Shouninjutsu

Read a great post on Simplenomics entitled, “Here’s a Little Used But Highly Profitable, B2B Sales Tip.”

http://www.simplenomics.com/heres-a-little-used-but-highly-profitable-b2b-sales-tip/

I couldn’t agree more with what I considered the main theme of the article. Listen to the “Little People” if you want to know what’s REALLY going on at a company.

At one point in my consulting career, I was hired several times as a “turnaround specialist,” and this was the VERY FIRST (and sometimes ONLY) thing I did:

1) Survey EVERYONE in the company– top to bottom. Ask basically four questions:

1. What works?
2. What doesn’t?
3. If you could get rid of one thing, what would it be?
4. If you could do MORE of one thing, what would it be?

2) Throw out all the responses from senior management. For the most part, they’re the bozos that caused the problems in the first place.

3) Correlate and summarize the results, coming up with 3 specific recommendations– almost exclusively the result of the surveys (though not necessarily telling sr. management that’s where the ideas came from– they sometimes tend to discount the “little people.”)

4) 9 times out of 10, they’d tell me I was “brilliant,” and want to hire me to implement the recommendations. If the payoff was big enough and I felt they would REALLY follow through, I might consider it.

The moral of the story: Often, there is WISDOM in the rank and file. The solutions to most companies problems are already obvious to most folks who have to deal with it themselves day in and day out.

Smash the upper management BS-o-matic, haul that “dead moose” carcass (you know, the one nobody wants to talk about) off the conference room table, and harness the knowledge already buried in the organization.

————

Best part of the story? As you pointed out, just by listening the the “worker bees,” I made friends for life with whom I had great credibility as I worked within their own organization for change and even as we all went on to different “lives” in our careers.

Vilfredo Pareto was a French-Italian sociologist, economist and philosopher born in 1848 in Paris. In 1906, as a lecturer in economics at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, he first articulated what has become known as the “Pareto Principle” or the 80-20 rule when he observed that 20 percent of the population owned 80 percent of the property in Italy. It was immediately obvious that there must be some sort of underlying organic principle supporting this observation as the same 80-20 ratio seemed to apply to any number of situations.

In 1941, J.M. Juran discovered Pareto’s work and the “Pareto Chart” became part of the foundation of the quality and efficiency movements that have molded and shaped the economics and business models of post-war industrial society.

And your point is?…

9 times out of 10 (or perhaps it’s closer to 8 out of 10 to be more precise<g>), we all go through an internal Pareto Analysis for virtually every decision we make. Simply stated,

“What is the most effective thing I can do in this situation with the greatest likelihood of producing the most favorable outcome?”

But ironically, in today’s information society where data, theories and “expert opinions” seem to know no bounds, it’s harder than ever to filter the truly critical factors out from the surrounding “noise level.” You need simple, direct, factual summaries and directions you can trust so you can get on with your busy life. Thus the popularity of “Idiot’s Guide to…” books. But you’re not an idiot– you just don’t want to (or have time to) sort through all the “fat and fur” to find the “meat” you’re looking for. The fact is,

…most of what you need to know can be summarized in 3-5 (max) simple steps or bullet points that will solve the vast majority of issues you face….

Not done talking about this yet.

NEXT– The Pareto Proclamation in Practice

One thing about Ninjas— and Ninja Marketers— they don’t have time for a lot of superfluous crap.

Ask 10 people about the biggest frustrations they encounter in their working lives. 10 of them will put the “decision-making process” Go ahead. Ask.

Told you so.

Let me share a short, sweet 3-step (what would you expect from “Shuriken Kurt”?) approach to simplifying the process in almost any group decision-making environment.

It’s called RID. It’s a matrix management approach that allows multiple people to serve multiple functions on multiple “task forces.” And it’s an attempt to clarify the exact role each individual plays on those task forces. Used with a little bit of discipline, it can help avoid the “mob mentality” of trying to do everything by committee.

R (Responsible)- Only ONE person can be Responsible for a task. That person defines it, plans it and fulfills its requirements. He/she can draw on additional resources, but ultimately, he/she does it and defines how it is done.

I (Impacted)- Any number of people can be “impacted” parties. They may have information and perspective to contribute. They may have a vested interest— relative to THEIR primary responsibilities— in the results. “I” acknowledges that are “Impacted” and need to be “Informed” about the task and it’s progression, but they are not active participants.

D (Decisionmaker)- This is the single entity tasked with making the final decision regarding the task. Evaluating the quality of it’s completion or making decisions based on the conclusion of the task. 9 out of 10 times there should only be ONE PERSON with a “D,” though there may be some (though fewer than you’d expect) cases where a small group makes the final decision.

———————————

As an example of how this system would work:

TASK: Establish budgets for various departments in an organization.

R- CFO/Controller. Clearly, the head finance person needs to be allowed to take lead on this sort of project. He/she should have the right to draw on all dept. heads for input, but it’s his/her baby.)

I- Department Heads. VPs, and department heads will need to provide input. They also need to know and understand the outcome in order to fulfill their obligations

D- CEO/President. Ultimately, the top dog needs to have the final say. The Buck stops SOMEWHERE.

Another example:

TASK: Solidify a pricing model

R- Sales VP. Sales has to “sell it,” and are probably in the best position to define what the market demands in order to be competitive. NOTE: Illustrates that there is more than one way to approach the “RID GRID.” Another company may decide to make someone if finance or marketing have the “R” on this sort of task.

I- CFO, VPs of Operations, Marketing. All groups that need to contribute to the discussion and whose function will be affected by the outcome.

D- CEO/President. Again, a “biggie” like this needs sign-off at the highest level.

But the “D” doesn’t always have to be the President. Let the office manager have the “D” on office supplies. A regional salesperson can “D” their own sales call scheduling.

——————————–

This paradigm clarifies that “I”s are not responsible, nor are “R”s and “I”s ultimate going to make the decisions. Nor does an “R” get to assume that just because they are responsible, they have final say.

It also creates a common vocabulary that is useful in avoiding miscommunication, duplication of effort, “dropped balls,” and a lot of frustration.

• Who has the “R” on that task?
• If I’m an “I,” what do you need from me?
• I don’t need to be the “R” on this, but I still want to be the “D”…
• etc.

And sometimes you need to use a RID-X system, where the “X” means “you specifically DON’T need to be involved! Stop hanging around the water cooler and get back to work!”<g>

Been thinking about my previous comments about the various of “waves” through which civilization has progressed.

And while I still believe it is absolutely true that we have in general “core dumped” ourselves beyond not only the “industrial wave” but the “information wave” as well (see previous Pareto Proclamation post), I’ve been recently reminded that each successive wave carries ripple effects that reverberate and “feedback” (riptide?) back into previous waves as well.

The proliferation of corporate farms, genetic hybrid crops and global commodity trading systems over the last 20-30 years have overhauled the agricultural landscape to the point of being virtually unrecognizable when compared to earlier food production methods. And in the last week I’ve become even more aware of another revolution that stands a very good chance of revolutionizing manufacturing processes in a way that could lead to an entirely new kind of “industrial wave.”

Without going into too much detail, a number of confluences are converging to create a “perfect storm” capable of changing the way we look at global manufacturing industries. Check out what’s happening at Tangible Express, an innovative company focusing on democratizing access to rapid prototyping technologies to create whole new market opportunities through a concept they call “fractional manufacturing.” What electronic typesetting and later, desktop publishing did for the printing/publishing industry, this new approach may well bring to manufacturing methodology and practice.

And given that the founder/Chairman of Tangible Express is David McInnis of PRWeb fame, you’d think he knows a thing or two about crushing existing paradigms by blowing open the opportunity for creative folks to “do it themselves.”<g>

Will Tangible Express (and the competitors who are sure to jump on the bandwagon soon) turn traditional production processes– not to mention potentially even global economic politics– on their heads? Time will tell, but at the very least it’s a reminder to me that no wave is ever truly “over,” and at the end of the day, the world is still filled with more “atoms” than “bits”…<g>

Well, the boys and girls at Grokdotcom (in this case, Jeffrey Eisenberg, in particular) have done it again. They’ve spurred a debate that has inspired me to not only comment on a recent post over there, but to repeat my comments over here on the Shouninjutsu, Ninja Marketing blog.

As time goes by, I hope to be able to spell out more of the Ninja Marketing Philosophy that informs these particular views, but didn’t want to miss the opportunity to “memorialize” these thoughts in the meantime…

NINJA MEETING PRINCIPLES and TACTICS

FOR CONSIDERATION: Having taught countless classes/seminars all over the world on time management and effective leadership skills, here are a few of my personal rules of thumb regarding meetings:

————————-
Never have more than one meeting a day. COROLLARY: Never spend more time in internal meetings on any given day than you are willing to spend the next day doing nothing but talking to real CUSTOMERS (not just “users”– but that’s a DIFFERENT comment<g>).
————————-
Schedule no more than 45 minutes for ANY meeting. Allow (and expect) people to excuse themselves as they see fit after that time.
————————-
Remove chairs from the conference room. Don’t let people get too comfortable, and for Pete’s sake don’t encourage them by bringing DOUGHNUTS!<g>
————————-
Recognize that there are 3 different types of meetings: a) Informational, b)Celebratory and c) Decision-Making. Confuse this context and ensure confusion and frustration.
————————-
Have a very SPECIFIC objective for each and every meeting and never have more than 3 things on the agenda for any specific meeting. Never give anyone more than 3 action items coming out of a single meeting.
————————-
If you need a PowerPoint to get your point across, just send the PowerPoint. Most of us can read.<g>

If an issue is too complex for just a PowerPoint, write it up as a document. Better for one person to spend twice the time to develop a well-articulated proposal (remember what your English teacher said? “If you can’t write it down clearly, then you’re not THINKING clearly”..), than to waste the time of everyone else involved.
————————-
If it’s 2-3 people, it’s a “discussion”– have plenty of those. Organizational theory teaches that any group of over 5 is almost unmanageable because of the multiple permutations and combinations of the vested interests of all involved.
————————-
Understand RID roles for every attendee:

R=RESPONSIBLE- party “responsible” for the specific activity tied to the objective/outcome of the meeting.

I=INVOLVED- not just “INTERESTED,” but those who are directly affected and/or need to provide specific input.

D=DECISION-MAKING- those who will ultimately have to make a specific decision based on the meeting.

Everyone who does not play one of these roles can “stay home”…
————————-
Don’t insist or expect EVERYONE in attendance to actively participate. Don’t create a culture where people feel that they MUST comment continually just to prove they are “smart,” or “engaged” or “part of the team.”

****************************

Those of us who thrive in decentralized work environments (26 locations in virtually every time zone) have learned that most seemingly “necessary” meetings truly are NOT. Use technology to monitor and collaborate, foster trust and individual accountability and focus on smaller, manageable discrete tasks to cut down on time wasted in meetings.