The Business Sensei

The Aardvark Principle

In any business, information can be thought of as the organizational equivalent of nerve impulses. Information about the state of the company, the state of the economy, the marketplace, how different parts of the company are functioning, and so forth, is critical to effective decision making. If any aspect of information flow is interrupted, it is like losing sensation in a part of your body: unable to feel, you may suffer serious injury without realizing it; if the nerves are unable to innervate muscles, those muscles will atrophy and not perform when called upon. By the same token, a business failing to receive crucial information about the state of the market can suffer financial disaster when products don’t sell or when innovation and productivity are crippled.

The problem with information flow is that people may not agree on the information, on the meaning of the information, or what should be done with or about the information. Disagreement leads, in turn, to argument or intra-organizational conflict.

Read the rest at AffluentMagazine.com

Mercky Research

Not long ago, an article in the New York Times discussed how Merck created what appeared to be an independent, peer-reviewed journal, and then used that journal to convince doctors to prescribe Merck products.

What is particularly amazing about this story is that Merck is the same company that 20 years ago created a cure for River Blindess, even though they knew that the people most in need of that cure would never be able to pay for it. At the time, the cost to the company was estimated at $200,000,000. Then CEO Roy Vagelos said that he felt that there was really no other choice: he was living up to Merck’s ideals of “health before wealth” and “do good and good will follow.”

As things worked out, the long-term benefits to the company, in terms of prestige, being able to attract top-notch researchers, and access to emerging markets, were immense. Merck did good, and good did indeed follow for the company and its shareholders. It just wasn’t obvious at the time that things were going to work out that way.

So what happened?  How did a company that lived up to its ideals as Merck did come to be the same company that used rather questionable practices to convince doctors to use its products?

Now I have no particular contacts or channels into the brains of the people at Merck, so what follows is purely supposition based on observing similar patterns of behavior in sports and business.

It’s well known in sports that athletes who are solely focused on winning do less well than those who are focused on personal excellence and skill mastery as well as winning. Indeed, a total focus on the outcomes and not the process can lead to a number of problems, including depression, burnout, and reduced enjoyment in the activities. Failure, instead of being a learning experience or an opportunity to evaluate and adjust, becomes something to avoid at all costs.

Ways of avoiding failure might involve only facing easy opponents, or it might involve cheating in various ways. Fear of failure is a very powerful force; the most successful athletes are those who master the art of learning how, and when, to not care if they win or lose.

When a business becomes totally focused on making money, it falls into a trap similar to that of the athlete. Milton Friedman to the contrary, a business cannot be solely about making money. Rather, a business is about producing innovative, or at least useful, products and services. These products and services must, in some demonstrable fashion, provide value to people. Money is how the business knows it’s succeeding.

Like sports, however, when the focus becomes too short-term and too outcome oriented, it becomes increasingly easy to justify behaviors that make money now instead of behaviors that maintain the product pipeline. It’s really no different from the athlete who sacrifices long-term health or career for a victory today. Living up to ones ideals is easy when things are going well; it’s when things get difficult that the real test comes.

Being a successful athlete, at any level, takes a great deal of work and dedication. There are always people who are looking for short-cuts. Being a successful company takes work and dedication as well; staying successful is, arguably, even harder. Over the years, very few have managed it. The tendency to take short-cuts is always there. It’s the businesses that stick to their ideals and are not captured by the fear of failure that last the longest and are most likely to survive the inevitable tough times.

Just as in sports, it’s all about learning how, and when, to not care.

We’re Doomed!

It’s the end of the world! There’s clearly no chance that the US will escape from the current economic downturn. Doom is at hand.

More and more people are telling me that they no longer listen to the news. They are finding the steady drumbeat of negativity too depressing. Their response is to shut out the noise.

Now, there’s something to be said for that approach. After all, if you don’t listen, you don’t have to pay attention to how bad things are. On the flip side, you might also miss something useful. Back in 1910 or so, legendary stock trader Jesse Livermore always read the newspapers, no matter how bad things were. When the economy finally turned, he was ready. Inside a year, he went from a million dollars in debt to a million dollars in the black. During the Great Depression, IBM’s Tom Watson always stayed current on the news: when conditions changed, his swift actions made IBM a huge success.

Perhaps ignoring what’s going on is not the best course of action, especially for CEOs and other business leaders.

The fact is, though, it is hard to listen to the news without feeling discouraged. It’s even worse in a world where the news is always on, as close as our computer or cell phone. Being tough and bucking up only works for so long. Eventually, even the toughest will get tired: a steady diet of discouraging words can undermine anyone’s confidence in a variety of subtle or not-so-subtle ways. So if the answer is not playing ostrich, and it’s not toughing it out, what does work?

The most important thing is to reframe excessively negative news into something more neutral or even positive. This is actually less difficult than it sounds, mainly because the news frequently appears worse than it actually is. In Edwin Lefevre’s classic, “Reminiscences of a Stock Operator,” he observes that the news media is always most excited and positive at the top of the economic cycle, and most dire and pessimistic at the bottom. Lefevre’s book was written in 1923, and his observation remains true today. Just because it’s easier to get the news doesn’t mean that the psychology has changed.

In a recent news report, one economist was claiming that hyper-inflation and total social collapse is just around the corner. Is that likely? I’m no economist, but I have to wonder how many people today remember “Dow 36,000?” James Glassman’s book was published at the height of the Internet boom: in October 1999, just a few short months before the market crashed in March 2000. Today, we’re hearing the equivalent of Dow 3600. The predictions of a rosy future stretching into forever were loudest, and most believable, at the top; what does that say about the news today?

What then is the best way to listen to the news and keep your outlook positive? There are several strategies used by master stock traders and other business leaders:

·        Be contrarian: it’s always most euphoric at the top and grimmest at the bottom.

·        Look for the hidden opportunities. When it looks like we’re doomed, that’s when things are turning.

·        Don’t listen to every news broadcast or read every paper or website. Hearing the same stories over and over reinforces the feeling that you’re getting new information. In fact, you’re getting the same information, and it’s all usually from the same original source.  Hearing something through multiple channels “tricks” us into giving it too much credence.

·        For some reason, negative news frequently sounds logical and good news foolish. Stop and take a larger perspective. Don’t let your point of view become narrow.

·        Each day, set aside some time to get away from the computer. Shut off the TV, put down the newspaper. Do something fun. Give yourself perspective.

·        Don’t be afraid to act. It’s easy to get stuck looking for the perfect move. Sometimes, the important thing is just to move. Once you’re moving, it’s amazing how much more positive the news becomes.

While it’s certainly true that we can’t control the economy, we can control how we react to it. You can be sucked into the doom and gloom, or reframe and seize the opportunities that are out there. Tom Watson chose the latter. What’s your choice?

Published at FreudTV.com

Why Teams Fail

In today’s high-tech workplace, it is virtually impossible to not be part of a team. Projects are too big, too complex, too involved for a single person to do it all. Yet far too often people find teamwork to be frustrating and exhausting. Even when the team successfully ships a product, team members often feel burned out, frustrated, or surprisingly unhappy with their accomplishment.

Many managers have heard of the four stages of team development: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. What is not as well known is the importance of that early, forming stage. During this phase, team members determine whether or not they feel emotionally and intellectually safe working with one another; they develop a sense of group identity, or remain a collection of individuals.

There’s an old saying that a couple isn’t really married until they’ve had their first fight. The same is true of teams. Part of working together involves arguing with coworkers: put any group of people together, and they are bound to have their own approaches and solutions to problems. If team members feel unable or unwilling to argue with one another, they avoid any conflict. If they are forced to argue but haven’t developed effective means for conflict management, the argument can quickly turn personal. In either case, the exchange of thoughts and ideas is blocked, anger builds, tension mounts, and the ability of team members to work together is severely compromised. Instead of developing group identity, team members may become convinced that their best strategy is maximizing personal gain instead of team performance.

The problems are exacerbated when the leader’s expertise is not management but engineering. There is a persistent, and ultimately painful, myth that engineers will only respect another engineer. Unfortunately, the very personality traits and skills that make someone a good engineer are often exactly the wrong skills to be a good manager. A team leader needs to have the social skills and empathy to manage the evolving dynamics of his team, and the interpersonal knowledge to apply those skills.

Of those people who do possess both sets of skills, even fewer can do both simultaneously. A good manager spends his time building the team. If he’s busy writing code, designing circuits, or what have you, then he’s not building the team. If he’s like most people thrust into a new situation and tasked with doing something he’s really good at, and something he’s not good at, he’ll gravitate toward the former.

Another problem faced by team leaders is that the storming phase can get, well, pretty stormy. The focus of that storm is often the leader. If the leader feels attacked, she’s likely to respond accordingly. This is a perfectly natural reaction. It’s also counterproductive. Managing conflict effectively means not getting enmeshed in the conflict in the first place: team progress can be set back weeks, months, or longer. Once conflict is joined, replacing the leader may improve things in the short-term, but can often make things worse long-term. The fundamental team dynamic needs to be repaired.

Unfortunately, more than half the teams in businesses become stuck in conflict or avoidance. When a team becomes stuck, it is stressful and exhausting to the team members. The company pays for this in lower productivity, reduced product quality, increased illness and absenteeism, and higher staff turnover, all of which can be fatal to a business.