Market Levers

Leadership - The Peggy Noonan Way

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 04:45:00 +0000

Wow - my apologies to my regular readers - it's been some time. Hopefully, you receive this via RSS feed, so you'll appreciate my selective posts. I've got quite a few things that I'd like to comment on within the coming weeks, but #1 on this the list is this OpEd from Peggy Noonan --> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576066180967679912.html In "The Captain and the King", Peggy discusses leadership, and I love it:

It's a great mistake when you are in a leadership position to want to be like everyone else. Because that, actually, is not your job. Your job is to be better, and to set standards that those below you have to reach to meet. And you have to do this even when it's hard, even when you know you yourself don't quite meet the standards you represent. A Captain has to be a Captain.

Being great requires sacrifice, and often, leadership is not a choice. You are "thrust upon it". How do you handle those situations? If you can plan for those - and I think you can - you need to be ready to take the reins in a big way when you have an organization in need.

The Brand Called You

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:25:00 +0000

As part of 2011 planning, I was conducting some brand research, and came across a truly classic career/branding article online -- Tom Peter's Fast Company article "The Brand Called You" --> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/10/brandyou.html

What a truly classic personal growth article! It's almost 13 years old, but it could have been written today. There are a number of important takeaways, and for those of you considering your career, your growth path, and your personal brand, they are well worth remembering.

Here are my takeaways:
1) Figure out how to create a distinctive role for yourself (wherever you are).
2) You're not defined by your job title -- and don't let it confine you.
3) Identify your differentiators -- what do you stand for, and what do you do that adds value?
4) Everything you do matters -- the voicemail messages, the emails, the personal interactions
5) You are a leader.
6) Today's work is project based.
7) Test the market to find your value.

Drilling down
As I give myself the prescribed gut-check (are you giving yourself "a steady diet of more interesting, more challenging, more provocative projects?), I can't help but think that what Tom really nailed here is the role of "project world".

Exploring your background should lead to a set of "projects" you've executed that you can use to evaluate your progress. Do you have those? It's time for me to take a step back, but the power of placing your background into those projects is clarity. The ability to clearly identify the part you played, the value you were able to provide, and the linkages to the "greater good".

Here's to hoping you are truly able to find the challenges you deserve within the environment you operate within. That's engagement.

Pitfalls of the "High Potential"

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:54:00 +0000

Please forgive the posting delay, there have been a variety of great topics worthy of mention here, but time has been tight. After a recent review of The Conference Board website however, I wanted to share a great article on career growth, from two IMD professors.

Article here --> http://budurl.com/HiPoArticle

The unfortunate truth is that often academics miss critical nuances around how the real world operates, but I found their insights spot on. Since you can read the article yourself, I wanted to pull out some nuggets within their commentary that I found most useful:

1) Cultivate the most productive working relationship with your boss. Although this goes without saying, it can be an easy one to forget -- particularly if your timeframe in a specific role is "temporary". Understanding preconceived notions -- from your manager, your counterparts, and subordinates -- can help you address them and add value more quickly.

2) Managing a sense of "entitlement" -- in both yourself and others. This is funny (and a little sad at the same time), but research indicates that "the current generation’s mean narcissism score approaches that of a celebrity sample of movie stars, reality TV contestants, and famous musicians". Do you have an inflated sense of self-importance, and is it impacting the perception that others have about you?

3) The "temporary" assignment mindset. I alluded to this one earlier, but unfortunately, many companies design assignments (and incentives) in a way that prevents an employee from ultimately being accountable for the decisions that they make. This happens in job rotations and can also happen in situations like merger integrations or other extraordinary events. As the authors allude -- this not only impacts business results -- it can impact morale and social interaction when people are disconnected from the consequences of their decisions/behavior.

Good Investing Commentary -- Wanted to Share

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:33:00 +0000

Here's a brief, well written market review that I receive for free each month (for the month of October): Monthly Market Review - October 2009

I don't recall how I came across this review, but aside from being a great resource, it's tied to some really well done marketing for Agile Investments, which is an ETF Portfolio Management organization. These groups have been popping up relatively frequently, and are worth investigating if your looking for someone to manage a set of ETFs to support an index investment approach.

Building a Better Network

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:01:00 +0000

Read a really great article in yesterday's WSJ on "How to Be a Smart Protege", which presented some excellent ideas - for anyone trying to develop a mentoring relationship - or frankly any type of professional relationship. Some of the key concepts and the ideas presented are recounted here.

Key concepts:
1) Don't seek just one mentor, seek many. Build a "developmental network".
2) "Relationally savvy" individuals are very good at building these networks - and we can learn from them.

"Savvys" are successful because they:

Aren't shy about initiating and maintaining contact with people that can support their development.
Are expert at recognizing when colleagues are interested in becoming mentors
Put a lot of work in at the start of a relationship with a mentor to make sure it is successful
Come prepared for meetings with their mentor, and follow up/keep them up-to-date
Share information -- they are open, sharing, and trusting
Make it mutual - good mentees find ways to add value to the relationship
Are personable - they're simply easy to get along with
Have a positive attitude - see relationships as an opportunity to "build bridges"

Anyway, take the time to read this one. There's great advice in there for mentees, mentors, and anyone that could be more thoughtful about the value that they give to and receive from others.

LINK: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203937504574252141852898888.html

Webinars Now! - Best Practice

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:51:00 +0000

What's your take on webinars? Do you use this 1 to many medium to increase sales?

Another older article I want to address as I clear things off my desk... Worthwhile? You decide, I only blog to add value...

Some facts from B2B magazine, 10/08:

Webcast market 2014 - 3.4Billion - reach "more people for less"
If you can't go face to face...webcasting is an excellent way to reach your audience...
Webinars "allow you to engage in a conversation at a deeper level with customers."
And you can track participation extensively!

Best Practices:

Identify targets and create content just for them.
Send invitations well in advance.
Engage & monitor your audience.
Don't make a sales pitch. "Don't make someone come hear you talk about you, you have to make it about them."

Wow, this last point - is there a clearer way to say it? Maybe I'm being hypocritical as a blogger, but these concepts aren't mine -- I'm just bringing them to my humble reader's attention...

Last one, which I consider "numero uno" -- Follow Up - Give this some context. But within reason, what else really matters... If you have something to say, why not say it? Don't make someone do all the work on their own. This is known as The Close...

Recommendations to CMOs

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:25:00 +0000

Greg Welch, a consummate marketer (who happens to place CMOs), has the following advice... which I mention later rather than sooner as I get back on track with my postings....

Courtesy of Ad Age (1/26/09 - ok I'm digging through old piles):

Lead from the Front "Reassure your team of the broader mission, progress to date, and plans for the future....Obviously, honest and authentic leadership works best."
Be a Translator "Explain your agenda & determine how you can deliver tangible business value -- inspire trust & build trust, you need everyone's support. This sounds trite, but assess the value of the CMO role, and leverage it!
Tap into the wisdom of your firm. Innovation happens from within -- it's just a function of your ability to listen. If you ignore the thoughts of others -- it's YOUR loss.
Knock on the CEOs Door - Candid assessments from the King are always key - ensure your vision is the same, your career depends upon it.
Take calculated risks. "Great CMOs take action." Move quickly - pick a pilot to champion, and move from there...

Why Marketing ROI Still Flounders...

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:00:00 +0000

A recent study executed by Lenskold Group and Marketsphere highlights an interesting disconnect that occurs as organizations attempt to measure marketing performance. Companies want to measure the effectiveness of their marketing efforts, but they don't budget for it. This is a problem that I've encountered throughout my career, and it's worthy of discussion.

As reported, although 79% of marketers indicate that need for measurement of marketing effectiveness has increased, only about 25% of them had actually budgeted for it. For highlights and the report itself, go here -> http://www.lenskold.com/content/2009mroistudy.html

This problem is pervasive, what are the root causes? Obviously they are complex, but here are some gaps to consider as you attempt to put these measures in place.

Measurement by Tactic
Certain tactics are simply much more difficult to measure than others, so attributing a return to them is tough. Some I've struggled with -- advertising and trade shows. You can cite sales tied in part to the activities, but attribution directly to them is questionable. You end up with "management by anecdote".

Cross-functional Dependencies
You need to tie the work of your sales teams to the marketing activities you execute, but you don't have the authority to mandate their compliance. I basically want to know how many sales calls, RFPs, and new revenue dollars result from a specific effort, but many sales organizations often don't track those things. Or to put it more precisely, sales will often fail to attribute any of those items to something that a marketing activity may have helped them achieve.

Cost of Measurement
Determining the "ROI on ROI measurement"can in itself be elusive. You can make a set of assumptions about lift that can be achieved by allocating dollars to higher-return efforts, but when you determine the data and system support that you will ultimately need for your ROI "inputs", it can be daunting. Leadership has to take the "long view" to reap the incremental annual payoffs -- in contrast to the quarterly reviews their investors require.

I could go on (e.g. team skill set gaps, complexity of sources, etc.), but instead I'll make a recommendation -- start small. Go through the pain and effort of performing the ROI exercise just once, on a meaningfully sized amount of spend, and share that with your CEO. The light bulbs will begin to go off...

Washington's Mis-guided View on Keynesian Economics

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:59:00 +0000

In this well written Op Ed by Dick Armey (former econ professor, House of Representatives majority leader, etc.), Armey argues on the misguided nature of government spending a la Keynes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123371237124446245.html

I find it hard to argue that government can be consider a more efficient mechanism for monetary distribution, and spending as "stimulus" than the individuals within the market that the government is meant to serve. In addition to being a very inefficient means of distribution, programs of the type established by this legislation also have a tendency to remain long after their stated necessity. One can hope for a better outcome, but historical precedent is not on our side...

Also, a reader's posting in response to Armey's post, which applies some additional context around Keyne's thinking:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431666974071129.html

As it turns out, Washington has an interesting way of putting economic theory into practice, and more often that not, it's a poor substitute than more sound, clearly defined prescriptions...

2009 Index of Economic Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:03:00 +0000

Yesterday's WSJ featured an Op Ed presenting this year's Heritage Foundation/WSJ Index of Economic Freedom, which can be accessed here: http://www.heritage.org/index/

This index is intriguing, and is a great tool that is useful in a number of ways. If you haven't seen it, take a look.

One contention that Terry Miller (one of the co-editors) makes is that there is a strong "positive correlation between economic freedom and national income". As proof, he points out that "...the freest countries enjoy per capital incomes over 10 times higher than those in countries ranked as "repressed"."

So what do you think?

Some tidbits worth exploring:

The methodology: http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/Index09_Methodology.pdf
The executive summary: http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/Index09_ExecSum.pdf

Insights from Citigroup's CFO -- Making a Function Strategic...

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:44:00 +0000

On a recent Charlie Rose, Citigroup's CEO Vikram Pandit, discussed the future of his bank after the government's recent 40B+ infusion. In describing the future for his bank, and the core approach they use, he indicated the global reach of Citi, and the core functions necessary to execute --- a strong risk management function, a strong treasury function, and strong leadership - in particular the CFO and CEO roles. Ultimately, he justified Citi's decision to keep current management in place by saying that each of those functions and roles are solid within Citi today. In referencing the CFO, Vikram was speaking of Gary Crittenden.

Gary was recently interviewed for Business Finance magazine, and he had some really interesting things to say. Some insights that I'd like to share with you here, from this article:
http://businessfinancemag.com/article/serial-cfo-0903

The insights he shared...

On the value of his strategy consulting background:
"...the primary skill is to understand what the levers are that will influence the financial performance..." for a given company --- those levers change based on the type of company you consult for, but the "...finance is common."

On how you move a function into a more strategic role:

"...the first step is to make sure that the way people spend their time is dedicated toward higher-value activities."
"...put all the less-value added information together and put it into a few locations" --- this allows one "to do things in a very common way with common processes, where we can measure and control the quality around each of those processes"

The results of those moves are two-fold:

"...costs go down because you're doing it with lower cost resources, and as a result you're able to do it with fewer people and you can now get scale effects that you didn't have before".
"The second thing is that the quality goes up at the same time -- because now you are doing things in a controlled environment, with process control measurements."
He calls it moving to "more of a fact orientation." (I like that).

On the justification and approach:

You take the dollars you free up and invest a portion of the savings into developing a more "forward-looking organization"
You move from current state, to anticipating "what's going to happen in the future"

"This is where the real value is, so how do we do a better job of anticipating how the environment is going to change and making sure that the business is properly positioned for how the environment is going to change."

He also mentions pieces that are relevant in terms of managing talent. By essentially, making it a great place to work, facilitating job rotation, and providing opportunities for career progression. Things all entirely consistent with comments recently made by CMO recruiter extraordinaire Greg Welch in a recent BMA speech: http://bmachicago.org/dec3luncheonreport.lasso

Applicability to Marketing

So if you'll allow me a little latitude here, I would say that regardless of the function --- whether it is finance (in this instance) or marketing --- moving a function from tactical to strategic involves the same steps. Essentially, identifying and simplifying process, moving to achieve cost savings via economies of scale, and then migrating roles to higher order activities. And managing talent is foundational...

Ultimately, these steps secure your talent, and free up your team to examine the existing environment, and perform the anticipation that Crittenden mentions -- the type of critical review of circumstances that lead to better decisions, and competitive advantage.

What Obama Means for America

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:59:00 +0000

Although I am reluctant to discuss politics in professional settings, and I don't necessarily feel comfortable discussing my preference, it is hard to argue that America's perception on the world stage hasn't dramatically improved now that Obama has been elected.

Case in point: A close friend, Nigerian born and a London resident (a shout out to you Theo), told me that "only in America can an African-American man, of Kenyan descent aspire to, and achieve the Presidency". In addition to staying up until 5am UK time to watch the election and Obama acceptance, he ended up giving his staff the day off . They were all tired - and exuberant - from watching US election results. His remarks were representative of those I've received from several friends from abroad.

I am certainly proud to be an American, now more than ever. In a country that speaks of equality and justice, we have now clearly illustrated to the world that "when it matters" truth and transparency prevail. Regardless of your political affiliation, it is hard to argue that this outcome is not positive for America, our relations on a world-wide stage, and our ability to engender and affirm the value of freedom.

More on Anna Schwartz...

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:32:00 +0000

In today's NYT, Ben Stein speaks more fo Anna Schwartz: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/business/26every.html?ref=business

As you'll recall from one of my posts a couple of days ago, Anna had some harsh words for the Fed's handling of the economic crisis, namely their inconsistent reaction to the financial situation of various firms -- i.e. Lehman vs. AIG.

In addition to praising her insight, Stein laments her lack of a Nobel. As an economist I respect, it's nice to see this open admiration for Schwartz and her work from yet another talented economist, Stein.

Buffett's Opinion in the New York Times

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:09:00 +0000

In last week's NYT, a great opinion piece by Warren Buffett: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

As part of his opinion, Warren makes a number of important points, which I want to summarize for you here:

1) No one can determine the direction of the market
2) Betting against America is a mistake
3) Holding cash vs. equities long-term is a bad decision

Now to this last point, I'll pull a couple of comments directly from Warren, and tie it to some recent research from the AAII, which indicates that those that face retirement need to remain in equities to meet their long-term retirement needs.

As Warren states:

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

So, congratulations to those that had the foresight to move into cash prior to the crisis, but the question for them now becomes "When do I get back in?" ---And the real key to success in investing is to know both when to buy AND when to sell. Warren approaches this in an important way, by simply owning the stocks "forever". For those of us that don't necessarily feel like we have that luxury,it's still instructive.

Now to reference a study mentioned in January's AAII (American Association of Individual Investors) Journal article "Choosing the Right Mix: Lessons From Life Cycle Funds ". Although the article is about life cycle funds, it discusses a "consensus opinion" on asset allocation, which follows:

Allocation by Age Group:

Ages 20 to 40: Allocate about 90% of your financial portfolios to stocks.
Age 40 to retirement: Decrease the stock portion steadily to about 50% or 60%.
During retirement: Decrease the stock allocation by 2% per year for at least the first five years after retirement; high-yield bonds should be only a small fraction of the fixed-income portfolio.
All ages: Maintain a stable exposure to international stocks of between 15% and 30% of the stock portfolio.

For some, this suggested allocation may seem excessive. Beginning retirement with 50-60% of your investments allocated to stocks? Yes. The logic is this -- the most significant investment gains come from the compounding of investments that takes place in later years.

Warren at 70+ years knows this inherently, yet it's a lesson that some retirees will need to take to heart, and unfortunately, it will mean increasing the risk they will have to bear. For those that are currently tied in equities within this market, they may have no other choice.

On the Fed, the Crisis, and Leadership

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:45:00 +0000

In my opinion, definitely the article of the week in todays WSJ Opinion page, via interview with Anna Schwartz: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428279231046053.html

Schwartz co-wrote (with Milton Friedman) the seminal treatise on the role of the Fed in the Great Depression, A Monetary History of the United States, and at 92 is still an active researcher at the National Bureau of Economic Research. In the interview, she discusses the current economic crisis, its root causes, and en route to those topics alludes to a "tragic flaw" of leadership. I'll summarize and comment on those here.

The Current Economic Crisis and the Root Cause
Today's problems are based on a fundamental loss of trust -- "...a lack of faith in the ability of borrowers to repay their debts". The liquidity problems that have existed are essentially a symptom of that distrust, as banks cast doubt on their fellow banks ability to effectively value their balance sheets. Whether it is due to complexity, accounting, or simply negligence --- banks don't want to lend to each other because they are not comfortable that they will be repaid. This is a critical point that Schwartz very effectively articulates.

In Schwartz' words "...firms that made wrong decisions should fail... You shouldn't rescue them. And once that's established as a principle, I think the market recognizes that it makes sense. Everything works better when wrong decisions are punished and good decisions make you rich."

The Arbitrary Fed
Schwartz continues:

I think if you have some principles and know what you're doing, the market responds. They see that you have some structure to your actions, that it isn't just ad hoc... And the market respects people in supervisory positions who seem to be on top of what's going on. So I think if you're tough about firms that have invested unwisely, the market won't blame you. They'll say, 'Well, yeah, it's your fault. You did this. Nobody else told you to do it. Why should we be saving you at this point if you're stuck with assets you can't sell and liabilities you can't pay off?'

So what's the point? The point is that the Fed made a decision to bail out AIG, yet they let Lehman fail. Not only did they decide against letting the market work, they did so in an inconsistent manner, a situation that makes investors very nervous. Why? Because essentially, inconsistency leads to yet more risk - risk that can't be priced, just like the complex financial instruments that are also tied to this crisis.

Leadership Implications
Based on this discussion, some leadership takeaways...

First, leaders need to know what they are doing or be able to find those that do -- and manage them. My faith in Paulson is strong on this point, but who really knows.

Second, act in a principled, consistent manner. Whether you are a company participating in the market, or the government, or a business leader -- make sure that everyone "knows where you stand". Does everyone understand the principles that you believe in? Oh, and by the way, manage and perform to those...

So, essentially, in specific roles it's important to broadly communicate principle, philosophy, and intent, and then follow through (aka setting and managing expectations).

Here's to hoping that the Fed ultimately finds the way. It may be hard to blame them for "pulling out all the stops" to get the US through this crisis, but here's to hoping that they 1) identify a rational, consistent direction 2) that they communicate it clearly and 3) that they stick to it. Our financial futures may indeed depend upon it.

On Buffett...

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:47:00 +0000

Ah, Warren Buffett. In addition to investing philosophy, what can he teach us? How about fact-based decision-making and the art of contingency:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122403066764234719.html

In Carroll's review of "The Snowball", a biography of Warren Buffett by Alice Schroeder, she walks through Buffett's ability to take "a close look at an investment's intrinsic value, making a brutal evaluation of its risks, and calculating a margin of safety. The book also underscores the importance of learning from failures. The Buffett-Munger approach is to "invert, always invert. Turn a situation or problem upside down. Look at it backward. What's in it for the other guy? What happens if all our plans go wrong? Where don't we want to go, and how do you get there? Instead of looking for success, make a list of how to fail instead."

A great way to look at investing --- and any other problem for that matter...

Leadership & The Military

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:56:00 +0000

I'm way behind on postings, so this is a little belated.

In this recent article in the WSJ, a little insight on leadership in the military by way of a review of the book by Peter Masoor "Baghdad at Sunrise": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360872142722167.html

Point of reference -- Peter Mansoor, is former Col. Peter Mansoor, commander of the U.S. 1st Brigade Combat Team, and in this book he outlines his experiences in Iraq during key periods before, and during, the Surge. Importantly (for me anyway), is his assessment on the role of leadership in the military; he defines the necessary brand of leadership in a very specific way. As the article and his book discuss "counterinsurgency requires above all else good leadership". To quote reviewer Moyar:

Like Gen. Petraeus and many other veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, Col. Mansoor believes that the Army must alter its personnel policies to promote leaders with the attributes and knowledge required by counterinsurgency. Instead of rewarding technical and tactical competence, he asserts, the personnel system should reward "those who can think creatively, lead change, and understand information warfare and the asymmetric battlefield -- those who are flexible and adaptive." As for indigenous leadership, he believes that the U.S. can help the Afghans as it helped the Iraqis, by influencing command selection, mentoring leaders and partnering directly with local elites.

(The bolding is my own). So, does war not represent the penultimate application of leadership in crisis? And doesn't true leadership in business require flexibility and adaptability above all else? Is that something our leadership communities teach today?

My relatively uninformed answer would be no, but to hear the identification of these characteristics clearly stated, and from a formidable and recognized leader in his own right, is refreshing. Building the right "reflexes" as a leader is an intangible that few development programs have been able to truly accomplish. Is this the traditional "nature vs. nurture" argument, or is there a way to engender this flexibility through situational curricula?

Today's WSJ Interview w/Intel CEO Paul Otellini

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:45:00 +0000

Some great insights from today's WSJ "weekend interview" with Intel's CEO. The article discusses Paul's experiences as he rose to the CEO role, and discusses some of his key learnings from former Intel CEOs - Gordon Moore (of Moore's Law) and Andy Grove among them.

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122246860358480579.html

A couple of insightful nuggets worth referencing:

From Andy Grove - "Ask why, and ask it again five more times, until all of the artifice is stripped away and you end up with the intellectually honest answer."

From Otellini - "A CEO's main job, because you have access to all the information, is to see the need to change before anyone else does."

It's always interesting to me that such an opportunity continues to exist today to implement true "fact-based decision-making". Grove's quote is really a manifestation of that, and of the need to truly investigate to identify root causes and get all the facts. Said like a true engineer..

Via Grove - a leader needs to truly dig to uncover all the salient facts, and via Otellini, a leader needs to be able to divine the future based on those available facts. And a last point, as illustrated by Craig Barrett (a third former Intel CEO) - leadership ultimately dictates decisiveness, and the courage of conviction.

Another political post, and a couple of other topics...

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:55:00 +0000

Although I'm an Obama fan (but not necessarily a supporter), I got a kick out of some recent comments from Bill Clinton, which the Financial Times outlines here (may require free subscription):
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/650508a0-739a-11dd-8a66-0000779fd18c.html

So the net-net, in a veiled reference to Obama, Clinton imparted the following:

"Mr. Clinton caused fresh agitation Tuesday when, in remarks at a convention fringe event, he seemed to suggest the Democrats had made a mistake in choosing Mr Obama as nominee.
He said: “Suppose you’re a voter, and you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?”"

Now, depending on how you look at it, that's either a particularly astute comment or sour grapes. What it does do for me, however, is articulate some of the concerns that I have about Obama as a President.

Without indicating my preference, does it make sense to say that how you react to that question helps you determine how you vote in the upcoming election?

On another note, I wanted to post an Ad Age link to an article on CMOs emerging to the CEO role, but because I don't have a subscription with this Crain publication, I couldn't do it. Let me see what I can do, because it had some good insights which I want to share with my readership here. If worse comes to worse, I'll summarize for discussion in an upcoming post.

CMO Pay: Who Gets What

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:09:00 +0000

Alright, forgive the delay since my last post. The new job has enveloped me, but I'm going to commit now to a once a week cycle, so please check back for more solid content in the future.

As an on-again, off-again reader of Ad Age, I returned to it recently and found an article on CMO pay fairly intriguing. The article, "CMO Pay: Who Gets What", was a result of the magazine's collection of publicly available information on 2007 pay packages for CMOs.

The table of the top 100 available pay packages is located here:
http://adage.com/datacenter//datapopup.php?article_id=129916

At this point, no real comments, other than to say, "more power to them." As one of the most fleeting executive roles, these folks should definitely be compensated for the risk that they undertake in these positions. One can only hope that the appreciation for this role continues to rise, and that pay within the marketing function continues to increase as well... :)

Leadership in Transition

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:23:00 +0000

On Friday, the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business conducted their annual Management Conference, and I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Harry Davis speak. His session, titled "Leadership in Transition", discussed the qualities necessary for those undertaking transitions --- be they organizational, career, and/or personal. Here are the key insights.

The three biggest "hurdles" to conducting a successful transition are:

Rigid Identity - becoming too closely identified with a particular role, expertise, or specialty in a way that inhibits one's ability to evolve beyond it
Contextual Blindness - the inability to adjust one's management philosophy based upon the transitional culture and/or environment
Impatience - not being willing to 1) wait for the team or organization to recognize the situation and/or changes necessary or 2) take the time to build the necessary consensus to execute

His recommendations:

Take the time to consider and evaluate multiple viewpoints
Be suspicious of goal-directed agendas
Practice listening skills
Reconnect with core values and behaviors that really matter to you
Let go of previous identities

Amazon's Bezos on Innovation

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:09:00 +0000

From the most recent Business Week ranking on innovative companies comes this brief interview with Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon (ranked #11 on BW's list): http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_17/b4081064880218.htm?chan=magazine+channel_special+report

There are some really worthwhile gems in Jeff's comments --- specifically his insistence on customer focus, his belief in commitment to ideas, and his insight into why organization's innovations fall short. These points provided here...

On perceptual risk:

"I believe you have to be willing to be misunderstood if you're going to innovate. That's actually a serious point. If you're going to do something that's never been done before—which is basically what innovation is—people are going to misunderstand it just because it's new."

If your considering a real innovation, have you built in this expectation into your mindset? Is your group committed enough to an idea to weather this period of uncertainty?

On organizations' failure to focus on the customer:

"Companies get skills-focused, instead of customer-needs focused. When [companies] think about extending their business into some new area, the first question is "why should we do that—we don't have any skills in that area." That approach puts a finite lifetime on a company, because the world changes, and what used to be cutting-edge skills have turned into something your customers may not need anymore. A much more stable strategy is to start with "what do my customers need?" Then do an inventory of the gaps in your skills."

How instructive! We all know intuitively that the need to evolve is critical in today's environment, but have organizations internalized that? Up to this point, can we really blame them? What a massive cultural shift and commitment to learning that entails!

This last comment really alludes to the importance of the connection between successful innovation and true strategic alignment within an organization. If a company is not philosophically committed to evolving in fundamental ways, there is a considerable risk that the most relevant ideas may be dismissed because they don't align with current skill sets.

Ultimately, sustainable competitive advantage is derived from a firm's ability to truly identify customer needs, align their innovations with those needs, and ultimately undertake those innovations by developing the skills they need to effectively execute them. A very tall order...

Book Review: The Best Service is No Service

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:46:00 +0000

Some quick pointers from a book review I read in WSJ, thought the points were worth citing here, and you can make your own decision on the book itself (see review here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120908736988443809.html).

The book, written by former Amazon cust service exec Bill Price, indicates that since most companies track the wrong customer service metrics (wait time, number of rings before pickup, etc.), their key execs are "in the dark" about how poor their service really is --- "The standard across most service operations is to report and track how quickly things were done, not how well they were done or how often, or why they needed to be done at all."

The book's solutions:

Change the metrics - some examples - CPX "contacts per order", contacts per unit shipped, contacts per transaction, contacts per customer
Avoid creating a need for a customer to contact the company in the first place - "Don't just ask how long it took to help the customer, ask how often the customer needed help and why
Hold weekly operations meetings (over the right metrics) - use meetings to zero in on root causes and solve problems
Charge the cost of customer support back to the product teams that created the need for it

Having worked closely with a group that manages these functions, I can say that most of these have been done in the past, and may even be standard practice in most organizations. But the opportunities really do lie in "aligning incentives", and finding a way for an "offending group" to bear the cost of the service is an interesting approach.

The other thing that I've seen, and this is reflected in Larry Bossidy's book Execution, is that a lot of the operational meetings can get side tracked relatively easily. When causes are multi-faceted, tasks are assigned, and the rigor around execution and repair ultimately suffers. This is more a function of leadership than the management routine itself however. Just some things to think about...

Cisco's John Chambers on Collaboration

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:03:00 +0000

Great interview via FT.com with John Chambers of Cisco: http://www.ft.com/cms/8a38c684-2a26-11dc-9208-000b5df10621.html.

Some insights from John:

On the role of the CEO: to communicate externally, and accurately represent the culture and direction of their organization; most CEOs today are "command and control" and the future will require moving beyond that..., successful leadership requires the ability to effectively change.
On the importance of collaboration: it is critically important to future productivity growth - we are really doing it "1to1" today, we need to move beyond empowerment to true group decision-making and "collaboration enabling different business models"
Enabling collaboration: new networking tools will truly enable better collaboration - video conferencing, telepresence, blogging, wikis, social networking, etc. - John provides a great example of using video coupled with wikis and bookmarks to internally disseminate information

Two primary thoughts on this interview.

On collaboration: Although John doesn't deeply articulate how this will evolve, he does talk about using a variety of tools that Cisco uses (and sells) and then speaks about the importance of adding discipline and process. Since collaboration really represents another opportunity for sustainable competitive advantage, digging deeper to understand successful collaboration methods is a worthwhile exercise...
On communication: As an important enabler of collaboration, John does a great job of illustrating the use of video mail in conjunction with other tools (at 9:04 of the interview) - worth a listen).

Some critical questions:

How does an organization reach the appropriate communication level internally and externally - to enable collaboration (internally), differentiate effectively (externally), etc.?
How does an organization best utilize technology to enable that communication?
Assuming the communication is in place, how does a firm move beyond that to build and institutionalize true collaboration?

Obama and the capital gains tax

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Thompson) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:49:00 +0000

I don't talk politics on this blog, that's simply not its intent. I do, however, speak about economics on occasion, and even tax policy, and that's what I'll do here. Although I won't share my preference for the presidential race, this post will point you to a commentary referencing Barack Obama's stated views on taxation from the most recent Democratic presidential debate, from yesterday's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html.

Although Barack (and Hillary) have both indicated that they will not raise taxes on households that make under $200 - $250k a year, both are talking about raising the capital gains tax, which does indeed raise taxes, and impacts over 100 million households directly (including mine). In addition a higher tax rate, the real kick in the pants is the fact that an increase in this tax actually reduces overall tax revenue, which directly undermines the overall goal of the tax in the first place. As the commentary reveals:

Lower capital gains taxes actually increase tax revenues considerably (this is because lower rates stimulate liquidity throughout various asset classes).
79% of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes below $100k.

These are facts gleaned from actual results of former tax policy and '05 tax returns (most recent data available?). The commentary closes with an explanation of Obama's additional desire to raise the cap on wages subject to payroll tax beyond the most recent '07 cap of $102k .

Unfortunately, as WSJ suggests, "Either the young Illinois senator is ignorant of capital gains data, or he just doesn't care..." Here's to hoping he refines this policy before the presidential election takes place.