GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

How dumb is your business? At the risk of drawing the ire of corporate elitists, I submit to you that the dumber your business is, the better off you are. The truth is that great companies are those which can thrive and prosper in the absence of sophistication. As odd as it sounds, businesses that are not dependent on smart talent, capital, or technology can scale faster and easier than those businesses burdened with the aforementioned dependencies. In today’s post I’ll share why I believe dumb is the new smart…

The simple truth of the matter is that if your business requires smart money (which equals expensive money), or your competitive advantage is tied to a superhero key employee, or your business is built around maintaining a technology advantage, you have more weakness in your business model than you do strengths.

Let’s drill down on the talent argument a bit deeper. I’m not suggesting for a moment that you don’t want to hire tier-one talent. However I am clearly stating that you don’t want to be dependent upon tier-one talent. Talent is clearly a plus as long as it is a value add and not a business requirement. If your company’s long-term business plan requires the acquisition, or retention of the uber-employee then your business not only has a risk management issue, but it is likely not scalable. If your company can’t be operated by mere mortals, you need to reexamine your business logic. Here is a simple rule of thumb…the bigger the key man policy the less scalable the company is.

The dumb factor not only applies to talent, capital, and technology, but it also extends throughout the entire value chain. It applies to your branding, marketing, supply chain, and ultimately to your customer base. If your customer has to be a rocket scientist to understand your value proposition you have problems. If your employees cannot simply and effectively explain what you do you have problems.

The last point I want to cover is that of growth as it relates to dumb businesses. Both scalable and non-scalable businesses can achieve growth and sustainable success. However it is important to understand the distinction between the two. While a business cannot scale without growth, a business can grow without being scalable. If your business model requires implicit customer growth your business might grow for a time period certain, but it isn’t scalable.

The moral of this story is that while sophistication and complexity often go hand-in-hand, they don’t have to be synonymous. Focus on driving-down the most complex tasks to the lowest levels of the organization, and then leverage with talent, capital and technology while avoiding the creation of margin eroding dependencies.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

I’m often asked if there is a simple test that can be used to quickly determine an executive’s leadership ability? The short answer is yes. There are in fact a great number of tests that can quickly assess leadership ability. Something as simple as a 360 Review, or as complex as a deep psychological profile (both with weighted emphasis on leadership aptitude) can point out an individual’s leadership capabilities. While much has been written about what leaders are, today’s post will highlight eight areas that will help you quickly pinpoint what leaders are not. The simple truth is that many people can feign adequate leadership ability in the short run, but the 8 traits outlined below will separate the posers from the players 11 times out of 10.

First of all, it is important to realize that just because someone is in a leadership position doesn’t necessarily mean they should be. Put another way, not all leaders are created equal. Frequent readers of this blog can find a veritable plethora of tips on becoming a better and more effective leader. However in the text that follows I’ll address how to spot ineffective leaders by assessing six critical areas of leadership DNA. While there are certainly more than six areas that can be examined when discussing leadership ability and aptitude, there is no possible way for a person in a leadership role to experience sustainable success as a senior executive if they have issues in the following areas:

1. Poor Character: A leader who lacks character or integrity will not endure the test of time. It doesn’t matter how intelligent, affable, persuasive, or savvy a person is, if they are prone to rationalizing unethical behavior based upon current or future needs they will eventually fall prey to their own undoing.
2. Little or No Track Record: While past performance is not always a certain indicator of future events, a long-term track record of success should not be taken lightly. Someone who has consistently experienced success in leadership roles has a much better chance of success than someone who has not. The bottom line is that unproven leaders come with a high risk premium.
3. Poor Communication Skills: Show me a leader with poor communication skills and I’ll show you someone who will be short-lived in their position. Great leaders can communicate effectively across mediums, constituencies, and environments. They are active listeners, fluid thinkers, and know when to press-on and when to back-off.
4. Self-Serving Nature: If a leader doesn’t understand the concept of “service above self” they will not engender the trust, confidence, and loyalty of those they lead. Any leader is only as good as his or her team’s desire to be led by them. An over abundance of ego, pride, and arrogance are not positive leadership traits. Long story short; if a leader receives a vote of non-confidence from their subordinates… game over.
5. One Size Fits All Leadership Style: Great leaders are fluid and flexible in their approach. They understand the power of, and necessity for contextual leadership. “My way or the highway” leadership styles don’t play well in today’s world, will result in a fractured culture, and ultimately a non-productive organization. Only those leaders who can quickly recognize and adapt their methods to the situation at hand will be successful over the long haul.
6. Lack of Focus and Follow-Through: Those leaders who lack the focus and attention to detail needed to apply leverage and resources in an aggressive and committed fashion will perish. Leaders who do not possess a bias toward action, or who cannot deliver on their obligations will not be successful. Leadership is about performance… Intentions must be aligned with results for leaders to be effective.
7. Not Forward Looking: Leaders satisfied with the status quo, or who tend to be more concerned about survival than growth won’t do well over the long-run. The best leaders are focused on leading change and innovation to keep their organizations fresh, dynamic and growing. Bottom line – leaders who build a static business doom themselves to failure.
8. Not Customer Focused: Leaders not attuned to the needs of the market will fail. As the old saying goes, if you’re not taking care of your customers, someone else will be more than happy to. Successful leaders focus on customer satisfaction and loyalty. They find ways to consistently engage them and incorporate them into their innovation and planning initiatives. If you ignore, mistreat, or otherwise don’t value your customer base, your days as a leader are most certainly numbered.

The moral of this story is leaders need to be honest, have a demonstrated track record of success, be excellent communicators, place an emphasis on serving those they lead, be fluid in approach, have laser focus, and a bias toward action. If these traits are not possessed by your current leadership team you will be in for a rocky road ahead…

Which of these traits stand out to you? Do you have any other signs of ineffective leaders worthy of mention? Leave a comment and share your insights with others.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

News Flash – the phrase ”humble leadership” is not an oxymoron. While many people immediately conjure-up an image of the ever so confident, bombastic extrovert without an ounce of humility as the picture of what constitutes a real leader, nothing could be further from the truth. As my wife has always said, “Those who talk the most usually have the least to say.” While feigned humility is the height of insincerity, authentic humility is the most sincere form of confidence and strength. Leaders need to understand that being authentically humble humanizes them, allows them to build stronger trust bonds, and engenders confidence & loyalty from peers and subordinates alike. In today’ post I’ll share my thoughts on the value of learning to become a humble leader…

It’s been said that life is a long lesson in humility. As a leader, the sooner you come to grips with your humility the better leader you’ll become. Over the years I have come to believe that “having class” is synonymous with demonstrating a penchant for humility over bravado. True leaders possess a quiet confidence that attracts attention like a magnet. It is the genuine nature of their subtle & quiet charisma/presence, and not the decibel level of their rhetoric that draws you in. True self-confidence is reflected in a person’s deeds and actions, and not in their ability to boast. One of the worst things a leader can do is to let their ego write checks their talent can’t cash…

When you think of a true leader do you envision someone who displays a quiet confidence or a blatant arrogance? While a reserved attitude of humility can often be misinterpreted as a sign of weakness, if you’ve ever negotiated with a truly confident person who is authentically humble, you’ll find that their resolve is often much greater than the feigned confidence of the arrogant. While hubris can be a needed trait to call upon at times, to rely solely upon it as the foundation of your leadership style just doesn’t work. It was C.S. Lewis who said: “Humility is not thinking less of yourself, but rather thinking about yourself less.” Simply put, humble leaders recognize and value the contributions of others in lieu of self-promotion.

The truth of the matter is that few things have inspired and motivated me over the years like the quiet confidence and humility of great leaders. I would much rather listen to the self-deprecating humor of a confident person making fun of themselves than the mean spirited attacks of an arrogant person waged at someone else’s expense. More importantly, I would much rather work for, or along side of, the understated than the overstated. Those professionals that have self respect, and demonstrate a true respect for others regardless of their station in life, are much more likely to be successful over the long-term than those that use the tactics of disrespect to humiliate and intimidate.

Contrary to popular folklore, it’s important to note that nice guys & gals don’t finish last. Leaders that display authentic humility have broader spheres of influence, attract better talent, engender more confidence, and earn more loyalty and respect than do those leaders who rely solely upon their chutzpa and their ability to brandish their bravado. If what you’re seeking is lasting relationships, long-term success, and a better quality of life (in and out of the workplace) then you’ll be well served to forgo the pompous acts of the arrogant, and substitute the humility and quiet confidence displayed by true leaders.

If you have any interesting stories about leaders who either possessed great humility, or were sorely lacking in that regard, I’d encourage you to share your experience by leaving a comment below. Thanks in advance for sharing…

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

So, does design really matter? Let me make my position very clear… design absolutely matters. Whether it is aesthetic, functional, creative, process, innovative, intellectual, technical or applicational… design matters. While I have heard many a professional downplay the value of design, it has been my experience that most business people who espouse this opinion are commenting on something outside of their domain expertise in an attempt to justify a competing agenda or a position of ignorance. While this position may seem a bit harsh, it is nonetheless true. In today’s blog post I’ll examine why design matters.

What do you think when you experience poor design in your life? Are you likely to adopt a new software application that is poorly designed? When you are handed a business card that was printed at Kinko’s are you impressed? Are you likely to read a piece of collateral material that is poorly designed? If a newly implemented business process has design flaws, will employees follow the process or circumvent it? Is poorly designed consumer packaging likely to attract your attention as you walk down the shopping isle? When it’s time to purchase your next automobile would you give serious consideration to a poorly designed vehicle? I could go on ad nauseum with similar questions, but my guess is that you get my point…

Now let’s examine the flip-side of the coin by looking at the positives associated with strong design. When you think of Apple you immediate think of a company that has built a strong brand around quality design. It started with the Mac, then came the iPod and now we’re experiencing the impact of the iPhone. The iPod pioneered innovative design in the mp3 player vertical with great technical design, outstanding functional design, and is in a class by itself with regard to aesthetic design. Largely due to the iPod’s strong integrated design qualities it is the dominant brand in its class, commands a pricing premium, and has developed an extremely loyal and satisfied customer base.

When you’re evaluating vendors online, and you land on a poorly designed website, how long does it take you to click away from the poorly designed site in search of a better option? You can review virtually any industry, sector, vertical, or micro-vertical and when you examine the dominant brands you’ll find quality design at their core. While there are exceptions to every rule, they are few and far between when it comes to design. If you try hard enough you can find an aberration in just about any rule, but it will simply be just that… an aberration.

Also worth noting is that there is certainly a difference between value engineering and arbitrary cost containment. The next time you hear someone question an investment into design solely for the purpose of reducing expenditures, I would suggest that you think long and hard before doing so, as few things in business produce the return on investment that a reputation for quality design can yield.

Think about the marketing and advertising campaigns that get your attention, the clothes you wear, the house you live in, the cars you drive, the cell phone you carry, or any number of other decisions you make and you’ll find that design plays a key role in your decisioning… Design Matters!

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

Whether you want to admit it or not, competition is part of your world, and likely a bigger part than you’d care to admit. Granted, exploiting the competition is not a novel concept. Even so, it is still very common to hear many executives adopt a competition neutral position. These executives simply don’t believe competition to be a significant factor in the execution of their business plan.

While this may make for a nice sound bite, I don’t buy it, and if they’re truly honest with themselves, neither do they. In business you can either choose to deal with your competition (even if that means partnering with them), or you can opt to stand idly by and let the competition eat your lunch. In today’s post I’ll share my thoughts on the proper way to view your competition and how to identify competitive threats…

While some companies talk a good game with regard to competitive strategy, in my experience very few businesses actually address the issue in adequate fashion. I suppose much of my perspective on competition was formed during my days as a soldier and athlete. In the military we valued intelligence, studied our enemy’s strengths and weaknesses, developed a battle plan around a solid strategy, and executed our tactical mission as if our lives depended on it – because they did.

Similarly, in my days as an athlete, our game plan each week was refined based upon the strengths and weaknesses of the team we were playing next. If we didn’t study films and scouting reports, develop plays that would exploit match-ups, and execute our game plan we would lose… it was as simple as that. Dealing with competition in the business world is really no different than dealing with enemies on the battlefield or competitors on the athletic field… you either win or lose based upon your state of preparedness, desire and commitment.

How well do you know your competition? No, really… Not how well do you think you know your competition, but how well do you really understand them? Do you have a business intelligence platform? When was the last time you conducted a formal competitive study? Do your R&D and innovation programs evaluate the competitive landscape? Do your marketing, PR and branding initiatives exploit the competition? Do you stack-up as well as you think, or have you just adopted a position out of convenience?

The first step in developing a competitive strategy is to identify your current and potential threats, and then to prioritize said threats based upon perceived risk/reward and cost/benefit scenarios. The following list is clearly not exhaustive, but it is representative of the main competitive threats to a business. As the following list indicates, competition can come in the form of any one or combination of the following potential threats:

1. Existing or potential direct and indirect competitors.
2. Existing clients or end-users that could either become competition or strengthen your competitors if they have a change in loyalty.
3. Current or former employees who could become competition.
4. Vendors, suppliers or distributors that could become competition, or provide an edge to your competition.
5. Competitive innovations in process, management, talent, pricing, efficiency, etc. that can cause disruption in the market.
6. Strong changes in brand perception via news, PR, branding, litigation etc. can create changes in the competitive landscape.
7. Competitive technology innovations that could adversely impact your business.
8. Competitive mergers, acquisitions and roll-ups that could adversely impact your business.
9. Political, legislative, regulatory, or compliance actions that could create a competitive imbalance in the market.
10. Changes in general market dynamics that could create competitive changes in the market.

Once all areas of competitive risk have been identified and prioritized it will be much easier to develop a strategy for stacking the odds in your favor regardless of when, where, or how you encounter the competition.

The key to successfully exploiting competition over the long haul is linking your competitive strategy to the discipline of innovation and the mindset of custom centricity. A sustainable competitive advantage is not found by creating minor advantages in product features. Long-term competitive separation is created by innovating around the needs of your customers and clients with a focus on long-term value creation.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

The topic of “Employee Engagement” is something that many CEOs tend to struggle with. Long gone are the days where the executive leadership of a company can remain sequestered in their offices with an internal focus on hard metrics. Given the current economic climate, it takes far more than cost-cutting to survive. It is the CEO who understands the need for focus on the soft metrics of customer centricity and employee engagement that will create sustainable growth in revenue and brand equity. In today’s post I’ll examine the need to have a fully engaged work force…

Before you read any further, I want you to stop and ask yourself the following question: How many of your employees are truly passionate about your company, its values, its vision, its mission, and the role that they play within the organization? Don’t fool yourself… Conduct a harsh, critical analysis and come up with a true head count of the passionate employees within your organization.

Your answer to the question above should be a very telling sign about the overall health of your business. Are people just showing-up and punching the clock to collect a paycheck, or are they personally consumed and committed to achieving the company vision? Are your employees corporate evangelists serving as a motivating force to be reckoned with, or do they gather in small groups to gripe and complain about all the things wrong with the company and its leadership?

The key to having an engaged workforce is to have a passionate workforce. And the simple truth of the matter is that no single person in the company can instill passion in the ranks like the CEO can. Despite the consensus recognition that employee engagement matters, the enormity of its impact on the company’s bottom line and its capacity for innovation, still appears to be misunderstood by most CEOs. I rarely talk to a CEO that doesn’t understand this principle in concept, but yet I rarely see chief executives who put theory into practice.

So it begs the question, why are CEOs listening but not taking action? The answer seems to be that CEOs continue to allocate considerable effort and resources toward engineering the corporate strategy, yet they seem to be unaware of what forces can prevent said strategy from being delivered successfully. Not surprisingly, employee engagement is often the critical missing factor.

As the CEO you must also become the chief engagement officer. Operating in a vacuum and being out of touch is never a good position to find yourself in as the CEO. I have consistently espoused the value of walking the floor, dropping in on meetings on an impromptu basis, taking employees of all ranks to lunch, and any number of other items that focus on raising your internal awareness and creating a passionate workforce.

It is your passionate employees that are the franchise talent (regardless of position) that you should be building around. If you can’t get employees to see the light and become passionate about the company and their contribution, then seek to replace them as quickly as possible. Just as passion is a positive, contagious trait so are apathy and dissatisfaction. Passionate employees are productive, energized, committed and loyal assets. Apathetic employees quickly become disenfranchised liabilities that will hurt both productivity and morale. To drive home the point of how much I value passionate employees, I would take a moderately talented but passionate employee over a very talented but complacent employee eleven times out of ten.

Truly great companies are built around passionate employees. When you walk into a dynamic, thriving company you can sense the passion. You feel a certain buzz and fervor that pervades everything. Contrast this with a company that feels as if it has no pulse. If you’ve ever walked into an organization that feels like rigor-mortis has set in, you know what I’m referring to. In today’s economy, the old saying that “the only thing worse than an employee who quits and leaves is the employee who quits and stays” has never been more accurate.

As a leader you need to understand that your employees not only want to be led, but they want to be led by a passionate leader. Ultimately employees want to be passionate about what they do; in fact, they’ll go to the ends of earth and sacrifice tremendously if passionate about the endeavor. Think of the employees that started off with Gates and Allen at Microsoft, or those that worked with Phil Knight in his garage before Nike even had a name, or those employees that endured the early days with Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Google. It was their passion and commitment that helped change the landscape of business, not their starting salaries.

To build an extraordinary company, you must light the fire in the bellies of your workforce. You must get them to feel passion about your organization and to connect with your vision. You must get your employees to engage. As the CEO, your ability to transfer your passion to your employees is the essence of being a great leader. So much so that if you can’t accomplish this, you simply can’t be a great leader. Think of any great leader, and while you’ll find varying degrees of skill sets, intellect and ability, I challenge to name even one that did not have passion, as well as the ability to instill said passion in team members.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

Since Organizational theory is a hot topic these days, I thought I’d poke a bit of fun at that old corporate tradition that is the Organization Chart. Over the years I’ve seen every type of org chart in existence. Some have come and gone only to come again. Every year or two the latest revolutionary thinking in corporate organizational theory spawns a new form of charting. The dynamics of corporate organization are so revered by B-school professors and management consultants that an entire generation of corporate management has drunk the org chart Kool-Aid. These managers often rush to adopt the latest thinking without any consideration for whether or not the new form of structure is even appropriate for their business. So powerful is this dynamic that entire companies and numerous products have been built to support these latest trends. In the time it has taken to author this musing it wouldn’t surprise me if Visio had a new product release.

So, is an org chart a corporate asset or a waste of time? The answer depends on the purpose behind its creation, the process used to create it, and the corporate purpose for the existence of the chart post creation. The following list contains my top 10 reasons not to create an organizational chart:

1. To give the CEO an opportunity to view his name at the top
2. Because you need to beef-up your management presentation and you have room for an extra PowerPoint slide
3. Your management consultant told you to create one
4. The business planning software you purchased has a template for one
5. Your CFO just read a new article on corporate organizational theory
6. You just attended an off-site where someone drew an off-the-cuff chart on a dry erase board and it looked good
7. When reviewing your competitor’s website you noticed they had one, and well your website needed updating anyway
8. There wasn’t anything better for the intern to do
9. Someone got a promotion
10. It just seems like you should have one

Putting the satire aside, a business should in fact have an organization chart. A sincerely motivated, properly constructed, and actively implemented organizational chart can in fact help refine the operational aspects of any business. The development of an org chart should be a serious initiative born out of solid underlying business logic, process and methodology. Culture and environment are considerations that are often times completely ignored in the design of and org chart while perhaps representing the most critical architectural elements.

The most common mistake made by corporate management is that the organization chart is created way too early in the process before business rules and logic are aligned. Much like the order of operation principles that apply to an algebraic formula, if you get the sequencing wrong you can’t solve the problem. An org chart is not where you start the process, but is rather the culmination of many processes helping to insure a certainty of execution and clarity of direction by creating a road-map to be followed.

There’s an old joke in business circles that says “every company has two org charts… the one that’s put into graphical form and incorporated in the business plan, and the one that never gets published but is actually representative of how things really work.” The process of corporate organization is most succinctly and easily understood by using the following order of operation which I developed more than two decades ago:

“Values should underpin Vision, which dictates Mission, which determines Strategy, which surfaces Goals, that frame Objectives, which in turn drives the Tactics that tell an organization what Resources, Infrastructure and Processes are needed to support a certainty of execution.” – (Mike Myatt 1988)

The org chart should enter the organizational construction cycle as deep into the cycle as possible to avoid the joke that led off the preceding paragraph. By waiting to create your organizational paradigm until there is at least some level of maturity in the business, a clear picture of who, what, when, where, why and how will begin to develop. It is only at this stage that you can properly align expectations, with process, culture and environment. It is then and only then, that you should address the need for, and deployment of, your human capital assets.

The bottom line is that I have observed all types of organizational structures (in vogue, antiquated and otherwise) succeed, and I have also seen them fail. It is not the “type” or the “style” of chart used that works or doesn’t, rather it is the process of design that was used in creating the org chart that will determine its usefulness, functionality and adoption. That said, my personal preference is to build a very flat organization, and where a hierarchical framework is necessary, to drive complex decisioning down as low as possible within the organization structure.

Enjoy this post? and join our Continuous Innovation group!

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

I was checking Twitter yesterday while getting ready to board my flight when a quote attributed to @zappos (Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos) came across my timeline. It read “Culture Trumps Strategy.” I did a double-take on this as it just didn’t resonate with me. Then my timeline started to get peppered with Retweets of this quote from some very bright people. Okay, maybe I missed something here… I really respect Tony Hsieh, and the people Retweeting this quote are some very smart people, I better read it again – “Culture Trumps Strategy” – it still didn’t resonate with me. What did I do next? I Googled the phrase “Culture Trumps Strategy” and found that Stanford offered an Entrepreneurship Lecture by this title, I found several CEOs using the phrase in speeches, press releases, etc., I even found a few blogs espousing the mantra of “Culture Trumps Strategy.” Could this just be an issue of semantics? Maybe it’s just a nice politically correct soundbite that gets some good play, or is it simply flawed logic?

Since when are a healthy culture and sound business strategy bifurcated? Great corporate cultures are built by design. While I suppose that a great culture could somehow evolve by default or osmosis, I have yet to observe it. Creating a healthy culture is a matter of making it a focus point within the corporate values, vision, mission and strategy. Put simply, a corporation’s strategy that ignores, or only pays lip service to culture, will be the beneficiary of the toxic culture they deserve. Back in the dot.com days I watched many a young enterprise suffer from placing culture ahead of strategy, or worse, even focusing on culture in lieu of strategy. When the marketplace began to see through the spin and the vapor, all the fun and games in the world couldn’t save a flawed business model. The fun was over and the culture ceased to exist.

Every vibrant, healthy, inspiring, innovative, and positive corporate culture I’ve witnessed has occurred not because culture has been placed ahead of strategy, but because it has been a key driver of the corporate strategy. Why does everything in today’s world have to be framed within an exclusionary either/or proposition? I’ve consistently found that the best scenarios are the ones that allow you to have your cake and eat it too. Why separate culture from strategy to their mutual demise, when culture is secured, enhanced, and sustained by sound strategy?

So, back to my original source of confusion… How could such bright people seemingly be taking exception to the thoughts Ive shared above? The more I pondered the statement “Culture Trumps Strategy” the more I thought I may understand what it was these bright people, whom I respect immensely, were actually trying to say… I just disagreed with how they were saying it. So I dug a bit deeper and found a New York Times interview with Tony Hsieh in which he described his experience with building corporate culture, and how it impacted his current philosophy. My suspicions were confirmed. As I read the interview I found that contrary to the quote which was attributed to him, culture was actually woven in to the very fabric of his strategy at Zappos. Moreover, the corporate values of Zappos are foundational to creating their corporate vision.

Bottom line: I’m not sure that Tony Hseih and the collective body of those who Retweeted his quote actually disagree with me on anything other than how we chose to express our views. Therein lies my caution… I’m fearful that people who don’t have the experience or intuition to read between the lines of a short quote, or a 140 character Tweet, might be misled by the simplicity of the appeal. This is why I took the time to author today’s post. In reality, Culture does not Trump Strategy, rather they work together to enhance the success of one another. What say you?

P.S.
Our closet is adorned with many a pair of shoes from Zappos. Their customer service is the best I’ve experienced anywhere, and I remain a fan of Tony Hsieh.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

My experience with most executives and entrepreneurs is that they are totally committed to and focused on success. As a result, many of them tend to have a major blind-spot (translation: weakness) when it comes to the anticipation of set-backs. While this is understandable, it is nonetheless naive, and it constitutes a major flaw in the business logic of most strategic plans. This is so much the case that the most often overlooked aspect of strategic planning is adequately addressing contingencies as part of the planning process. As you get ready to usher in 2010, my suggestion is to take one final look back at your planning and assure that you’ve anticipated all the ways in which things can go wrong, and what you’ll do when the inevitable happens…

The reality surrounding the success of any implementation is found by understanding that no matter how smart you are, things rarely go as planned. Those that plan in advance for changes in circumstances can adroitly address issues when they occur, while those who must deal with “unforeseen” circumstances don’t tend to fare as well. Smart leaders view obstacles as a constant rather than a variable, and incorporate that thinking into their planning. Any well crafted strategy anticipates obstacles and factors in multiple “what if” scenarios. Leaders that wait until a problem occurs to deal with it place themselves and their organization at a huge strategic disadvantage.

The two most common outcomes created by a lack of contingency planning are: 1.) watching things grind to a halt as you scramble to evaluate options, and; 2.) having fewer options to assess based upon the new found time constraint. Speed is your friend and should be leveraged to your advantage. Speed is aided by anticipation and slowed by a lack thereof. Smart leaders will do everything in their power to keep a decreae in velocity from becoming a self imposed adversary due to a lack of contingency planning.

It is important to remember that contingency planning is a key to avoiding costly mistakes. In most cases your wins won’t put you out of business, but your losses most certainly can. The three most critical items to focus on when conducting your planning are:

1. Insure that personal accountability is present on any major benchmark, milestone or deliverable.
2. Make sure that someone has identified the 5 worst things that could happen with any initiative, what steps can be taken to prevent their occurrence, and what measures will be taken to overcome them if they happen?
3. Make sure that advance warning signs for potential failures are identified and understood so that you have plenty of runway in front of you to implement your contingency plans.

Good luck and good planning.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Mike Myatt

While today’s post is short, it truly merits the attention of anyone still grappling with 2010 budget concerns. I’m going to share something with you that you might not want to hear, and quite frankly, something that will likely send your CFO straight into apoplexy. You don’t grow a business by shrinking it. The key to corporate growth is not to fall into decline; hopefully not by default, but certainly not by design. If your 2010 plan is one that involves constriction, contraction, shrinkage or retraction, you should note that this is not what your clients and prospects are looking for.

Do you think your clients will be impressed that you’re cutting staff, shrinking marketing budgets, eliminating service lines or any other item that they perceive as a limiting factor in your ability to help or add value? Know this: your clients and prospects will never see any form of bunker mentality as being beneficial to them. One of the great business myths is the theory of “remaining flat” – it simply is not possible. A business grows or shrinks – it gains ground on competitors, or loses ground to them. So my question to you is this: What are you specifically going to do in 2010 to better serve your clients, to continue acquiring and developing talent, to build your brand, and to grow your business? General George C. Patton said it best: “Never defend, always attack.”

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.