Business Culture - Random Walks in the Low Countries

Changing the conversation

February 3, 2016 by Dave Hampton

The call was about the future. There was now a clear, risk=-free path to getting our product into the market, and the discussion turned to what to do next. What is the best way to drive commercial growth, product line expansions, clinical adoption, and rising revenues in the first year after introduction? Would an independent trial or an independent channel yield greater returns: would demonstration of clinical effectiveness suffice, or was economic evidence the key?

We’d had a good walk-through of the issues, weighing evidence, stories of other companies, and enumerating alternatives.

Good, I closed, well, is there anything else?

“You don’t get off that easily. You’re a great one for letting a conversation go without a conclusion. Now I’m going to hold you to giving one.”

I was a bit taken aback (not the least because it’s very un-British to be so frank). Does every business conversation need an agenda, minutes, summary and action points? It reminds me of similar maxims: ‘No action actually happened unless it is documented’ and ‘The right things won’t happen consistently unless there is a procedure and training’, or ‘signatures are only valid when made with a black pen’’.

The truth is, I need to think about a wide-ranging conversation before I am ready to summarize and decide. I might want to bounce some points off of other people (in fact, I did) or do some reading. I need a block of quiet time, wind whistling over the car, without thinking about it, for my intuitive side to agree with my rational one.

I did summarize and give a bias towards an answer, but left the conversation open-ended.

I’ve been getting a number of suggestions about how to conduct better conversations recently. A favorite was the notion that the order of events in emails should be inverted.

I tend to order correspondence as Hi, ‘hope that things are going well and that your weekend was fun. I have been going through the proposal and wondered if I could ask a favor before the next meeting….

Simon Sinek holds that this tends to make people cynical about my good wishes if they lead to asking for something. ‘better to say Hi, I have been going through the proposal and wondered if I could ask a favor before the next meeting…. ‘hope that things are going well and that your weekend was fun. best, Dave

I’ve been reversing the order and think that it strengthens my correspondence, a good tip. (and never, ever say ‘best wishes’ in closing a letter in the UK: its often a backhand way of saying that you don’t wish them well at all).

Another criticized me for holding up decisions until I understand the issue being decided. Good people, the sort that I bring on board, do understand the facts and know what needs to be done. They get frustrated if they feel like I’m not respecting and trusting them.

I get that, it’s not a control and authority ploy. Rather, I feel like I need to understand the actions that I am responsible and accountable for.

So, we have agreed that I will delegate without interfering, but on the agreement that the solution will be patiently explained to me after it is implemented.

Another, finally, says that I am too averse to confrontation, and that this keeps me from dealing effectively with problem people.

That is, indeed, a character flaw. I am much more likely to avoid an argument and withdraw from passionate advocacy to let tempers cool and facts to become known.

So, I’m drawing bright lines, deadlines and actions with consequences for underperformers that I can feel just about enforcing. And I am leaning into some arguments, trying to engage better and let a bi of passion show about issues that I care about.

CEOs and social networks

April 2, 2014 by Dave Hampton

Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of the Mozilla Foundation this week after less than two weeks as CEO. He’s an exceptional technical talent and visionary, but failed to understand the criticism that his personal donation of $1000 to support California’s Proposition 8 initiative in 2008 would attract. His tone-deaf defense, that business and personal are distinctly separate domains of his life, failed to sway his customers, investors, or Board.

These days, much like politicians, CEOs are expected to mirror the soft aspirations of their organizations, purpose, values, tolerance, and character, as well as embody the hard business aspects of vision, honesty, competition, and leadership.

I started experimenting with social media ten years ago. Beginning with a personal web page and an early Facebook account, I went on to start albums on Flickr, a narrative blog to share my expat experiences, and code to push my Pocket saves to Twitter for friends to read. I talked to my students about the difference in personal and public presence, static and dynamic content, and ways to align their content with the purposes of each combination.

I had discovered the limits occasionally. When content spilled into the wrong bucket (a creative writing assignment, memorably), I would hear about the leak from colleagues. I was surprised at parties when a stranger would greet me with details of my travels or activities.

And so I learned to tweak my privacy settings, cull my user lists, and moderate my content.

Once I started creating a business organization, once I became a CEO, I also found that more people, more distant from knowing me, also began drawing inferences from my social media. An out-of-date Linkedin profile misled people about my continuing involvement with prior consulting. The tweeted stream of article links raised doubts about my focus; the blog was too candid about some personal issues.

I have to manage my bank accounts so that personal and business money are kept strictly separate. Cash only flows between them in particular, proscribed ways: invoices and expenses.

A similar concept needs to be observed for social media.

Omar Ishrak’s internet presence is an instructive example. The statistic of his life are posted on his Business Week profile, but they are also reflected consistently throughout his social media outlets. His LinkedIn is professional, a CV (not up-to-date, but professional). His Twitter stream notes business-related articles and motivates his team: there are no indications of broader or personal interests.

Everything supports and motivates his corporation and its mission: his online presence is a personal reinforcement of his position representing the corporation.

The contrast between Mr. Eich and Mr. Ishrak is instructive. A CEO is a public figure representing the company to investors, employees, customers, and communities. What is said online will be indexed, aggregated, linked, discovered, broadcast, and discussed. So, even leading a small, young company, keep the management of your personal brand in mind:

Separate your personal and professional presences as rigorously as you do your personal and professional finances.
Be a resource and curator for your followers; reinforce the messages that you give to them face-to-face.
Be honest and interesting, but do not over-share personal details.
Keep content up to date and factual; monitor comments.
Manage privacy appropriately, distinguishing content seen by family, friends, colleagues, followers, and the general public.
Set triggers (Google Alerts) to notify you when content relevant to your sites and name appear.

Power politics

March 10, 2013 by Dave Hampton

I binged on House of Cards last weekend. This is the 13-episode Netflix political drama (derived from the BBC series of the same name) about House Majority Whip Francis Underwood’s venal scheming and manipulation as he works his way to power in Washington. It’s not a very pleasant series: nobody is very nice, everyone uses everyone else, and even the sympathetic characters come off as hopeless.

But it does get me thinking about the ways in which I try to gain power, or try to tilt those who have power to act to my own advantage..

My relationship with power, as one of my angel investors once told me, is complicated. On the one hand, I know and can do lots of things, have a good record of accomplishment, and that gives me a foundation of authority. But, he observed, I also tend to be deferential and hesitant, overly rational and soft-hearted, too easily intimidated and too quick to try to see both sides.

In particular, I tend to avoid conflict, and to either take indirect or extended approaches to resolving it when a quick, face-to-face confrontation is necessary. I remember someone in college characterizing me as The Instigator: setting up actions but then stepping back to observe the results.

I prefer to think of myself s more of an Influencer.

.

The approach is valid, works for me generally, but I’m currently in situations here it simply won’t work.

One is a negotiation for an asset that likely enhances our product offering. I’ve established a relationship with the owners, made an assessment, put down an offer, been clear about my limits. However, the other side has been inconsistent in responding, used my offer to elicit interest from other parties, and is overvaluing the item out of sheer naiveté about what I’m able to do with it.

The other is a confrontation in which we are trying to wrest control from one person and vest it in another. We’ve discussed the need and the alternatives, put a brief, clear proposal out and have set limits around the process. While initially agreeing, the other side then had second thoughts and withdrew, angry. To take the emotion out of it,we sides lawyered up, and threats and demands are now ongoing.

Without a middle ground, both have moved me towards unfamiliar and uncomfortable ground where resolution depends on effective exercise of power.

Since my generation uses movies as a touchstone, this brings me around to thinking about House of Cards (Most people see fear as a weakness. It can be. Sometimes for my job, I have to put fear into people), Frost/Nixon (I shall come at you with everything I got, because the limelight can only shine on one of us. And for the other, it’ll be the wilderness, with nothing and no one for company but those voices ringing in our head) or even Road House: (Never underestimate your opponent; Take it outside unless an immediate response is absolutely necessary; Always be nice, until it’s time to not be nice.)

‘Which really serves to convince me that this is not my style. Instead, I work from three principles:

Be very clear and resolute about my position: know where the line is that I won’t back across.
Believe and be prepared to walk away when and if that line is crossed, and
Bring along experienced, objective, trustworthy help, and take their advice.

By doing what’s uncomfortable and trying new strategies when traditional strategies fail, I’m hopeful that I’ll be able to resolve the problems in front of me (or learn to stay away from these tactics in the future).

It’s all adapting, learning, and rehearsal: Seth Godin wrote this week about how to prioritize time to drive business and personal improvement. Eliminate the things that don’t matter, that you’re never going to get better at or that you’re already good at, and focus on:

The important

The things that you currently don’t do very well

The things that you’re capable of doing a lot better if you invested effort and time

It’s all ‘way better than turning into soul-less Francis Underwood.

Bases loaded, no outs.

March 5, 2013 by Dave Hampton

The two things I was never good at in school were Chemistry and Languages (okay, and Handwriting in elementary school). ‘Ironic that these hold center stage now.

But I do know baseball.

Our chemists tracked the ‘covering the coating’ problem down to an unexpected diffusion of silicone from the catheters. This suggested a half dozen approaches to removing the material prior to applying the coating, and they ran everything in parallel.

But, after two weeks, nothing seemed to work.

Their disappointment at the review call was really palpable: they sounded tired and discouraged, and didn’t immediately have an answer for what they might do next. That sent shivers through the rest of the organization: I worry about a vicious spiral setting in where lack of confidence is more damaging than lack of progress.

October 11, 1995

The Seattle Mariners were in the American League playoffs against the Cleveland Indians in the Kingdome. 22-year old Rookie Bob Walcott started for the Mariners, who were desperately short of pitchers. He immediately got into trouble, walking the first three batters and loading the bases.

Manager Lou Piniella headed to the mound after Wolcott threw his sixth successive ball. They had a conversation, Piniella went back to the dugout, and Wolcott caught fire, retiring the side and eventually allowing only two runs in seven innings. The Mariners went on to win 3-2.

I was there: I really wanted to know what Piniella said that turned things around.

"I talked to him about hunting in Oregon," the manager related afterward. "I said, ‘You can enjoy your winter in Medford’; he’s from Medford. I said, ‘Look, if it’s 11-0, who cares. Just give us five or six innings. Have some fun and relax out here.’ "

We had a good lunch, we talked about life, I let them tell their story. We speculated more widely about what might be happening, and we brainstormed a few solutions. My chemistry is at a metaphorical level, I’m afraid, but the purpose was to stimulate confidence and new approaches, not to suggest an answer.

At the end of the day it seemed to have restored their optimism an ideas: we all knew what we were doing next, how we were helping, and that we were backing their team. I headed south with cautious optimism myself: hopefully to convey to the wider organization.

Okay, there was a jerk on the Doncaster – Stevenage train who had spread out across my reserved seat and table, who loudly declared that reserved seats were rubbish, and who forced me to squeeze in elsewhere in the train. It was really irritating.

But I’m just not going to let the jerks ruin my day.

Especially when there’s a playoff at stake.

Soft power and the Low Countries

November 29, 2012 by Dave Hampton

Growing up, I wasn’t exactly the biggest, strongest, richest, charismatic, or cutest kid in the group. (I note, of course, that it’s all different these days…).

In the absence of “strong power”, muscle or money, I found my level through alternative means. I was joining lesser recognized activities (computer assistant, flute section, science club, props master for the school plays, recognizing what I was good at (math, science, boy scouts) and building a circle of like-minded friends (many are still on Facebook).

Diplomatically, this is essence of Soft Power, a 90’s concept of building global political influence through attractive culture, progressive policies, and tolerant political values. For many years, the Netherlands was a “Soft Power” leader among nations; cohesive, confident, socially inventive. However, conservative politics, immigration issues, and global recession have all eroded the image: Finnish education reforms or German mittlestand are more likely touchstones today.

I was thumbing a copy of Lewis’ When Cultures Collide, an excellent guide to working across cultures, and the specific section on Dutch business norms. Here’s his outline of how decisions get made in the Netherlands:

Delightfully true, but not an attractive beacon for others.

This month, Tyler Brule’s Monocle Magazine released it’s third annual “Global Soft Power” survey, ranking nations according to their influence on world affairs. The Netherlands have fallen from 10 to number 15, between Norway and Spain, based on a combination of politics, diplomatic infrastructure, cultural output, capacity for education and appeal to business. Britain was number one this year; two winners were from Asia and Turkey entered the list for the first time.

The Dutch need to be selling their contemporary culture and get over their contemplative decade, was the short verdict, noting that there is still an intense internal debate about what it means to be both modern and Dutch.

it’s interesting to think about: is Soft Power important for the Netherlands, should they care about a decline in influence, and what can they do about it? I think they have to care: the Dutch will never be a great military power, and becoming a financial hub would require destructive changes to their culture. The remaining option is to lead by example and influence rather than by force (co-opt instead of coerce, in the words of political scientist Joseph Nye).

I suspect that building a progressive, inspiring, attractive face to the outside world starts with doing more good things for your own people as well.

Medica 2012

November 15, 2012 by Dave Hampton

Each year, the medical deice industry comes together in Dusseldorf at Medica. It’s a gigantic trade show, the biggest I know, where device manufacturers from around the world meet distributors, hospitals, and agency representatives. It’s raw capitalism: no science, no instructional seminars, no market research. Just 17+ gigantic exhibit halls filled with backslapping deal-making.

And good German bratwurst.

For us, this as a chance to talk with companies sourcing products that we could improve; companies that might distribute the result. There were luncheon discussions of business models and partnerships, afternoons exploring new monitors and interfaces. The country-sponsored booths were delightful: it’s great to see smaller companies being brought forward with their new ideas. There was the occasional delight of finding a vendor with a really good insight. There was also the disappointment of one who asked for a meeting and then drifted, or of who thought they had a unique idea that was, in fact, replicated a hundred times over among the endless aisles.

It’s a vibrant and delightful industry: this show is all about the energy and creativity that it’s participants bring to patient care.

Even if it gets a bit goofy sometimes.