What we can learn from pledge drives
June 24, 2010
Here’s a thought: An old sales adage goes, “Always be closing.” I think it’s wrong and here’s why.
I’ve been listening to NPR for the last 20 years. (At the same time, I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.) And in those two sentences, I’ve probably convinced both conservatives and liberals that I’m an idiot in record time.
But I digress.
Any NPR listener (or public television watcher) knows the regular ritual called a pledge drive. Listeners loathe it and it always sounds to me like the poor staff members they corral into pleading for funds would rather be anywhere else than on air, repeating that phone number in increasingly desperate and cringe-inducing ways. (I’m looking at you, WBEZ Chicago.)
Like many people, I’ve mastered the art of turning off the station and clock-watching until I know regular service has resumed. (Before any NPR narcs report me, we’ve been consistent donors for all of the 20 years I’ve listened.) I just can’t bear to listen to it.
But then, one of their reporters did something different the other day. Instead of begging for money during his pledge drive shift, he explained his job. He told how, because we support the station, he can go to city hall to report on Chicago government (always something happening there!). He talked about how he attends trials so that he can bring us the story without all 3 million of us trying to cram into the court room. He was witty, matter of fact, and – interesting!
And curiously, I did something new. I listened. I was intrigued. I wanted to pledge more than I ever have in the past – not out of guilt or pressure, but because it made sense to me and his story engaged me.
How often do we pitch instead of engage? And how often do people around us – clients, colleagues, employees, suppliers, bosses – turn the channel and wait for us to shut up? Sure, we can’t see them physically hit the switch, but that light goes from their eyes as they wait for us to… shut up.
What would happen if, instead of pitching and closing, we informed and shared and engaged?
Handling Irritants
February 18, 2010
A while back, I was talking with an extraordinarily successful leader about his company. As often happens with astute leaders, the conversation eventually swung to the quality of his leadership team. He has been working hard to improve the prospects of his business despite the challenges in his market – and that includes both getting clear on strategy and raising the game for his team members.
At one point, he paused mid-sentence and blurted out something that obviously had been bugging him for a while:
I know how to keep my team moving toward our goals. But how do I handle the irritating things that my team members do on a regular basis?
That got me thinking, because let’s face it, we all get irritated plenty. Sometimes people have little quirks and mannerisms that bother us. Sometimes they hold views that irk us. And I’ll bet people would have the same thing to say about each of us as well. (In fact, this same leader went on to say, “You irritate me sometimes, Ted!” Tell me about it… get in line!)
So here are my thoughts on how to handle irritants so that they don’t get in the way of important strategic work (and anyone who has been with a leadership team when trying to discern strategic direction knows irritants can affect how well those exercises go):
- Hijack your own brain. When you find yourself irritated, ask yourself a question that gets you out of knee-jerk response mode. Something like, “What is important to that person right now?” works sometimes. Distract yourself with something more productive. Maybe even ask, “How am I contributing to this person being so irritating right now? What am I doing/not doing to reinforce this situation?”
- Ask yourself, “Is it worth it?” If you’re getting worked up, just check to be sure it’s worth it – or if you’re engaging in your own irritating habit of making a big deal about little things. This is also a great question to ask before commenting on the irritating behavior – either to the person directly or behind their backs.
- The “G” Word – As much as others irritate me (and believe me, they do), I know that I’m that irritating person for somebody too. (Maybe even two somebody’s!) A little grace – giving people more patience than they deserve – can go a long way when you’re in stressful times.
What do you do to get work done despite the irritants?
Leader’s Job 1: Define the Win
March 11, 2009
Hmmm… How do we get to this exit?
Most of the business community is playing defense right now. With seismic shifts in the financial markets, stunning changes in consumer behavior, and layoffs all around, it’s easy to see why. No wonder so many people are looking over their shoulders.
With that trend comes a tendency toward confusion and drift in our organizations. For instance, I was speaking recently with a senior executive who had recently taken on responsibility for a critical strategic function in his company. As he spoke with team members, he realized that they were pretty demoralized but he couldn’t immediately see why. Then it hit him – they had been working hard for over a year on high-profile projects, but they had never really understood what success looked like. As a group of high achievers, they found this extremely frustrating. They didn’t know if or when to celebrate, so the job had just turned into a long slow slog.
As I work with senior leaders and their teams, I’ve come to believe that this is one of the most important (and surprisingly, neglected) roles of a leader – to define the “win.” People desperately want to know what success looks like. Yes, they want to know so that they can see if/when they may receive a bonus or promotion (or in today’s world, keep their position). But even more, the people you really want on your team – the ones who have a self-motivating engine – just get off on achieving success. And most of those high-achievers are very self-critical. If you don’t help them identify and celebrate the achievement of a tangible goal, they will usually feel like they could/should have done more.
In times like these, it’s hard for leaders to step aside long enough to define the win – beyond “survive!!” But it may just be more important now than it ever has been.
Changing the Dance
November 13, 2008
I heard a story once that caught my attention.
A man was walking down a city street when he was approached by a would-be mugger.
“Give me your wallet or I’ll stick you,” he said, flashing a blade.
Barely breaking stride, the man looked at the mugger and said, “What time is it?” The mugger was so caught off guard by the seemingly-out-of-context question that he paused for a few seconds, dumbfounded. And in those few seconds, the man had gained the crucial distance away from him to avoid the mugging.
I don’t know if the story is true, but it illustrates an interesting principle. In so much of our lives, we have fallen into established patterns in how we relate to others. Often we don’t like those patterns very much, but we feel stuck with them.
- A boss doesn’t listen to our ideas.
- Team members fail to take initiative, waiting for your direction.
- A client continually pushes the boundaries on scope.
While these behaviors look like they’re just the annoying actions of another person, they’re actually part of a dance we’re doing with them. Somehow, by what we’re doing or not doing, we’re part of the system. Muggings don’t happen without someone playing the part of mugger and someone playing the part of victim…
Do you want this 
or this? 
So, think about someone whose actions are bugging you right now. How can you change the dance? What unexpected change can you use to shift the dynamics?
And while you’re at it, why not share what you’ve tried to change the dance in your working relationships? What’s worked and where have you just stepped on toes?
Playground Lessons
March 26, 2008
I was traveling last week. Before crashing in my hotel one night, I called home to check in with my family. My 10-year-old son got on the line and we had what began as a typical conversation.
“What happened at school today?” (I’ve learned not to ask “How was school?” since it always gets the same answer – fine!)
“Well, I got in trouble with a teacher today.” (This is pretty unusual for my son, so I was curious.)
He went on to tell me that, while at lunch recess, he had been broken some obscure rule and had been made to stand against the wall for most of the recess rather than play with his friends. For my son, this is worse than having a limb amputated. In his own words, he was very upset.
As I talked with him about the situation, it became clear to me that he didn’t really understand the rule or what he had done to deserve his punishment. But I was still curious what he had gleaned from the experience.
“So what did you learn?” I expected him to say that he learned not to break that rule. I was in for a surprise.
He paused a moment and said, “To stay away from that teacher.”
I had to think about that for a few minutes after hanging up the phone. I realized the simple, profound truth my son had taught me. When we have negative interactions with people and don’t come to a common understanding about why the interaction went south, they learn something about us: that we’re unreasonable, dangerous people to be avoided or defeated. This may work occasionally when you only have to deal with someone a few times or you have the brute force to keep the balance of power in your favor. But if you need that person’s engagement, cooperation, or support at some point, good luck.
So think about your key business relationships: what have your employees, colleagues, customers, and suppliers/partners learned about you recently? Is that what you want them to believe about you? Will those beliefs support your own interests in the long term?
Dirty Word #14 – Listening (It’s about more than just shutting up)
March 3, 2008
I ran into an internationally known speaker and author over the weekend at a dinner party. We had just a few minutes to talk shop and he asked me what I saw as the most common need among leaders when I work with companies.
My answer was simple (and far from unique): Listen more.
In several of my team’s recent assignments, we have been asked to gather feedback on senior leaders and this is the common theme. People around these leaders (above, below, and to the sides) often don’t feel like they’re really being listened to.
Dig beneath the surface and there’s something more profound than the usual advice we get about listening.
- It’s not just avoiding the tendency to interrupt or finish someone’s sentences.
- It’s not just getting rid of distractions like email, cell phones, or papers on the desk.
- It’s not just asking questions.
All of these tactics are good and should be standard for any of us when we are in listening mode. People around us want to feel like they have our undivided attention and these tactics can help with that.
But go even deeper into the feedback and there’s an even more profound (and challenging) truth. The people we interviewed regularly talk about wanting to know that the leader in question is actually open to influence.
Here are the types of things we hear:
- My colleague asks good questions and paraphrases what I said. But she’s already made up her mind and nothing I say will change that.
- My boss does great at listening as long as he agrees with me. Otherwise, he’s just waiting for me to finish so that he can tell me the right answer.
These folks want to be able to say to themselves, “If I tell this person what I really think, he will actually entertain my ideas and may even change his own opinions as a result of the conversation.”
That seems to be more unusual the higher you go in an organization. What’s your experience? And if you see the same trend, what do you think is behind it?
I dare you…
February 25, 2008
In the past few weeks, I’ve had the chance to interview a bunch of smart, young professionals about what it takes to be a “manager of choice.” Most of us can’t choose our manager. (Neither can they.) But there is plenty of research that says that a large proportion of staff satisfaction comes from the quality of interaction with their managers.
I’ll share more about the results of these interviews later, but one thing struck me right away when I reviewed my notes. Almost all of these professionals talked about how self-critical they are and how much they value receiving positive feedback when they do something right. These are all high-performers, not sniveling low-lifes.
When I dug deeper on this issue, they talked about two reasons for the feedback: first, it feels good. Nothing wrong with that! But more importantly, it helps them learn faster. In other words, they notice faster that they’re doing something right and they can extend that proficiency and confidence to other tasks.
So I’ve started challenging some of my leadership clients with a simple dare: I dare you to try to over-do the positive feedback thing. Only two rules: the feedback must be true (people hate sucking up even more than “hard graders”) and it must be specific. “Good job” isn’t as useful as “I noticed that your summary of that point was clear and concise. I think our client will quickly get what we’re trying to say here.”
Anyone want to take the dare?
When perfection weighs too much
February 6, 2008
OK, one last Super Bowl thing (I promise). Much has been written and blabbed about the heavy weight of history on the backs of the wildly talented and incredibly successful Patriots. You don’t go 18-1 without doing a lot of things right.
It’s possible that the whole perfection thing, and its impact on the Patriots in the Super Bowl, has been over-rated. But it does match my experience working with highly successful people in the business and non-profit worlds. In fact, one of the common themes discussed by highly talented professionals when they describe leaders of choice is both a demand for the best possible and a patience with the imperfection that comes from learning. Leave either behind at your peril if you want to attract and retain the best people.
When perfection is the standard, people tend to lose joy in what they’re doing as they ratchet up the pressure to be flawless. Pursuing one’s best, excellence, is only a slight change in perspective from perfectionism, but you can see in the eyes and hear in the voice of those who do so a much looser, optimistic approach.
At the risk of going against the “if you don’t win it all, you’re a loser” grain, I found myself gaping when everyone joined the chorus of “18-1 means nothing if you don’t win the Super Bowl.” I get the general idea – the Patriots set out to win the championship, not all the games up until the big game. But to say it means nothing? Come on!
Ask any player on any of the average teams who failed to make the playoffs if they’d swap places with the Patriots – to taste excellence, if not perfection. I’d guess you’d have to quickly get out of the way of the blitz of players who would run across that line if offered the chance.
My parents used to say “perfection is the enemy of excellence.” I think they were right (again!).
Account Planning – A Marketing Exec Speaks Out
January 31, 2008
My last post about why (most) people hate account planning brought this response from the Chief Marketing Officer of a well-known, global professional services firm:
If I had to choose one marketing tactic with which to have a singular focus it would be account planning/account management.
We are in a business that involves complex, technical solutions and is driven by relationships and client references. I don’t believe true client-centric selling can be achieved without a deep, collaborative, cross-Line of Business understanding of the client’s business, which is at the heart of account planning. With a comprehensive understanding of the clients issues, internal workings, and philosophy about solving issues that are the results of acct. planning, we gain the best market knowledge and can target the marketing strategies that offer the highest ROI. I believe the salespeople/consultants/companies who are not working a formal account planning process, including supporting performance measures, are seriously under achieving revenue potential and at a competitive disadvantage. (emphasis mine)
I don’t know if our CMO friend knows how rare this perspective is. Much of the time, account planning is an exercise. Salespeople prepare (grudgingly), other participants show up unprepared (and yes, grudgingly), and most of the time the salesperson is the only one to leave with action items at the end of the meeting.
So maybe another reason (most) people hate account planning is that it’s often seen as a performance of a solo artist (the salesperson/lead consultant) rather than a chance for key representatives to learn critical information about their key customers/markets and to act in concert as a result.
What would that look like?
Why (most) people hate account planning
January 28, 2008
It’s near the beginning of a year, so a lot of people in revenue-generating roles will be going through the exercise of account planning. I’ve been part of more of these sessions than I can count over the past 15 years. Many things have changed, but one thing stays pretty constant: most people HATE account planning.
But why? I decided to take an informal survey about it. The results aren’t complete yet, but I’ll share a few things as a start.
First, the perspective of a rain-maker for a professional firm:
Our account planning feels tedious to me. It revolves around filling out forms, most of which is repetitive information. It’s so long and arduous that you lose steam by the time you reach the interesting stuff.
Then, an accomplished salesperson and industry group leader for consulting company:
It’s difficult to get value from people who participate in account planning but aren’t regularly working with that client. They just don’t know enough about the client, our history with them, or the client’s industry to come up with useful ideas.
Last, a seasoned sales and marketing executive:
People hate planning, period. It involves accountability and the high probability that someone will follow up on promised actions.
Those are three themes in my informal study so far: arduous (and seemingly irrelevant) preparation, low value-added from outside participants, and the threat of accountability.
What would you add? How could we make account planning (or any planning, for that matter) better?