To be successful don’t you think that you need to align the resources of your company to effectively respond to the ever-changing needs of the customer, while building mutually profitable relationships?

Becoming customer centric should include the position of your people and organization, processes, technology, products and services to the customer.

Customer Centric Priority

There are many steps to becoming customer centric, but at the top-level, there are three primary imperatives:

1. Know Your Customer
2. Align Your Resources
3. Listen and Respond

Truly listening requires that you obtain input from each customer touch point, integrate this information, internalize, analyze and…respond!

Update your customer with the following:
- This is what we heard
- This is what we have done
- This is what we have planned

I ponder what can you do to provide better customer solutions?   I think back to an article that I read by Ranjay Gulati “Silo Busting”.    He clearly stated that you have the four Cs of Customer –Focused Solutions.

Coordination – Establishing structural mechanisms and process that allow employees to improve their focus on the customer by harmzing information and activities across work units.

Cooperation – Encouraging people in all parts of the company – through cultural means, incentives, and the allocation of power – to work together in the interest of customer needs.

Capability – Ensuring that enough people in the organization have the skills to deliver customer-focused solutions and defining a clear career path for employees with those skills.

Connection – Developing relationships with external partners to increase the value of solutions cost effectively.

George Stalk’s 2004 article, Playing Hardball: Why Strategy Still Matters, reveals how leaders can orchestrate attacks on competitors by being zealously committed to strengthening their competitive position. The current business environment requires companies to have solid, winning strategies in place to successfully compete and become industry leaders. Yet strategy is being pushed off of the manager’s agenda. Management is being distracted by recent “soft” issues of management science such as leadership, culture, customer care, and employee empowerment. This pulls their attention from the heart of the matter, which is creating and reinforcing competitive advantage which leads to benefits such rapid growth, leading market share, and big margins.

Two extremes in business competition can be found in business today. The first are those companies that play “softball” and rely on weak tactics that masquerade as strategies. “Softball” players either have no competitive advantage or do not know how to exploit it, so they manage to stay in the game for the short term, but never win. The other extreme are the “hardball” players who use every legitimate strategy and resource to gain competitive advantage over their competitors. “Hardball” players do not settle for competitive advantage. Once they make gains, they reinvest them into the business to strengthen it even further. Their competitive advantage becomes so commanding; they emerge as more than just market leaders in their industry. They create shifts in the industry by changing the rules of the game, leaving competitors to either try to follow or quit.

Hardball players live by five principles

The strategy that is the focus point of George Stalk’s article is that of the “Hardball” method. This strategy enables companies to trounce on and overthrow and their competition if deployed and followed. Hardball players live by five principles:

1. Hardball players focus relentlessly on competitive advantage. Hardball players will persistently use a company’s resources and distinctive competencies in order to succeed and maintain longevity. They single-mindedly strive for a competitive advantage and then do not settle, but try their utmost to strengthen it.

2. Hardball players strive to convert competitive advantage into decisive advantage. Hardball players ensure their competitive advantage is not fleeting, but instead grows stronger and stronger. They continually try to widen the gap between themselves and others, pushing further away from the reach of competitors until their advantage is unassailable. This leaves competitors to find away around that competitive advantage or leave the playing field.

3. Hardball players employ the indirect attack. Indirect attacks have often been a part of successful military strategy. Resources are applied where the “enemy” is least able to defend themselves. Indirect attacks provide the element of surprise as opposed to meeting the competition head to head.

4. Hardball players exploit their employee’s will to win. Employees must be action oriented and must never be content with the status quo. The will to win must constantly be fostered. Success must not be allowed to produce complacency or indifference.

5. Hardball players draw a bright line at the edge of the caution zone. The relentless drive to maximize strengths can often bring companies to the edge of the caution zone. “Hardball” strategies never mean engaging in illegal or unethical behavior. Legal and accounting council can help leaders draw a clear line for employees so they can clearly see the line of the caution zone. When operating in the caution zone, leaders must make sure they are not harming the industry or society with their actions. If they find they have stepped over the line, corrective action must be taken immediately.

Six Classic Hardball Strategies

Strategy that provides a critical competitive advantage is considered a hardball strategy. Although there are numerous “hardball” strategies, the article describes the six classic ones that have been used over the decades by firms to create competitive advantage.

1. Unleash massive and overwhelming force. When companies choose a direct attack strategy over an indirect attack, a massive assault must be deployed. The company must be fully prepared for such an attack and keep in mind that this strategy is often very public.

2. Exploit anomalies. Hardball executives embrace anomalies because they can potentially reveal an opportunity to gain competitive advantage.

3. Threaten your competitor’s profit sanctuaries. This is a risky strategy because it can take you up to the line of the caution zone and can engender retaliation. Occupying a competitor’s profit sanctuary can have a significant impact competitor’s strategies.

4. Take it and make it your own. Hardball players are on the watch for any ideas that might help them create a competitive advantage. Hardball companies look around at competitors, other geographic markets, and even other industries to find ideas they can borrow and improve upon so they can be used successfully.

5. Entice your competitors into retreat. Hardball players can often be successful by enticing competitors to focus on business that drives up their costs and ultimately weakens them. A superior understanding of your own business is required in order to employ this strategy effectively.

6. Break compromises. Often customers are forced to accept compromises because they feel they have no alternatives. By identifying such compromises, and creating a new model of business, hardball companies can often create fast and profitable growth.

Characteristics of Hardball Players

Companies that wish to use the hardball strategies must have a certain mindset. Leaders that use hardball strategies are not “bad guys.” Conversely they generally have a number of admirable traits. The following are some of the characteristics of hardball players:

• Intellectual toughness that enables them to face facts and see reality

• Emotionally aware • Dissatisfied with status quo

• Have the will to catalyze change

• Are tough, but not bullies

• Are serious about their business

• Rub off on others due to their passion

• Are often deceptive in appearance and demeanor

• Succeed in staying at the heart of the matter by keeping their organizations in “perpetual turnaround mode, no matter how successful they are

“The Discipline of Building Character”, by Joseph L. Badaracco, Jr. explains the “defining moments” that managers and leaders face.  Badaracco explains that there are three types of defining moments that are common in the business world: “Who am I?”, “Who are we?”, and “Who is the company?”  Managers who learn to identity these three types of defining moments will be more able to effectively navigate the right-versus-right decisions they face throughout their careers.

The first type of moment is centered on personal identity.  This requires the manager to ask the question “Who am I?”  The example that was provided in the article is when a manager is faced with two “rights”, each one representing a reasonable and attractive choice. In most cases both choices are right, so the manager must make choice of “right versus right”.

The second type of moment is centered on groups as well as individuals.  It leads managers to the question “Who are we?”  The manager must not only look at situations as conflicts between two personal beliefs but also take into account the values of their work group and their responsibilities to the people they manage. The manager has a direct impact on a how a group’s future and values are formed by the way these types of defining moments are handled.

The final type is that of defining a company’s role within society. It presents the question, “Who is the company?”   A leader who has this responsibility must be able to redefine the direction of his or her own life and the direction of the entire organization. These leaders are asked to make visible their understanding of what is right on a large scale.  They not only commit to themselves or to a single work group but to the entire company with an irreversible course of action during this type defining moment.

The author provided the following guide for defining moments which can be used as reference.

A Guide to Defining Moments

For Individuals
Who am I?
•    What feelings and intuitions are coming into conflict in this situation?
•    Which of the values that are in conflict are most deeply rooted in my life?
•    What combination of expediency and shrewdness, coupled with imagination and boldness, will help me implement my personal understanding of what is right?

For Managers of Work Groups
Who are we?
•    What are the other strong, persuasive interpretations of the ethics of the situation?
•    What point of view is most likely to win a contest of interpretations inside my organization and influences of thinking of the other people?
•    Have I orchestrated a process that can make manifest the values I care about in my organization?

For Company Executives
Who is the company?
•    Have I done all I can to secure my position and the strength of my organization?
•    Have I thought creatively and boldly about my organization’s role in society and its relationship to stockholders?
•    What combination of shrewdness, creativity, and tenacity will help me transform my vision into reality?

Application
This article has has provided me with a great deal of insight and I am seeing an immediate impact on the way I handle issues that I face on a daily basis. “The Guide to defining moments” provided by the author has been typed up, printed out, and placed on the wall in my office.  I have also shared it with my peers.  I was surprised that so many of them also faced the same challenges that I do with defining moments.  They really appreciated me sharing the guide and a few of them also requested to borrow the article for their reference.

I have been in many situations that resulted in defining moments that required me to ask “Who am I?”  This article introduced me to the concept of the benefit of taking a step back and evaluating the conflict not as a dilemma but as an expected tension between two valid perspectives. I have spent many hours having internal struggles on situations that have two valid “rights”.  I have taken the author’s suggestion and started to ask myself “What feelings and intuitions are coming into conflict in the situation?”  I need to put value in the feelings and intuitions I have with a situation and recognize that I can get important insight.  I have always down played my feelings and intuition but the author pointed out that they are both a form of valuable intelligence.

The article gave me a very interesting perspective on decisions that I make and don’t make. I found value in the points the author made about defining moments of “Who are we?” I have made the mistake that my entire group views situations the same way that I do.  I understand that people in my team come from different types of upbringing, religion, ethnicity, and education.  The article has made me more aware of the fact I should not impose my understanding of what is right on my team but to take the time to understand how they see the situation. The differences in team members will lead to multiple interpretations of a situation and add valuable insight when making decisions that impact the group.  I am also more aware that when I don’t make a decision on a controversial topic that has two “rights” it can be as destructive as a poor choice in regards to the impact on the team. I need to make sure that I fully understand what type of support I have from my employees and coworkers on choices that I make between two rights.

The points the author made in regards to defining moments of “Who is the company?” have really given me a different appreciation of the stress that executives face with the decisions they make.  The choices they make have a huge impact on the entire company.  Their defining moments go beyond the “Who am I?” and “Who are we?” dilemmas.  The executive is chartered with bringing forth their vision of what is right for the organization in a given situation.  They need to be in constant check with “Have I done all I can to secure my position and the strength and stability of my organization?”  Executives can use defining moments as a chance to redefine their company’s role in society.  This is a lot of pressure that I did not give much thought to until reading the article.  Executives must be accountable to themselves, shareholders, customers, and employees.

“The Work of Leadership”, by Ronald A. Heifetz and Donald L. Laurie describes the six principles for leading adaptive work.  Heifetz and Laurie break it down to the following principles:  “getting on the balcony”, identifying the adaptive challenge, regulating distress, maintaining disciplined attention, giving the work back to people, and protecting voices of leadership from below.

Heifetz and Laurie use a very good sports analogy of how great team leaders are able to participate in the play of the moment but also be able see the impact to the overall match.  The authors equate this to viewing the game from the press box or on a balcony above the field. A business leader must have the ability to go back and forth between the playing field and balcony, to be able to provide context for adjusting, creating, or planning adaptive change.  The ability to effectively go back and forth between the balcony and playing field enables the leader to guide their organization through adaptive change.

Business leaders must be able to adapt to change. In order to adapt, they need to be able to identify the adaptive challenges within their organizations that need to be addressed.  The authors point out that if companies are not able to quickly learn to adapt to new challenges, they run the risk of going out of business.

Heifetz and Laurie point out that adaptive work generates distress. As a business leader one must be able to regulate this distress.  The leader must have presence and poise during this time. The leader will need the emotional capacity and ability to tolerate the uncertainty, frustration and pain that accompanies adaptive change.  The authors point out that a leader will be observed both by their verbal and non-verbal responses to the adaptive change by everyone in their organization.

Maintaining disciplined attention is critical during adaptive work. The article shows the importance of leaders being able to get their employees to confront tough tradeoffs. People throughout the organization must be able point out and work through divisive issues. The authors explain in the article that leaders must be able step in and put the team on a path that will be structured to address conflict.  Heifetz and Laurie define “disciplined attention” as the currency of leadership.

Leaders must give the work back to the people for the organization to be successful. The article shows the importance of a leader to instill confidence in their people during adaptive work. A leader needs to encourage their people to take risks and responsibility for the work they are doing.  It is equally important for the leader to back up their people if they make mistakes.  The authors point out that self-confidence comes from success, experience, and the organization’s environment.  The only way people will achieve this if the leaders allow the people to do the work.

The last principle that the authors point out is that of protecting voices of leadership from below.  Heifetz and Laurie state that leaders have to provide cover to employees who point to the internal contradictions of the enterprise. For a leader to do this points back to the first principle of being able to get on the “balcony” and listen to what people are saying and see how it applies to the big picture.

“The Hidden Messages Managers Send”, by Michael B. McCaskey describes three ways managers convey messages about themselves and the ways they view the world. McCaskey breaks it down into the following categories: their metaphors, office settings, body language and tone that go with their speech.

Managers convey messages in metaphors. McCaskey points out in the article that people draw characteristic verbal pictures of themselves and the world around them with the words they use.   “The imagery and metaphors that a person most frequently uses can be clues to understanding the world he or she inhabits.” (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 121-122)  The imagery that is created indicates what the person values, fears, and behavioral rules they follow. The words used in the metaphor by the manager can be analyzed to help determine what they might view as important or their stance on an issue.  (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 122)

McCaskey notes that a place in which a meeting occurs reveals many messages.  “The first thing to understand about place is that it represents territory.  Animals mark off the range of their territory and defend it against intruders, and so does the human animal.”  (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 128) Mangers tend to have meetings with their employees in their office if the issue at hand is in regards to an adversary discussion, to give directions, or to make a point of hierarchy or authority. On the other hand if the manager is trying to reach out to their employees they might meet at their office.  (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 128)

Body Language and paralinguistics is the third category that the author suggests people take in to account when trying to read hidden messages from a manger.  “Like physical settings, body language and paralinguistics convey important messages that color, support, or contradict the words people use.” (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 134)  It is pointed out in the article that things such as observing your managers’ facial expressions and body posture can clue you in on how they are receiving the message you are delivering. The author cautions the reader that even if the person and context is well known, body language can be misinterpreted.  (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 135)

McCaskey explains that paralinguistic features of speech offer another potential means of tuning in to another’s feelings. (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 138)   “Managers can treat paralanguage as the music of communication – to observe how a person’s voice tightens or catches at difficult passages or rushes and soars at moments of high emotion.” (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 138)  Pauses and moments of silences during conversation is something that McCaskey recommends taking note of.  He explains that they can be used to make the other side feel uncomfortable or to allow them time to think about the message that was just communicated. (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 139)

McCaskey recommends for a manager to improve in three areas is to work in a small group.  He says it can be very helpful to role-play different situations while others watch.  Observers will be surprised at how much they can learn about how the participants are feeling just from watching their interaction.  He also says that, with practice, managers can increase their skill at reading and sending messages during interactions with other people. (McCaskey, HBR, 1979, p. 138)

Application

This article really opens my eyes to the metaphors that I use in the work place.  I draw many of my metaphors from sporting events, and automatically assume people will get the references. I am sure that I have been making the wrong assumption that people in my team understand my points by presuming they understand the references. I should not assume that everyone is a sports fan.  The article also gave me insight to pay closer attention to the metaphors that my employees, co-workers, and boss use in our interaction. In taking the time to truly analyze the metaphor that is being used, I may be able to get a better understanding of how they stand on the issue at hand.  For example, if it is a funny metaphor, they may not being taking the issue as seriously as I am or they may be trying to “lighten” the mood.

I have not given much thought to the meeting location being a factor before reading the article.  Most of my meetings are scheduled in a conference rooms.  I currently practice taking my employees off site for 1:1 meetings; I have found they are more open outside of the office.  I am going to try to make myself more aware of locations of meetings and see if I can recognize any patterns on the selection by the organizers.

Works Cited
McCaskey, Michael. “The Hidden Messages.”, Harvard Business Review November-December 1979: Reprint 79609.

“Skilled Incompetence,” by Chris Argyris addresses the complex issue many organizations face of being dysfunctional.  The article attributes this to what Argyris refers to as skilled incompetence. Which is explained as “whereby managers use practiced routine behavior (skill) to produce what they do not intend (incompetence).” (Argyris 102)

Argyris attributes one of the root causes of skilled incompetence to the type of communication that managers engage in with peers and subordinates. Managers may only promote communication that avoids conflict or topics that might be upsetting to others.  In turn, the manager becomes skilled in avoiding important issues that might be considered controversial for the sake of perceived harmony amongst the participants.   The managers’ skill in this area increases the probability of becoming institutionalized and creates terrible side effects to their organization.  (Argyris 102)

One of the side effects that Argyris points out is that the company may take on a culture that can’t tolerate straight talk. (Argyris 102) You may have people who may not feel comfortable actually communicating how they stand on an issue. Team members may not question assumptions that are being made by management that are not correct.

The article points out that this type of side effect leads to an “age-old tug between autonomy and control: superiors want no surprises, subordinates want to be left alone.”  (Argyris 106)   Employees look for independence on projects to be granted by management as a sign of trust from management.  Management wants information systems to be utilized by employees to track progress of projects so they are informed. This, in turn, causes trust issues between management and employees which creates tension. (Argyris 106)

The tension created becomes yet another opportunity for the manager to demonstrate skilled incompetence. Argyris has observed managers handle this tension by pretending that it does not exist.  (Argyris 106) The managers were portrayed as behaving as if everything was in a state harmony and counting on no one pointing out disagreements.  The reality is that the manager knew the tension existed but avoided addressing issues and talked around issues which in turn caused many mixed messages to be sent by the supervisor. (Argyris 106)

Skilled incompetence learned by managers leads to the birth of defensive routines.  Defensive routines are defined by Argyris as “any action or policy designed to avoid surprise, embarrassment or threat.”  (Argyris 107) The defensive routines practiced by a manager may become part of the company culture and become practiced by others in the organization.  Argyris points out that the defensive routines can commonly remain with a company regardless of whether or not the manager is currently employed with the organization.

The article clearly points out that management is faced with the dilemma of how to correct skilled incompetence as well as the importance of doing so. Argyris suggests that the first step is to have management identify the defensive routines that have been setup that are feeding the skilled incompetence into the culture of the company. The management team must recognize that a problem exists and promote the unlearning of the skilled incompetence that has created a dysfunctional organization. The management team must honestly look at how they have become skilled incompetents and be committed to correcting the problem.

Works Cited

Argyris, Chris. “Skilled Incompetence.”, Harvard Business Review September-October 1986: Reprint 86501.

I recently have found myself re-visiting many HBR articles. The one of recent is “How to Run a Meeting”, by Antony Jay which covers a range of topics and provides sound recommendations on how to be a productive facilitator. The topics covered are functions of a meeting, the distinction in size and type of meeting, ways to define objectives, making preparations, the chairman’s role, and ways to conduct a meeting that will achieve its objectives. Jay points out in the article that there are six main functions of a meeting:

• Meetings define the team, the group, or the unit
• Meetings are the place where the group revises,updates, and adds to what is known as a group.
• Meetings help every individual understand both the collective aim of the group and the way in which their own and everyone else’s work can contribute to the group’s success.
• Meetings create in all present a commitment to the collective aim of the group and the way in which their and everyone else’s work can contribute to the group’s success.
• Meetings are very often the only occasion where the team or group actually exists and works as a group, and the only time when the supervisor, manager, or executive is actually perceived as the leader of the team, rather than as the official to whom individuals report.
• A meeting is a status arena. (Jay, 27-31)

The article points out the different sizes and type of meetings that are most common to the business world. “Meetings can be graded by size into three broad categories: (1) the assembly – 100 or more people who are expected to do little more than listen to the main speaker or speakers; (2) the council – 40 or 50 people who are basically there to listen to the main speaker or speakers but who can come in with questions or comments and who may be asked to contribute something on their own account; and (3) the committee – up to 10 (or at the most 12) people, all of whom more or less speak on equal footing under the guidance and control of a chairman,” (Jay, 31-32) Jay’s focus in this article is mainly on the committee type of meetings but it is important to understand the different type of meetings based on size.

The article does a nice job of pointing out the four categories that help define distinctive objectives in a meeting.

• Informative-digestive
• Constructive
• Executive responsibilities
• Legislative framework (Jay, 35-37)

Jay states that all items on an agenda should fall in one or more of the four categories above.

In preparation for a meeting, Jay recommends that the facilitator go through the agenda in advance and classify each item within the four categories that best describes the function that it is going to serve. “This exercise helps clarify what is expected from the discussion and helps focus on which people to bring in and what questions to ask them.” (Jay, 38) The agenda is one of the key components to having a successful meeting and the author of the article states it is the most important piece of paper that is created for the meeting. (Jay, 39) It is important that the meeting has the right number of people who can add value. Jay recommends between 4 and 7 people; anything above that will put the success of the meeting at risk. (Jay, 38)

The chairman’s or facilitator’s role is to make sure that the meeting achieves valuable objectives. The role requires that they assist the group in finding the best solution in an efficient manner. (Jay, 44) It is vital for the person in this role to foster communication among the team members. The person in this role must also be able to facilitate conflict resolution among team members for the good of the meeting.

Jay suggests that for a meeting to be successful and meet its objectives the chairman / facilitator must do the following:

• Draw out the silent.
• Encourage the clash of ideas.
• Watch out for the suggestion-squashing reflex.
• Come to the most senior people last.
• Close on a note of achievement.
• Publish meeting notes. (Jay, 54-56)

Application
Meetings are dreaded by many of the people at my place of employment. The main frustrations people have with meetings that I found :

• There are managers that call a meeting for the sake of having a meeting that do not seem to have a purpose.
• There are meetings that are held without an agenda.
• People don’t see what progress is made at the meeting because no meeting notes are published. People leave meetings not knowing who is accountable for action items.

I believe it is very important for managers and leaders to set an example of running productive meetings and find ways to prevent frustration. I encourage people to ask for clarification if they are invited to a meeting and don’t understand the purpose and if they do not receive clarification I suggest you decline the meeting invitation. The same goes for meetings to which you are invited that don’t have an agenda. If the requester can’t provide an agenda, I suggest that you decline the meeting invitation until one is provided. I encouraged you to ask at the start of a meeting who will be taking notes and when they will be published. There are a few concepts that the article brought to my attention about meetings that I suggest you leverage if you are frustrated.

The first is to really make sure that your meetings do not have more than 7 people that attend. The article made me reflect on which meetings I have attended or run that have been successful and it seems to be the smaller groups. I recommend that you spend more time reviewing the agendas that your create and map them to the four categories that help define distinctive objectives in a meeting. This will help your evaluate whether the item needs to be on the agenda and to explain to the team members why the item is being addressed.

The article also gave me valuable insight into a mystery that I did not understand about the different type of silence that occurs in meetings The author describes two types of silence: the silence of diffidence and silence of hostility. (Jay, 54) In the first type of silence, I need to try to draw out people in my team that might be shy and encourage them to provide input. The second type of silence is something that I need to be aware of and try to find out why the team member(s) have an issue with me so that I can address the problem.

This article also re-enforced the importance of publishing meeting notes and that the responsibility is that of the meeting facilitator to ensure that this happens. I sometimes get frustrated when the meeting notes are not published in a timely fashion by the scribe of the meeting. I need to take ownership and responsibility in ensuring that this happens and not shift that to the scribe.

I suggest that you take the time to read the article by Jay and share it with your team members and peers and solicit their feedback on how they think you are doing with the meetings that you manage. I know that I am going to do this. Perhaps, this will also trigger many of my peers to evaluate how they think they are doing as meeting facilitators and ask for my feedback.

Works Cited
Jay, Antony. “How to Run a Meeting.”, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1976: Reprint 76204.
twitter :  http://twitter.com/darmy71