Social Pariah or Messiah

Disclaimer: This post is a bit controversial & is not in tune with what the social media theorists & gurus talk about or recommend.

For quite some time now the whole notion of social media, the prevailing networks & the parochial ones on the periphery have me seeking out answers that some can give, some choose not to and some avoid based on anecdotal evidence that frankly is irrelevant.

I pride myself in showing value, business requires this and without identifying what a consumer benefits from at the end of the day, one cannot implement a strategy on a whim. If they do, there needs to be a measurable sense that can be evaluated post the implementation of that whim or a gut feeling.

So here is the thesis of my argument; social media and how it is "sold" is based on the # of Likes, the # of Followers, the # of ReTweets or Shares or Pins; identifiable figures no doubt, but none that can tie to direct Return on Investment evaluations.

We talk about buyer intention and consumer purchase as a mechanism of funding startups these days that lead to sales, and the hope is to once again evaluate the intention, identify the behaviour but is there truly a mechanism to show that in relation to the sales an entity takes in? Can we tie social strategy to a sales strategy and can we show a true connect without some gimmicky notion of "if you saw us on Facebook let us know and we will give you a 5% discount" or "if you liked us" or ..?

I know this is not phenomenally a new concept, but the question continues, not necessarily on a commercial scale, but perhaps on a personal one. Personal brand building is the buzz these days, connect, connect, connect is all we hear. People talk about engaging with folks on the social networks and creating CoC's (communities of conversation) as I like to think of it. To build a CoC though, you need to first build yourself, build your own brand, build your own network and how pray do you go about doing that? Well, if you hear what some of the gurus have to say, they talk about:
1 - Follow those who follow you regardless of quality.
2 - Favourite your own posts.
3 - Try to engage with social influencers so you have your content shared through their network.
4 - Invite people within your contact directories across platforms.
5 - Promote social influencers.
6 - Buy your initial set of followers (a few hundred or a thousand) and let the network do the work for you. etc. etc.

When I think of social networks I try to equate that to social interactions & behaviours in the real world and what I find is that we are now mimicking the same clique mentalities in the networks as we have in the real world - those of us who are out remain out although we may have a measly representation of a set of followers gained by social network logistics than content creation. Those of us who are in, continue to grow our following as our clique helps us do so.

I further think of all the tips, techniques & rules put out there around generating a large following and sometimes I wonder how people end up with a large network? I simply ask this question as a purist who believes in the organic growth of a network as opposed to "gaming the network logistics".

What I come back to is delivering value and regardless of a corporate or an individual brand you need to show value to your consumer (whether it is a paying or a non-paying consumer). I revert back to my notion of a CoC which I believe you can develop organically and build on as you continue to identify the value you deliver to the consumer. Inherently these strong organic networks are far better than the haphazard ins/outs of people through the network of liking/disliking/following/unfollowing you. What would be phenomenal is if the networks understood the notion of what they were creating - a social space that replicated what we have in the real world.

Consider the next iteration - what if we could have a breakup mechanism replicated within our social interactions so as to know when people unfollow or unlike something? What if they dislike it? Breaking up as a notion may be painful, but in the social space, it could give direct feedback to the individual you were unfollowing let's say, on why you were doing & could perhaps better that brand. It would give direct feedback to that brand (personal or not) what is missing from that social relationship/experience.

What about the next evolution of social networks - could we have a SCommerce, a Social Commerce experience where I would not only participate in the CoC, but also purchase a product no matter the network with a click of a button. Could I for example, while following Nike on Twitter, buy a pair of shoes and attribute those earnings directly to returns invested in the social experiment? Would I then be able to tie social strategy to the sales strategy? The logistics of that purchase, be it pickup in-store, digitally or via postal mail would be irrelevant, yet the driver to that purchase would be identifiable to the social space, while also identifying when, perhaps even why that user came on as part of that CoC.

Regardless of my random thought processes around what social networks should evolve to, my point is, can it be more than it is, either for the personal or the corporate brand? Can it be more about organic social interaction that is truly measurable, even actionable, than what we have today? Can it be more than simply counting the # of followers or the # of likes and truly evoke brand loyalty without some gimmick? Can it be a true social experience or will we continue down this path of creatively either gaming the system for more followers and/or prettying up the interface to lure folks into it?

Parting thought: I find myself in good company when I recently discovered a quote by David Ogilvy who once said "If it doesn't sell, it isn't creative". This to me is not simply about the monetary mechanics of "selling" but also speaks to campaigns we are developing today to build our brands, yet cannot truly equate emotional intelligence to economical value. We need change, we need it fast and we need honest brands building honest CoC's that will last a lifetime and not be just another passing clicking fad.

What kind of Leader are you?!

No this is not a personality profile survey or a test; its a simple question around what kind of Leader are you?

I have always been identified as the type of individual that perhaps works too much, is a night owl and perhaps lives by the postmasters "neither rain, nor sleet, nor gloom of night.." unofficial pledge.

In the day & age of smart phones I can be seen walking down hallways, carrying my coffee, my signature little notebook and hammering away at my BlackBerry (yes I still use one of them). I have been known to review documents, provide for my insight, outline our initiatives for the next year, plan for our new budget cycle & even respond to correspondence when at least half of us earthlings are asleep, usually the ones in the half I happen to be in at the time.

A recent dictum coming out of Leadership learning is that the more you perform in this fashion, i.e. through nights, weekends, holidays & dare I say vacations, you set expectations that people that you lead need to do so as well. This concerns me deeply as I would never want anyone to follow in my footsteps at a detriment to themselves. I am clear about this in my communication and usually preface my e-mail with when I would look for a response in relation to when I would think they would next view my note.

I have been recently thinking however, as I write communications this Christmas Eve morning, how I may be perceived sending across communique either today or tomorrow. I'm not the grinch by any stretch of the imagination, but have been a creature of quiet, when a lot of work does get done. With the hustle & bustle of a day through meetings, conference calls, driving to & fro, etc. I find needing time that I can actually achieve "desk work".

I guess what doesn't help it all is, I love my work. I have always been very frank about my career choices & never have I once taken on an opportunity that I did not find the love for. Life is too short & early on in my career I made a decision that I would love what I did or not do it at all. Sure I have tough days like everyone, but the bottom line is I love what I do, be it in as it turns out currently is healthcare, or education which is a part-time hobby or passionately pushing the agenda on my charitable activities or being an entrepreneur which I have been genetically prepared for.

As I put together all these thoughts of why I do what I do and consider it in-line with how it impacts those I lead, I come down to one fundamental principle, as much as I need to look after the interests of everyone, I need to look after mine as well. I recall the principle in aircraft safety that requires parents to put their oxygen mask on themselves first, before they attend to their child. Fundamentally I always had a problem with this part of the safety presentation, but understood the logic behind it as I grew up. Family, friends & colleagues have similarly shared their thoughts on self-care being needed to serve the needs of my health first, usually to be sleeping through the nights & taking a break through vacation, but the thought still holds. It maybe naive, but self-care in my opinion extends to how I believe I function best rather than being forced into a corporate cube.

So regardless of what kind of leader you are, its fine to work as you see fit. Culturally you need to ensure this fits with what's expected & recognize that as you look to working on your own terms, you need to be able to accommodate the work terms of those you lead. At the same time, it is ok, to be unique, an individual, as you yourself are a crucial cog of your team.

Being a Leader is an actualization of thought & practice. Although there are standards for what we should & should not do as Leaders, your unique flair is what makes you a unique authentic Leader. That above else, will allow you to succeed as a Leader, as the notion of "Be Yourself" can not be any truer than as a Leader. The people you lead need to able to experience your "authentic self" as the textbooks call it these days, not a forced clone of what is perceived to be the right Leader or with the right Leadership qualities.

And with that, Happy Santa Claus day in advance everyone.

The Big "HR" Phenomenon vs. The Leadership Social Action - Level 2

I have had the pleasure of working with colleagues from all spectrum's and walks of life, located in an international marketplace. This diversity in thought, ideologies and cultures only furthers my perspective on what I believe is the big "HR" Phenomenon that seems to be spoken of in a variety of capacities & mechanisms.

Too often the notion that our advisers, neigh partners in our Leadership action are hindrances to our continued push for excellence has led to disappointing results in our pursuit for building perhaps even nurturing, a dynamic team. Finger pointing for these failures, be it in recruitment, onboarding, training, development, appraisals, etc. etc. are commonplace and is the traditional mantra chanted in organizations large & small alike.

My call to the Leadership Social Action for Level 2 requires the Leader to take ownership of the individuals they bring to bear within their fold. I propose that the big "HR" Phenomenon needs to be more to the little "hr" support mechanism we truly do require in our quest for excellence. This requires a fundamental shift in how we do a variety of people leadership & yes, even management activities within an organization.

Recruitment: I will be writing about recruitment in greater detail at a later stage, as I do believe we need a new methodology that permeates the various sources of recruit sourcing, "real" interviewing & employee development. In this action however, I believe Leadership within an organization needs to take the reins back in the recruitment process and take a greater ownership from the start to the finish. I do not suggest that we should take to the Yahoo CEO, Marissa Mayer (http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-is-reviewing-every-single-new-hire-at-yahoo-2012-9) methodology of involving ourselves in every bit of recruitment that occurs within the expanse of the organization, however, those that fall within our immediate purview requires our due attention. Too often we rush through the recruitment process only to regret later that the fit we may have hoped for does not exist. Recruitment is a Leadership accountability and should have due attention from the day a job is listed to the day the multiple levels of screening occurs, to the interview process, to the day a recruit is brought in for onboarding into the organization. In our diverse marketplace, there is talent out there that may not fit within the square peg of a job description, but certainly could be the innovative force or the worker extraordinaire we so desperately seek.

Training & Knowledge Management: Training, professional development & in today's nomenclature of knowledge management from a learning perspective is traditionally seen as a HR function. The more we look to ensuring our staff have the learnings they require, the more they are attuned to the needs we have within our functional & strategic realms. This to me cannot be assured through a central HR function, albeit there are certain global aspects of training & learning that can be managed through that vehicle.

Assessment: Performance reviews and assessments are a Leadership function that are brought forward as a to-do at regular intervals. The mechanisms in how we do this have become a template that cannot be attributed to the function as well as to the individual within the function. To often than not, it is HR that requires Leaders to conduct these assessments rather than ensuring it is a Leadership accountability to provide for continuous relevant feedback to support, both the organization as well as the individual growth within their own spheres of influence.

Reward Mechanisms: Rewards need to be meaningful, timely and substantial. This should not be dictated by central mechanisms but identified as a way of a Leader uniquely recognizing his/her teams and/or individuals in the fashion that best suits them. Certificates for example are used as a common mechanism to recognize individuals, but lose meaning when they are awarded for minuscule tasks that are meant to be part of the role & responsibility of the individual. Reward mechanisms should involve the individuals in selecting how they would like to be recognized and yes, even time off and/or increases in pay need to be considered in shrinking budgetary complements if we are to compete and innovate across industries & sectors. Reward mechanisms could also involve peer recognition as a component of the decision matrix that identifies the nominee of choice.

This blog post is not meant to be a rant on whether or not Human Resources (today popularly also referred to as People Services or a derivative thereof) or Leadership do what they are supposed to, but more of an understanding that we are actually doing our people a disservice by pointing fingers at each other. This debate causes anxiety, stress & at times frustration within staff complements. It is our job to alleviate these challenges but we tend to use each other as crutches nonetheless to further our own defensive posture.

My hope & dream would be for Leaders to continue to be accountable for their own actions, as they alone are responsible for what their teams & staff colleagues experience, while having a dynamic Human Resources advising body that adapts to the unique nature of the function, business, organization, culture and very simply the diverse environments we tend to work in today. That said, the action I am calling for is to have Leaders take it upon themselves to engender this change and perhaps look for mechanisms to change the status quo to one that is ever changing rather than one that remains stagnant at its core indoctrinated in the early 20th century.

The Employment Social Arena vs. The Leadership Social Action - Level 1

I have lectured and spoken about the social space for quite some time now. I have deliberated on consumer profiles, buying patterns and behaviours, engagement strategies and communication mediums galore, but the social space has brought about a new revolution in employment.

Web sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are being harvested to seek out information about recruits or employees everyday. These spaces are crawled through to locate information about IP that is being talked about, organizationally sensitive matters that are being discussed or patterns of behaviours that are being documented by what is now termed as big brother organizations overseeing social activities of those under their employ.

There are organizations that also have policies around social network use, both in its functional capacity, as well those surrounding its content as well as the contextual framework as it applies to the organizational setting.

We have evidence of contrasting opinions across the board that tells us of the relevance of the social space and what impact it will have on our lives. To begin, let's start with Eric Schmidt who spoke at Bloomberg a few years ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD_x9LW5QRg) and toyed with the idea that the President of the future could be uploading something completely inappropriate, per our current social norms and standards today. The question he poses however is, will it be a concern when s/he is ready to take that step into that political arena or not? As a society we are getting more digitally socialized each day, so does it matter or would all the candidates be on equal standing with their peers, of videos they may have uploaded in their youth, that would then be considered acceptable forms of behaviour?

A recent article spoke of How Facebook was making us miserable (http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/12/facebook_is_making_us_miserabl.html?cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-technology-_-technology122011&referral=00208&utm_source=newsletter_technology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=technology122011) and the whole phenomenon was getting to a point of constant one-upness, with no real end in sight.

The Crest edition of the Times of India further added (http://www.timescrest.com/society/losing-friends-6917) to the previous article by noting feature sets that are turning people away from popular social spaces, with recent losses due to the Privacy Commissioner's precedent setting moves in Canada.

Let's turn our attention back to the corporate setting - we know now that there are technology disruptor's that are going to enhance who/how/what we as a people are. Some of them start out quite simply as us being followed by the shopping carts we use (http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/12/shopping_carts_will_track_cons.html?cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-technology-_-technology122011&referral=00208&utm_source=newsletter_technology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=technology122011). But let's take this further, what happens if we digitize the entire experience as we know it is; how information is out there of a singular individual and how much do we use of that within the corporate sector?

Now, we are all not naive enough to believe that a thorough study of high security clearance individuals, military contractors, etc. are not run through the ringer of profile development, but what do we really know about people we work with, for or that work for us?

The Leadership "Social" Action I am proposing is the notion that we need to know our people. The social space and what it represents has existed in many forms, from the stone to the concrete ages, and I would venture a guess, will exist in whatever age we will find ourselves in, in the future. Social technologies have leveraged only a larger social dialogue, arguably one that is being organized a bit better over time.

I am asking however, how many of formal leaders take the time to ensure they are not unreachable, and inaccessible due to the multi-layered, geographically diverse and matrix mayhem we traditionally are presented with? How many take the time to know who they are leading and who they are not? This is not an exercise in knowing about the family pet's illnesses but it is an exercise in knowing whether leadership truly exists in the environment you are fostering. I am proposing that there are multiple levels of the Leadership Social Action, the first of which is:

Level 1 - Who are you Leading?
Knowing who you are truly leading goes beyond an organizational chart. It goes well beyond gut feelings or performance appraisals, it is a true & honest indicator of knowing who it is that you lead.

Have you ever looked around a table of people that you formally lead or put in a position to do so? Have you ever had the feeling that there may not be a wide acceptance around the room of your opinion? Have you lost even one individual?

If you were to truthfully write out a list of who you current lead, do you believe they would in a similar fashion identify who they follow to match up with your list?

The Paradox: Would you? Are you led? Do you follow? Will your response match those of your formal leader?

This is a continuing discussion in The Leadership Social Action, that will present all the levels, following with techniques and tips on how each level can be identified, explored and worked on to progress through in as successful a path as you see fit.

Organic Creativity

Organic creativity requires stimulation, motivation and mentorship. A learning experience can certainly create this atmosphere, but more importantly the learner needs to take their own accountability for this process to take form. I have been fortunate a few times now in my academic pursuits as an educator & a researcher, wherein a few learners have managed to present thoughts not expected in a form of this nature.

Hadi & Haitham present their pitch to Kijiji for their next international foray. They took their presentation to Prezi for a non-powerpoint display for a change.

Trevor, Amal & Natalia took the MS Kinect, modified the SDK available and created the sensory interface to present their point of the "connect" of Kinect in Healthcare. This group hopes to take this to the commercial arena in some form - watch out for them.

Organic creativity exists in these spaces and the drive shown by some of these folks is clearly lacking in traditional organizations. My thesis would be that perhaps an organization should stop their own creative processes and do what they do best - produce, manufacture, sell & support, while leaving the creativity to the more economical, creative & organic playground of a learner space.

This educator will certainly heed to this and will seek out learners where they are, to mentor & support them, providing for the best of both worlds.

Leadership comes in all forms and from all sources

No matter what your personal opinions on the wars and/or your political affiliations or your thoughts on the armed forces, the following video was an enlightening view into how leadership can exist in a variety of forms. Although we have been reminded of the strategic nature of military leadership, and the dominance of autocratic hierarchies, it is not only encouraging but also amazing to see glimmers of true leadership in structured governance structures.

Take General Welsh in this video, addressing the USAFA (United States Air Force Academy), and note some of the nuances he brings to bear in his lecture. He starts out trying to acclimate to his audience but he lets them know throughout the lecture what his expectations are, quite vociferously. He finishes off, in traditional military bravado by dismissing the class, but before that, take note of some of what he shares:

- ".. politics will change, technology will change, the enemy will change ..", " .. the most sophisticated piece of technology is .." - He talks of the individual. Think of change management, and the fuss that goes over it, now if only we could simply talk about this transparently and say that business may be conducted in a different manner, but the human factor does not change. People are the key to successful changes, albeit in different capacities.

- He talks about his son John and how the development of a new set of goals may lead you to wild successes. An interesting approach to failure & change, provides for a new paradigm of dealing with continued growth, a rebirth if you will from the ashes to rise well above what could have been. Sometimes the toughest decisions lead to the best outcomes.

- One of the statements he makes in the video is, " .. My dad made a difference, so will u.", ".. these people make a difference, so will u, don't worry about that .." : A leader reaffirms the positive, by providing for his confidence in those who he leads, but at the same token, informs them of what his expectations are. Leaders have a tough time articulating, beyond the job description/posting, what the expectations are with any role; but to do so in a fashion that clearly states it and provides for confidence in those he leads by knowing that they will achieve it, presents an interesting twist to the traditional. Affirmation & accolades do not need to succeed an action, they can be preceded by the action, thereby allowing for a higher percentage of a positive outcome.

- The chat about Thomas and how he takes charge by asking if he can address the team, shows courage in a team member. If a member of the team is comfortable enough to ask for the reins, even for something small as addressing his/her issues, shows a comfort level the leader has. Leaders support the growth of his/her team and allows for constructive dialogue that will not exist with a top-down approach to management, neigh what some refer to as leadership.

- The identification of Matt having credibility, speaks not only of the team member, but also the leader in the team. Credibility needs to exist to have true leadership that is not dictated simply by hierarchical or political structures.

- "Attention to detail; is it important? You decide." - Mistakes can happen, being a perfectionist is not necessarily everyone's forte, but to pay attention to the details allows the leader to keep the goals in check. I have said previously that sometimes, leaders tend to look up so much worrying about the big picture, when they lose focus on the here and now. Sometimes, if one were to worry about fixing the smaller things, they would find that the larger ones would naturally work themselves out.

- Sometimes you need to make decisions when you can't ask for help and you need to provide for inspiration when people need it. Two thoughts that speak to the leadership's responsiveness to the pulse of the team that s/he leads.

- The story of Laurie reveals leadership qualities that are identified through self-reflection; "I never asked him" - Vulnerability, "I almost cost him his daughter" & "I almost cost her a family" - Accountability, "4 days on the job and the tech sergeant knew about her" - Recognition. This is a 4 star General and to hear him say this to an audience on video speaks to his credibility as a leader. Would a leader today be this accepting? Do we know of the Laurie's that exist in our direct/indirect circle of influence? Have we even allowed for an environment to exist where someone can approach us with this type of a story?

- Do not let people down - this remains his message as he closes the lecture and he drives this home as his key expectation. Have we ever evaluated if we have let our people down, would a leader be comfortable doing so?

One of the consistent themes in his presentation was the celebration of the people, not the job or the task. Sometimes the task or the job is what presents a mechanism for celebrating people, but this leads to an incentive based style of leadership. True leaders lead consistently & transparently, which includes the celebration of people, for more than just the task, the job or the tenure of their career.

"leadership is a gift, its given by those who follow, but you have to be worthy of it" - This is no longer a question of nature vs. nurture; it is a question of how leadership is not a top-down but a bottom-up phenomenon. Managers may continue to remain but Leaders are everlasting. My personal belief requires me to surround myself with leaders in their own right. These leaders enhance my leadership, and the collaborative path is what I believe is the true success to our mutual growth.

Without much further adieu, do enjoy (please note that there are some troubling war scenes in this video):

Excelling vs. Growth

I read this article (http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2011/10/america_excelling_at_mediocrit.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date) that is specifically around the US and how mediocrity in comparison to some other countries is seemingly the order of the day. Although I do not buy that to the tee, what I do say is that there is a sense of "just getting by" in the world today that tends to be a rampant infectious disease that is creeping up at various levels.

I read yet another article a few months ago in HBR (Harvard Business Review - forgive me, I do not have the URL for the original) that spoke of how one leader/executive could not move ahead in her organization as she was considered to be a disruptor, a pusher, a go getter and sometimes did so to her peril. Her colleagues, her staff, etc. were so disenfranchised that the solution she was provided was to tone her capabilities down. She was passed up for vertical movements within the organization as she was seen as a lone ranger. Once again, although I do not agree with the tenets of the argument, i.e. be overly successful and disconnect with your team, I do concur with the thought that leadership needs to engender a culture of creativity, innovation, dare I say drive to achieve more than the norm.

As the first around mediocrity states, there is a sense of "just enough" around us; I would suggest that the corporate culture of push push push may have gotten a bit softer in this new era. I do find that with the advent of social media and this new focus towards social collusion, both private and corporate, there is a refocus in employee priorities and the penetration of the social dynamic is an important factor in the being of people today.

I would argue that whether we call it mediocrity, whether we strive for excellence, whether we want a refocus, whatever or however we phrase it, the growth phenomenon needs to be instilled within the corporate setting. All the Google'isms aside, whether it is a 80/20 focus on efficiency or a blend of corporate and social cultures, a highly caffeinated boost to our corporate micro-economies are required if we hope to make a dent on what I suggest is perhaps the key to a succeeding failure.

Corporations have been toying with new mechanisms to reengage their employees, and one of the common themes we continue to forget is that, the monetary and non-monetary methodologies we have used for decades still have some meaning left in them. The simplest options sometimes are the quickest ones with the most results. All the buzz words and the new age paradigms aside, people fundamentally want to enter a workplace they can work in, grow and perhaps earn some recognition while doing so. Nurturing this ideology while understanding that not everyone fits this mold, will perhaps get us further quicker and easier than all the techniques, self-help books would teach us.

Leadership, some say is a burden, I say its a privilege and to earn this privilege requires strength, creativity, innovation and a blend of caffeinated zen that allows for the creation & management of incremental growth within a state of calm. The challenge in this dictum is to ensure you not only do this, but to remain sustainable, engender it within your team; not recruit it, but engender it.

Speaking in a vacuum ...

Organizations tend to have a tough time speaking to their employees. We have professional coaches galore trying to provide for new techniques to doing so, which includes everything from the dawn of humanity to the current date. With the advent of technology we now speak of how social platforms can leverage some of this dialogue in a more open and honest fashion across the expanse of the organization. How does a virtual space that mimics what we have in reality from a social setting solve the problem? Is it not yet another platform?

When did it become so difficult to have a conversation with each other as human beings, as that's all we are trying to accomplish? Not to take away from the learning's to be had from different conversation mechanisms, however, how did we get to a stage where we could not keep basic tenets in mind while holding civil discourse amongst our own?

I look at where some of these conversations are geared towards, and how formal leaders are provided with tools and techniques for doing so adequately with their respective portfolios. When did it become ok to have formal leaders that cannot have the basic skills of having a dialogue with people you are to lead? When the discussion of nurture vs. nature comes up over leaders, I keep wondering if having a dialogue is not simply a nurture concept. Is it not as simple as, you either have it or you don't?

I have found myself in situations where there are discussions around how information should be phrased, perhaps even taken to the lowest common denominator, to ensure there is understanding, comprehension and at times a level of adherence. Sometimes I wonder why we don't include the groups we lead in larger discussions? Natural leadership and growth can only occur if situations are made available in a fashion that is accessible to one and all. Doing so with the lowest common denominator takes the strongest resource and their ideologies completely out of the equation.

Speaking not shouting, is probably the better approach to have your words heard & registered. Its a simple concept of ensuring there is a mutual dialogue occurring and not a one-sided conversation. This needs to occur on both fronts, i.e. with folks with positional authority and those without. Although there are all sorts of traditional and perhaps challenging roadblocks such as unionized environments, I would submit, a simple conversation that is not held in a vacuum allows for far better reception than it would otherwise.

We need to simplify this and take away from the complex methodologies that have us performing rituals rather than focusing on the intent of the conversation. Take it a step at a time and even if you convert from speaking in a vacuum to speaking in a canyon, at the very least you receive an echo of what you have said. Perhaps in the future, the canyon will be full of acknowledging echoes and it would simply not be a singular voice, but a collective one dialoguing as we as home sapiens are genetically encoded to do.

A lot of folks talk about listening being the primer for success, and although I do concur with that, I humbly suggest that listening needs to occur in an environment where speaking is encouraged, engendered and very simply "allowed". When the environment allows for speaking to be had, listening skills take over to ensure there is a true osmosis of what is being shared.

I would finish off by saying that, there is a lot of riches to be had from the populace that surrounds you. I would even venture a guess that, if we drop all the pretension, the ritualistic behaviors and go back to the basics of having a simple conversation, what we will find is worth its weight in gold.

Let them speak and ye shall find ....

The Customer is ALWAYS Right

The customer is ALWAYS right, and if you don't believe me, just ask my niece & nephew who either are full of the but's and why's or are always looking forward to the next best thing as the previous one just dint fit the bill (or it did not once they experienced the next best thing - its a vicious cycle, I'm not sure there is an exit anywhere in the neighborhood).

Why does this one common statement always keep rearing its head? Many have tried to skirt around it, reword/rephrase it, but there is no way to say it, but to keep to the original, "The Customer is ALWAYS Right".

Besides the obvious commercial reasoning behind the statement, business cannot be conducted if the customer is wrong & necessity certainly, in such a world, could not be the mother of innovation.

Growing up, one winter, I had the pleasure of being tasked with surveying preschooler's about Christmas, Kris Kringle, the whole notion of gift giving, asking and delivering, etc. As I reflect back, I now realize I was asking questions that generated responses that spoke to customer relationship mechanisms, feedback loops, research & development, the supply chain, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not commercializing Christmas, simply exploring what the customer (the kids) expected from their vendor/retailer/their dealer of all types of kiddie addictions - Santa Claus, his reindeers & the elves. Besides, Hallmark has cornered the market in commercializing holidays these days.

I think about the responses I received and reflect on how we deal with this specific audience and their need to romanticize this specific holiday with magic, while trying to explain operations in real terms. It is fascinating to receive this feedback first hand, but am not sure it is looped back into how we respond to it appropriately. Yes, we have a lot of folks in Santa suits and line-up's to speak to him, while having cookies from Mrs. Claus and being constantly bothered with elvish mannerisms, but to truly reflect back their ideologies, requires a thorough analysis of what they, the customer, require during this season.

I am now thinking about my recent interactions in both hemisphere's (eastern & western), and the one commonality I find is that, organizations are willing to spend millions through customer feedback on what they need to work on, but are quite poor in translating brand promises from corporate to front line realities in all facets of their interface with their clientele. Not only does it take quite the individual to deal with clients, but it also takes quite the organization to inform, educate and translate client acquisition messages into operational realities. This alone can further our need to continue reselling and upselling our clients, rather than continuing to acquire clients through a barrage of more expensive mechanisms.

We talk about employee retention, let's dashboard customer retention and growth as well as a norm, while trying to continually deliver what we inherently promise. I leave you with one final thought; it is not Ok to have even one client dissatisfied over one transaction over the life of that relationship, no matter how big an organization is and no matter how insignificant that transaction may be in the bigger scheme of things - if this mantra can be maintained, perhaps there is hope for us yet.

Efficient Inefficiencies

My recent trip homeward bound has me evaluating the business precepts we keep pushing within the confines of academia, and how most if not all of them do not hold true in this world of constant movement of economies.

Captains of business, leaders galore are all around you, and not necessarily celebrated as it is in the western worlds. Here it is a natural state of existence, an almost predetermined future of what you are destined for - absolute entrepreneurship, in every way sense of that term.

Studies have been conducted to capture this unnerving, yet eery sense of accurate, yet profitable means of conducting economic miracles, however, fail to truly document the essence of the success that drives it.

As I bounce around in the roller coaster of a ride, down a road that is termed a highway, where you do not get to move any faster than 50 km/hr on a good day, I start trying to dissect the means of this continued success. When I see infrastructure issues such as poor roadways, standard cuts for running water and electricity, yet find skyscrapers, 5 star deluxe hotels and corporate entities that hold an international presence, I remain perplexed.

My western education tells me there is something wrong with this picture and its not sustainable, yet my eastern origins teach of me pursuing through adversity's and doing whatever is required to succeed inspite of them.

I believe there to be a fundamental cultural norm that exists here, that does abundantly well as it currently stands, with the western exposures probably eating away at the core of what made it poised for success.

There needs to be a hard look at the efficiency of the human spirit, which is in contrast to the paradoxical lifestyle that is dictated by the gadget friendly, technology driven, theory dictated mechanism that clearly does not work in today's day and age.

India is not a perfect business incubator, however, it does have a lot going for it, it has the right type of entrepreneur, willing to do anything to succeed beyond measure. It is this individual drive and corporate culture that is going to see the rise of this former Raj colony beyond its own organic and ingrained shadows. Atleast for the foreseeable future, the sun will not be setting on the shores or the vast ranges of this spicy sub-continent.