So for the past 17 years I’ve gotten used to saving important files such as family photos or critical documents on backups, thus not worrying about my next hard drive crash.  I also noticed that when I go through a computer upgrade I very rarely go back to old files.  I may migrate my photos, but I don’t often have to dig through 10 year old documents.

What is so unique about this situation though is that about 2 years ago I decided to buy my first MAC book.  As such, I was not used to the kind of reliability that Apple offers as compared to the competition.  So when I bought my laptop I had assumed that 250GB was more than enough.  What’s been interesting though is that the new MAC book also came with some interesting software that I’ve taken advantage of related to creating movies of vacations, birthday parties, etc…  As a result my 250GB seemed like very limited space considering the type of usage it was getting.

Reflecting on this reminds me how we are programmed at work to deal with incompetence and often enough we end up using this incompetence to our advantage.  In project management for instance we find ourselves padding estimates significantly, owing to the incompetence of project team members.  While this seems like a harmless exercise, unfortunately this padding can result in devastating consequences.  For example, on projects where we find ourselves as a vendor submitting a proposal for consideration, if we pad our estimates, our price will not be competitive.

So my lesson learned here is that while incompetence leads to greater incompetence, it also creates bad behavior that must be addressed when we are faced with competent performance.

Let’s look at this in the context of project management.  Throughout my career I have come across hundreds of situations where the project manager is thrust onto the stage and asked to perform heroic acts with a team that he/she has had little to do with shaping, let alone selecting.  It has almost become conventional wisdom in the profession that the successful PM must be one who is able to “tame” the team.    While there are instances where I see this skill is critical, unfortunately I find that we are often too quick to condemn the project manager who is not able to succeed in this context despite the fact that this person may be an excellent professional and a skilled PM.  The danger in this type of thinking is that its gotten us to the point where we expect that the project manager will not have a say in formulating the team.  We see situations where the scope is defined, the timeline requirements are articulated, the budget is built, and the team is brought together, then the project manager is on boarded.  By then I would say it is too late to expect the project manager to be able to make a positive contribution to help in the success or failure of the project.  If we were to take advantage of the skilled professional that is the project manager, we need to engage that person early in the process, otherwise the return on investment is likely compromised.

Additionally, from a leadership perspective, successful leaders are ones who are able to choose their team members, not simply react to those individuals who are thrust upon them.  Does that mean that there should not be situations where the leader has to make do with what he/she has, absolutely not.  However, we need to refocus the conventional wisdom to position leaders for success.  In this paradigm the leader must have a say on who the followers should be.

A global financial services organization with local presence in the form of bank branches offers free delivery of ATM/debit cards with a giant logistics company.  The “service” on initial examination appears to be a value add to customers and intends to meet the customer where he/she is rather than force them to come into the branch.  However, in the course of actually execution of this service the process breaks because the logistics company is unable to provide the delivery.  In two independent real life situations the logistics company calls the customer and asks where they can deliver the card.  When the delivery person shows up they refuse to deliver the card to the spouse because the customer is out of the country.  This is after several assurances by the bank representatives that the card can be received by the spouse who happens to be a joint owner of the account.  I know that there are a variety of explanations for this situations that frankly only will seem as unwarranted excuses to the frustrated customer.  upon calling the customer care center of the logistics company the customer is assured that the delivery person is acting on instructors from the financial services organization.  So the customer calls the financial services company to complain only to be told that the delivery person is incorrect that the spouse should have been able to sign for the package.

So before someone delves into a detailed analysis of who did what and who is to blame, the answer (at least in my mind) is very clear.  Everyone is to blame, including the customer who chose to trust these two global brands.  Readers who have had similar interactions to the ones I described above should be able to identify the culprits, however, the point of this post is not to ostracize these organizations or their leaders.  The point I am driving at is the one I made as part of the question I listed in the subject of the post.  Who is the organization and its leaders entrusting with its brand?  Why is it that leaders put in so much effort in branding strategy and executing plans but completely ignore the basics?  The only answer I can come up with is one that highlights that the leadership team is unable to think of brand as part of a total system that is affected by execution, not simply one that depends on expensive strategies.

Interestingly enough later in the day I was in the living room checking my email on my MAC when my little nephew (he’s a toddler) came running into the room yelling “apple” and he got his mouth so close to the back of my screen and attempted to take a bite our of the logo while making the sound of teeth crunching an apple.  It immediately became obvious to me what friendly means to consumers in the context of what Steve was talking about.

In my opinion, organizations who are able to launch products that allow consumers to form a relationship with that products are much more likely to succeed.  If we are human beings somehow form a bond with a product based on personal preferences or some likability factor, it will feel as though we are emotionally vested in this item and as such it will increase our product loyalty.

I suspect that “friendly” products don’t necessarily come out of organizations that have the smartest people but rather the most creative ones.  Yes, intelligence is needed to come up with good, even great products, however, it takes a totally different skill to produce something that consumers manage to form some sort of relationship bond with.  It requires not only understanding their needs, but tapping into their psyche somehow.

While marketing does play a role in tapping into consumer emotions, the issue here is not simple marketing.  When I look at the way that Apple packages its products for instance I can not help but be impressed by both the utility of the packaging along with the elegance.  It looks so professional that I actually had to think long and hard before I tossed that iPhone packaging in the trash.  What if I needed it?  That’s the kind of bond that consumers are intended to form with Apple products.

Additionally, this relationship between consumers and products does not stop at the product level but also extends into the service space.  Someone for example may prefer to use a certain cell phone provider because of a relationship that they formed long ago, even though their rates are not as competitive.

Steve Jobs’ genius though was his ability to combine that emotional reaction that consumers are expected to have based on marketing techniques along with superior products.  That’s what contributed to Apple’s competitive advantage.

One thing though that has always surprised me is people’s willingness to share information via electronic media that they would never do in the physical world. This is perhaps why it is so powerful to conduct background checks using social media tools.

I guess it should not be surprising though that often individuals do not put much thought into certain actions or activities. For example, a colleague shared that he was amused by an HR professional commenting that it was unusual for a candidate to have all excellent references during reference checks of potential candidates. The assumption that we make is that when we ask candidates to provide references we expect them to list trusted sources, or at least people whom they think will offer a good reference. Instead, these situations offer a greater venue for honest feedback than one expects.

The same can be true of digital media. We’ve all heard of candidates who have lost job opportunities or students who lost their enrollment space in college because of online presence. The key in my opinion is to apply an extra measure of vigilance in managing these activities.

One of the ways this issue can be addressed is by asking a series of simple questions:

- what will happen if we do nothing?
- if we intervene to resolve the problem are we likely to add value?
- how will the various stakeholders be perceived due to that intervention?

It may be that senior leaders need to send a clear message when they initiate action that might be viewed as micro-management or as unnecessary interference. Sometimes it is necessary to let team members work out the problems on their own, much in the same way that kids in school need to resolve conflict.

Balancing between allowing team members to learn on their own and initiating action to reduce risk is a process that requires qualitative rather than quantitative decision making on behalf of the leader. Ultimately the leader has to make a call and live with the consequences. If the matter is not a life or death situation, giving the team some space could very well prove to be the best course of action

One the one hand, when we are talking with colleagues, it is important for them to discuss issues freely with a high degree of confidence that we will not breach that confidentiality.  However, often to be able to achieve effectiveness in navigating change in the organization, certain issues and themes need to be shared with various stakeholders.  For example, if there is a problem with a customer service process, management needs to hear about it.  If there is an employment issue with an individual being harassed, the appropriate parties need to be made aware to address it.  There are many ways that the professional can address this and I wanted to share a couple for consideration.

When I am brought in as an external consultant into an organization to assist with a certain initiative I often start the engagement with a series of interviews as part of assessing the organization.  I start the process by highlighting to everyone I speak with that I will hold the conversation in confidence, however, issues and problems will be aggregated and discussed with the leadership.  I also explain that no specific details will be shared to allow for me to protect individuals from potential retaliation.  This approach works well when there is a big group of individuals, however, if I am speaking to 5 or 10 people it becomes more challenging to take their comments and feedback and make them generic.

In instances where it is difficult to integrate comments and hide the source, I explain during the initial discussions that individuals may opt to share anything they want with me and I will only share it if they give me permission to do so.  I try to offer the team members a safe space to confide and get issues off their chest but at the same time try to work with them to identify issues that can be shared with others.  To be clear however issues that involve breaking the law or breaching ethics are ones that need to be addressed very differently.

Ultimately however the only way we can be effective is when our stakeholders are able to trust us enough to share information that they are not comfortable sharing with others.  That’s why it is important to respect confidentiality and balance it with appropriate disclosure of issues.

What is really interesting to me about this is that a vision based on market dominance has been become one of the most accepted strategies.  A growth strategy based market dominance is one of the easiest to articulate but is one of the most elusive to achieve.  I wonder however given this elusive nature of the strategy whether organizations should strive for something else beyond dominance.

I was reminded of this earlier this week when I came across a couple of schools my wife and I were exploring for our children. School “X” is known as the “best” school in the city in terms of academic programs and extracurricular activities.  School “Y” on the other hand is known as an “excellent” school but is ranked behind school X.  In talking with the administrators of school Y it became clear to us that one of the strategies that they employed is based on the preeminence of school X.  Apparently, because of how popular school X is, it is a very exclusive institution.  As such, school Y has positioned itself as the second choice because they know that not everyone is able to enroll their kids in school X.  School Y managed to developed its approach along the same lines as school X and they don’t seem to be bothered by the fact that they are in second place.

I won’t speculate on whether this strategy is sound or not, especially given that I am not an expert on education.  However, given the fact that only one company in various categories can be in first place, it seems that differentiation will not always work. While it may not be very glamorous to be in first place, it can be very lucrative to be number two in the market.

I’ve always admired IBM, long before I worked there and continue to do so even though I am no longer part of the organization. One of the most significant strengths of the company is its culture of innovation and its ability to constantly reinvent itself.  In the business world IBM can take credit for many firsts and with the appointment of Ginni Rometty they have also managed do so again by appointing IBM’s first woman CEO of (arguably) the premier technology organization in the world.

The interesting thing though about this transition is that it was expected.  Big Blue managed to stick to its tradition or retiring its CEO at age 60 and appoint someone who has a long history of success with the organization.  What really impresses me about the organization though is the idea that executives are fully aware of the risks and dangers of losing that edge.  This is perhaps why the company has been so successful in reinventing itself even when it was on the brink of collapse back in the early 1990s.

The article is a good read and I love Rometty’s quote at the end “growth and comfort do not coexist.”  In the end the whole process is an example of excellence when it comes to transition.  I can only wish the new CEO and the organization the best of luck on their continued journey.