Tag: Gallup

Personal Strategies for Adding Value

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

The Great Recession has expedited the transition to a virtual labor market, where each individual is an independent contractor constantly in the market, selling their services.  To succeed in this world, individuals need to define their product, sharpen their sales skills, actively manage their time and add greater incremental value.

The 12 million unemployed Americans are bombarded with advice on defining their personal brand.  Setting aside the gloss and polish offered by career counselors, the remaining content is the need to be easily defined in a 15 second elevator speech.  Simple and specialized products sell.  Complex and generic products die.  Specialized professional functions and industry experience are marketable.  Generalists need to become repositioned with specialist labels: as entrepreneurs, six sigma black belts, project management professionals, etc.  Certifications are highly valued.  The “signaling” theory of the labor market is winning, with HR, hiring managers and recruiters all relying upon external signals such as certifications, national/Big 4 consulting experience, top 25 university/MBA degrees and Fortune 500 experience.  Personal communications and sales skills command a premium within the universe of certified professionals.

At work or as a consultant, the most important driver of added value is the allocation of time.  Individuals divide their time among the functions of doing, managing, investing, planning and reporting.  Stephen Covey’s path breaking “Seven Habits of Highly Successful People” enlightened a whole generation on this topic.  There is a critical trade-off between doing and other functions, which senior staff and managers must exploit.  There is a trade-off between urgent and important tasks at the heart of personal time management.  There is value in “sharpening the saw” by investing in activities with long-run benefits. 

The marginal product theory of labor value applies at work.  Individuals who devote their time to the highest incremental value activities at work are rewarded.  Those who do their “fair share” of low value activities are left behind.  Managing people, suppliers, customers, assets, risks and processes offers opportunities to leverage value.  Individuals with the greatest scope of authority deliver the greatest value and are rewarded.  Investing in people, products, processes and assets provides another opportunity to add greater value.  Strategic, functional, project and individual planning offers opportunities to leverage time in a more abstract dimension.  Developing, operating and enhancing reporting and feedback systems allow key staff to identify enhanced improvement and risk management options. 

Individuals who have managed to define and sell their personal branded product and secured significant opportunities to deliver value must also know how to deliver incremental value.  There are seven generic strategies for adding maximum value.

Buy low and sell high.  All activities must be delivered by the lowest cost resource.  If there is any individual, machine or supplier that can deliver a service more cheaply, eventually they will.  Identify the lowest cost resource and employ it.  Delegate.  Divide jobs.  Outsource.  Automate.  Simplify.  As Andy Grove once said, “only the paranoid survive”.  Get this done before others.

Match skills and talents to assignments.  Functional skills, industry experience, soft skills, courage, flexibility, creativity and other talents vary greatly across available resources.  Identify the 3-5 key talents required and employ those with natural talents.  Employ personality profiles, test results and Gallup Strengths to find matches.  Create an internal labor market that encourages staff to know and apply their talents as often as possible.

Leverage the cumulative positive impact of process engineering.  Call it TQM, ISO 9000, six sigma or lean manufacturing.  Employ incremental continuous process improvement, tactical Kaizen blitzes, re-engineering projects, management systems and cultural changes to obtain the maximum value from the quality revolution.  World-class firms continue to improve and leave others behind.

Leverage the benefits of learning curves in all activities.  Individuals with one year of experience may be twice as productive as trainees.  Those with three years of experience may be another 50% more productive.  Reach mastery level in critical activities. 

Create synergy through cross-functional project teams.  There is a limit to the returns on the first four strategies.  Eventually, a senior financial analyst, research chemist or national accounts manager will find incremental improvements more difficult to achieve.  For some projects, processes and functions there is a need to combine the highest talents of complementary functions. 

Leverage the unique assets of the organization.  Firms have core competencies, intellectual property, cultural assets, brand assets, relationships, best practices and most productive assets.  Sales or product growth in adjacent space has a high success probability.

Leverage the organization’s goodwill with stakeholders.  Suppliers, customers, regulators, investors, staff and communities have a vested interest in the organization’s ongoing success.  Provide them with opportunities to reinvest in the organization’s future.

Most of us will add the greatest possible value by following the path of least resistance.  We will leverage relative market values, talents, process improvement techniques, learning curves, teamwork, core competencies and common interests.  A self-aware, proactive strategy will pay the greatest personal dividends, while delivering value to firms and society.

Prioritize, If You Dare!

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

“Managers do things right; leaders do the right things”.  In the current environment, where the “right things” of new products, customers and deals are on hold, the best leadership may lie in prioritizing existing operations.  In essence, prioritization is choosing to “do the right things” within the existing portfolio of activities.

Prioritization begins with the calculation of net benefits.  Maximizing benefits or minimizing costs is insufficient.  Priorities reside in those activities with the greatest net benefits.  This can be defined as benefits minus costs, as a payback period or as return on investment (ROI) or net present value (NPV) for large projects.  The comparison of costs and benefits is the essence of this approach.  Calculating risk-adjusted discounted values of after-tax cash flows within an asset portfolio is usually just “nice to have”.  Rank ordering available projects by their net benefits is the next greatest source of value.

The Pareto Principle says that 80% of net benefits are delivered by 20% of activities.  Mathematically, with any reasonable range of costs and benefits, this relationship holds true.  In simplest terms, the Pareto Principle says “cut off the tail”.  It also focuses on the concept of relative value.  We want to compare the ratio of benefits to costs, investments or activity. 

This applies to time management, where a log of time for one month reveals 10% of activities that should be eliminated.  The bottom 10% of products, product categories, stores, bank and library branches face the same indication that they are not cost justified.  Customers, divisions and business units face the same reality.  Some make money, while others do not.  Activity based costing calculations indicate that the lowest performers cost the firm more than was apparent.  Even individual performance can/should be considered on a rank-ordered basis.  The bottom 5-10% should be identified annually and considered for performance improvement plans in every group of 10 or more employees.

In emergency situations, triage must be applied.  Limited resources must be applied ONLY to the activities that can benefit and survive.  Those which will fail receive no investment.  Those which will succeed anyway, receive no investment.

At times, a two-dimensional grid should be used to determine activities which will deliver benefits.  In the classic Boston Consulting Group approach, business units are categorized by high and low growth and margin potential.  The top right units with high growth and margin potential get all of the investments and high-powered managers’ attention.  Low growth and margin businesses face divestiture.  High margin, low growth businesses become the proverbial “cash cows”, generating cash flows to feed other units.

Opportunity cost is a fundamental concept in prioritizing opportunities.  There is no absolute scale of expected returns.  There is only the “next best alternative”.  Even when business units have poor prospects, they must be compared with the realistic opportunity costs of doing nothing or divestiture.

Prioritization does not apply just to eliminating the negative end of expected business results.  Investments should be made in those activities with the greatest potential.  The Gallup Strengthsfinder approach applies this to human performance, demonstrating that natural talents provide the greatest relative return.  Firms should invest in those products and markets with the greatest potential.  They should also invest in facilities, equipment, IT projects, researchers and sales staff who deliver incremental value.  Many firms are inappropriately constrained by ratios and potential future change management costs.  Investment and product portfolio managers understand that there is value in starving losers and investing in winners.

The most sophisticated version of prioritization is employed in the principle of comparative advantage.  David Ricardo’s theory of international trade applies to countries, companies and units.  Comparative advantage says that relative benefit/cost ratios between countries, firms and units determine the best possible distribution of production.  ONLY those who are comparatively most productive should produce goods or services.  More than a century later Michael Porter applied this to companies, determining that those with true core competencies would succeed in the long run. Treacy and Wiersma’s book on “The Discipline of Market Leaders” indicates that firms can only have competitive advantages in one of the three areas of product innovation, customer intimacy and operational excellence.  Only the “best of the best” will prevail in the long run.  Outsourcing of non-essential functions is indicated.

Given the clear economic advantages of prioritization, why is this not universally applied?  Net benefits, the Pareto Principle and comparative advantage are beyond the comprehension of some economic actors.  Comprehensive, systematic calculations are applied only by a specialized subset of firms and functions. 

Perhaps more important is the personal cost-benefit calculation of individuals.  I could prioritize activities by relative benefit-cost, but I would be subject to criticism for eliminating the bottom 10%.  Perhaps it is better to not “rock the boat” and avoid the penalties of change management.

Some sophisticated managers follow the advice of Dr. Deming who highlighted the great risks of overreacting to random variations.  Managers should set an appropriate time-frame when using relative performance measures.

Dr. Deming also preached that managers need to “drive out fear”. For some employees, any rank ordering or evaluation of performance creates fear.  Some individuals believe that people should not be subjected to performance standards or rankings because this is not “fair”.  For most organizations, the essential competitive nature of employment and corporations is understood and accepted. Highly risk-averse individuals should not be employed by firms which face competitive pressures.

This does not contradict Maslow’s theory that security/safety is at the base of employee motivation.  Security oriented individuals should be guided to careers and positions which meet their needs.  The other 80% of employees should be counseled to understand the long-term competitive nature of labor markets.

Prioritization is an effective and essential business strategy in all business conditions.

Both/and Trumps Either/Or

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

The business and political worlds are catching up with what the great religions have long known and science has discovered in the last 200 years.  The deepest understanding and practical progress in all fields is driven by a “both/and” approach, rather than by a deterministic “either/or” approach. 

Post-enlightenment westerners have struggled to fully digest the slippery, evolving dynamic nature of the Asian concept of yin and yang.   Many believers, clerics and secular leaders have simplified, denied or ignored the deeper meanings of the Christian trinity, relationship with Judaism and tension between the vertical (God) and horizontal (community) demands of the faith.  The fully developed religions provide training, terminology, sacraments and advice to attract, retain and grow members, without reducing “the mystery of faith” to a simple recipe.

The western scientific tradition meets the heartfelt needs of man for a deterministic description of the universe, delivering the potential for security expressed in Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”.  Aristotle, Euclid and Newton are rightfully celebrated for their authoritative development and formalization of logic, geometry and physics.

Nineteenth and twentieth century science shattered the deterministic paradigm, replacing it with a probabilistic paradigm.  This was presaged by Hegel’s philosophical method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.  Thomas Kuhn’s mid-twentieth century history/philosophy of science documented both the human process of how science progresses and the Necker Cube-like way in which a new paradigm destroys the old and blinds us to any new ways of perceiving.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrated that the location and speed of material items was dependent upon the measurement applied and was inherently uncertain.  At the same time, it became clear that the location (energy level) of an electron was only probabilistic!  Kurt Godel’s impossibility theorem destroyed the hope of defining a Euclidean basis for a fully functional arithmetic and algebraic system of mathematics that could include the concept of infinity.  Darwin’s theory of evolution included the concept of random events in populations determining the future of biological species, without necessary guidance from god.  Biology then described the details of genetics, which includes random mutations, reproductive combinations, multiple genes, developmental sequences and the impact of the environment.  Freud described the role which unconscious thoughts, drives and the “mind” can play in determining consciousness and behavior.  Statisticians defined populations, estimates and metrics, emphasizing that there are inherent conflicts in making estimates.  Finally, Einstein developed the theory of relativity, making time, space, matter and gravity functions of each other.  Ironically, Einstein unsuccessfully devoted 20 years of his life to finding a unified theory that would combine all aspects of physics into a deterministic framework.

In the last 50 years we have seen the development of insightful “both/and” approaches throughout the business and political worlds.  Management has evolved from unilateral theories X, Y and Z to situational leadership which uses both task and people factors to deliver results.  Effective thinking coaches have defined the best use of convergent and divergent thinking skills or six thinking hats to improve results.  Jim Collin’s “Good to Great” book highlights the central role of a fixed vision/goal and flexible means/strategies.  Gallup’s Strengthfinder approach to personality profiles overcomes the “either/or” nature of Meyers-Briggs, concluding that some individuals do have apparently conflicting “talents”.  Bottom-up and top-down planning approaches have been incorporated into the balanced scorecard framework.  Goods production has evolved from custom craft work to mass production to a combined lean manufacturing pull system.  Goldratt’s book “The Goal” provides further insight on how defining the goal is logically distinct from the means of reaching the goal.  “Best practices” project management has evolved from informal management to fully prescribed sequential tasks to a new hybrid approach that retains the broad project stages, but allows cycles to resolve issues when needed.

In economics, the Keynesian revolution overturned “Say’s Law” which deterministically stated that supply always creates its own demand.  In governing, representative democracy seems to balance various needs.  In politics, the “third way” attempts to use market mechanisms to deliver liberal objectives.  In religion, the reformed faiths attempt to adapt received faith to current knowledge and realities.

The “both/and” approach is not inherently best, but everyone should be challenged to consider it at all times based upon its impressive track record.

I’d like to thank Mark Cavell, Annamarie Melodia Garrett and Doug Loudenslager for their contributions to identifying this pattern.