unspecified plans are the equivalent of the unfunded mandate in legislatures… all fancy talk and no action because there are no funds to get the job done.
3. 
   
   Never Look Back: Unfulfilled plans are a sign that no one is watching. Plans need to be managed. Even ones with clear actions identified will peter out unless someone is monitoring the plan to assure the actions are being completed and the results are being obtained. Writing the plan and boldly marching of into the future is not enough; the plan needs to be managed, monitored, evaluated and revised.
4. 
   
   Weak Hearts: If plans are any good they challenge an organization… usually all of its parts of it to, as I like to put it, "take one giant step forward." Every so often leadership loses confidence somewhere in the middle of the planning process. It all becomes too much… too much change, too hard, too expensive. Poised to make bold strategic moves, leadership goes through the motions knowing the plan is never going to happen, at least not on their watch. Leadership is about courage and willingness to take on risk. Leaders who like the return but are unwilling to pay the costs are not leaders.
5. 
   
   When the Going gets Tough: A corollary to #4, except this time leadership gets cold feet in the middle of implementing the plan. It seems too hard or too expensive. The rewards seem distant, the cost of change is immediate. A lack of resolve and a failure of patience lead many plans to no end.

The best practices are, as you've probably already figured out, simply corrections of the errors listed above.

1. 
   
   Leadership Buy-In: The leadership of the organization need to understand before the planning process begins what they're getting into. Some organizations and some leadership teams are simply not ready to write a plan, much less implement one. They need to know from the start that planning opens up all of an organization for inspection and questions all the assumptions it is based upon (even those as fundamental as its business model). Leaders need to be prepared for a plan that takes their organization in new, unimaginable directions. If they are not warned about the possibility of watching their organization re-invent, sometime re-birth itself, shock is likely to ensue. Even courageous entrepreneurs can be shaken by a truly bold plan. Organizational leaders need to be informed in advance of the planning process what risks and costs may befall and they need to step forward to support and champion the process as it unfolds and the plan as it is implemented. Most importantly, resource requirements specified in the accumulated action plans must be funded through the budget.
2. 
   
   Stakeholder Buy-In: Someone, usually not leadership, is going to have to implement the plan. Whether it's employees or staff, members or clients, the plan's successful implementation is dependent upon many people, most of whom are not part of the planning process. In that last sentence is the kernel of a best practice critical to getting results out of a plan: involve as many people in the planning process as you can who are going to implement or be affected by the plan. Even in large corporations and communities that's not as hard as it sounds. Planning is a process with many steps, some of which can be completed remotely. There are ways to involve everyone in parts of the process especially at the end when action plans are being set. It is inexcusable to keep people uninformed about the process and its progress. The plan should never be a surprise to those who will have to implement it (or deal with the consequences of its implementation) and where-ever and when-ever possible planning teams should solicit input as to how to make the plan happen.
3. 
   
   Appoint a Czar: Someone must oversee the implementation of the plan and work with leadership, managers, employees and stakeholders to assure the work gets done and the results are achieved.
4. 
   
   Don't Give Up: Goals are hard to achieve. What was easy to conceive on paper as part of the planning process can be extraordinarily hard to do. Three traits are essential for effective planning: persistence, patience and flexibility. Sticking to the plan and trusting the judgment of those who created it (which in some manner should include everyone who has an interest in the organization) takes persistence. Things can take awhile to unfold, patience is required to see things through to the end… everything, like baking bread, needs the right amount of time to come to completion. What planning teams conceive is sometimes in opposition to reality or unaware of unforeseen events encountered in implementing the plan… as the plan encounters these realities, the planning manager needs to have the freedom to modify the plan and it actions.
5. 
   
   Mind the Details: Based on
   what I listed as failures, this could easily be #1 best practice. The plan's goals must be converted into objectives with clear, measurable results backed up by action plans that specific accountability links, time frames for starting and ending and financial and other resource requirements.
6. 
   
   It's Just a Plan for Crying out Loud: Plans are meant to be implemented, but they shouldn't overwhelm good judgment. While I think there is an organizational imperative to implementing plans, I stop short of seeing a moral imperative. There are some who, once the plan is completed, will treat it as a holy document never to be questioned. There's a big difference between raising legitimate questions about how to implement a plan and not implementing it at all. Plans guide human behavior, they don't dictate it. Plans should be honored, consulted and followed, not obeyed. Ultimately the plan itself will need to be changed (certainly updated within a year of its creation) if not abandoned in favor of a new one altogether. Avoid strict constructionist interpretation of the plan. Plans are human creations. Attaching to them divine or supernatural qualities is a mistake.

Tomorrow, Tomorrow,Tomorrow. Planning Can’t Wait, Do it NOW!

Note:  When I was in college postage was cheap, long distance telephone calls were expensive and e-mail hadn't been invented.  I can remember being caught in a conundrum trying to communicate with the folks back home.  Seemed like every time I sat down to write a letter, the time wasn't right.  There was something pending and I wanted to wait until it materializd so I could send on results, not anticipation... be it about a test or the outcome of a game.  I quickly learned a lesson that is the subject of this post:  if you wait for just the right moment to do anything, the opportunity may pass you by altogether.  Here's what I wrote a few years ago in one of my newsletter - with a couple of updated thoughts.

Now’s not the right time, is the most common reason I’m given in delaying the start of planning. Managers find themselves too busy because times are good or times are bad. As reasonable as the argument sounds it is a dangerous fallacy and following it only guarantees you’ll pay the cost of being unprepared for the future when it arrives. Keep in mind, the future is tomorrow.

The fact is, there is never a good moment to do planning, it always takes an inconvenient investment of time and energy. No one wants to stop when every thing is going well; no one will stop when success seems to be slipping away.

In this note I.ll point out some of the ways in which planning can be done more conveniently and provide some counsel as to how to handle the inherent distractions and costs of trying to build a plan while

continuing to deal with day to day issues.

Planning When Times are Good

There’s a strong case that growing organizations need planning most of all, because they are finally generating enough resources to present managers with strategic options. Without some planning profits can be wasted through inattention or, worse, squandered away through unthinking expenditure. A plan assures any extra nickels at the end of the day are invested wisely in enterprises that strengthen the organization’s position.

It’s hard to plan when things are going well because managers and staff are working hard to gather as much as they can while they can. During these growth spurts it makes sense to design a planning effort that places minimal demands on people. It is alright to delegate planning to a single person as long as that person gives everyone a chance to review the plan. Using a consultant may ease the burden, too.

The risk is that organizations without a plan will not get the most out of their profits and end up unprepared for the new challenges when they come.

Start up companies face a particualr challenge in terms of finding time to plan.  In its earliest stages a new organization is often running as fast as it can to deal with everything growth throws at them.  When things start to take off the daily pressure to meet demands that were never there beforre can exhaust start-up managers.   These companies, more than any, need to take a day every now and then and catch breath and update their plan.   The military uses the concept of "stand down" days... all but maintenance activity stops for a day, and everyone else focuses on what's working and what's not.  A moment for refelction is often worth months of future success.

Planning during Hard Times

Action, any action, would seem the best way to keep going when survival is on the line, but it’s not the best strategy. A better approach is to plan an organization out of trouble. Making just the right decisions in the correct order is the only way to stop a downward spiral. Planning allows for the kind of analysis than can separate symptom from illness, temporary fix from long-term cure.

Again this may not be a good time to engage everyone - they have plenty to so during the crisis - but one person, probably with the help of the consultant can put together a plan that gets past survival to recovery and renewed growth. Make sure everyone reviews it and you should be okay.

There are plenty of examples of organizations that used difficult economic times, much like today’s, to refocus and retool so that when the turn-around did come they shot ahead of their competitors who were preoccupied with current conditions.

When is the Best Time to Plan?

Most organizations operate in cyclical environments. Nothing rises forever and few things fall eternally.  Good planning takes the highs and lows of organizational or economic cycles into account.

The best moment to plan is just before a cyclical shift up or down. Boaters will recognize this as a slack tide that precedes the rush of ebbs and flows.

Planning then assures the organization is poised to enter a new phase with a plan ready to deal with the changes the future brings.

Strategically the trick is to extend upward momentum, to get a longer ride on the wave, or to shorten the downturn and reverse or reduce the slide. In either case, the organization is prepared to take advantage of a prosperous future or temper the impact of a tough one. Great success awaits the organization ready to reap the benefits of good times when they return.

Planning takes time, but in the long run it saves time because future decisions are surer, clearer and swifter. There is no getting around the inconvenience of planning; it always comes when you are busy. The effort, however, is rewarded in a somewhat

predictable, more controllable future.

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 19^th 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