Who's on your "founders list'?

A friend of mine asked me an interesting question: If you were starting a new company, who would be on your "founders list"?  In other words, among the people you know, work with, etc.  who would you want with you if you started a new company?

An interesting twist on this question:  Which of the people in your current company or team would make the list?  Are you doing enough to let these people know you value them, and to keep them engaged?  More importantly, have you asked them to be part of your core team or "inner circle"?  These are the people who are likely making the most positive difference in terms of moving your business or mission forward - shouldn't you be spending more of your energy on them?

And another, more sobering, question:  Would any of these people want you on their "founders list"?  What can you do -- now -- to increase your value to the people you value?

Choices and forcing functions

I'm going through a strategic planning process right now.  It's very liberating - you can start to redraw the boundaries, constraints, and reassess the pre-existing conditions of your business.

One of the challenges is not trying to commit to doing too many things.  A long time ago, I realized something that seems counterintuitive, at first glance:

Sometimes you have to limit your choices to expand your opportunities.

What I mean is you need to force yourself to focus on fewer things so each one of your focus areas receives sufficient investment to allow it to succeed and thrive.  One of the mistakes I see companies make (lots of them, not just mine) is to spread themselves too thin.

We often think of a "shotgun" approach as hedging our bets.  In a way, that's true, but dividing your organization's attention across too many different initiatives more often results in frustration and failure.

So, what can you do?

Some techniques can help:

• Drive to your top 5. You have lots of options, and you probably have a group of people you need to get on board with your priorities and commitments.  Getting a group to agree on a short list is challenging, so your first step should be to try to get to reasonable alignment with five target areas.
• Get clear on your top 3. This will take a while, but if you can get the group to agree on the top 3 areas of focus, that is real progress.
• Drop the bottom 2. Now that you know your top 3, it's time to say "no" to everything below those.  It will be a test of your mettle, but it's important.
• Pick your #1. You've got a list of 3 important things - now, pick the one that is the most important.  It will be your cornerstone.
• Align your resources to your #1. Allocate at least 67% of your resources, time, etc. to your #1 priority (that's a minimum - allocating more to #1 is even better).  The remaining 1/3 of your resources can be budgeted to the remaining 2 items (the mix there is less important, as long as you don't ever allow your commitment to #1 to drop below 67%.
  • I realize you may not be able to make the shift all at once, but give yourself an aggressive deadline, then plan and execute to have the resource shift in place by the deadline.
• Hold the line. The old saying, "No pain, no gain," holds true here - it will be a difficult transition but well worth it in terms of focus and execution.

This transition can be a very liberating one, if you do it deliberately.  There is huge value in setting clear guidelines to drive decisions of what's in, and what's out - especially when it comes to how everyone in the organization spends their precious time and the company's precious money.

Anything to add or challenge from your experiences? I'd love to hear it.

Bare Knuckle People Management

I got an early copy of "Bare Knuckle People Management," this week from one of the authors, Sean O'Neil. Sean, along with co-author John Kulisek, have created a fantastic resource for managers.  I started reading it on a cross-county flight this morning and couldn't put it down.

The subtitle of the book is "Creating success with the team you have - winners, losers, misfits, and all."  Their focus is to help you identify the traits, strengths, weaknesses, etc. of the folks on your team and then come up with individualized management / coaching approaches that map to each person's strengths and weaknesses.

The book is written in a very direct, "in your face" style that is clearly rooted in real-world experience.  What do I mean?

What's your Cast of Characters?

The authors discuss people in terms of 16 "Character Profiles" that I clearly recognize from people I've worked with.  For example, one of the "people types" they talk about is "Needy Ned," described as follows:

"Although he has the tools it takes to make the starting lineup, Needy Ned's anxiety and constant need for approval and assistance keep him on the bench.  He has an insatiable appetite for your attention, is afraid of everything, and requires kid glove treatment in order to avoid a display of tears.  If you can manage his anxiety and resist the urge to kill, perhaps you could boost his productivity."

I know that guy - I used to manage one back in the 90's, and I thought of them as "high maintenance" (or more politly, "high touch.")  The other 15 types conjured up specific people in my mind, as well.

This book not only helps you identify the types of folks you are dealing with, it also offers good, practical advice on how to better manage them, tap into their strengths, and manage around their weaknesses (which will help you and them in the long run).

It also deals candidly with the subject of whether you should really try to coach them, or just manage them out of the team.  And yes, there are some comments on whether you are really a good manager if you can't get more out of some of these folks - worth thinking about, for sure.

Get the Team right

Another thing this book does well is discuss team dynamics.  For each of the 16 Character Profiles, they discuss who you should (and shouldn't) pair people up with, with regard to helping both individual and team effectiveness.

The book gets you to think in terms of:

• Your "Starting Five," which are your go-to people for "wow" results.
• Your "Utility Players," which are predictable - the bedrock of the team.
• Your "Benchwarmers," who have potential but should be coached up or out.
• Your "Trading Block Candidates," that really ought to be off the team.

This model helped me frame my thinking very clearly and I like how it's discussed in the book.

The last section of the book is more about the chemistry of teams, and how to use your team of Characters most effectively.  There is a good discussion of 5 team types, ranging from awesome to has-been, and I picked up a lot of good tips along the way.

This book is a great tool box for managers.  Some of my team members are actually combinations of the 16 Character Types, but I have some practical, immediately applicable tools I can use in my next coaching sessions.

My Recommendation

I recommend "Bare Knuckle People Management" to anyone who's responsible for managing a team, but especially to those who are new managers or have just inherited a new team.

Connecting Top Managers

A couple of months ago, I received a copy of "Connecting Top Managers: Developing Executive Teams for Business Results," written by Lisa Haneberg and Jim Taylor.  I read it weeks ago but am just getting around to posting this review due to a busy schedule.

"Connecting Top Managers" is a tremendous resource for any organization that wants to build a more effective management team, or would like to address dysfunction or ineffective teamwork at the managerial level.  One of the things that makes this book particularly impactful is the research behind the text.  Haneberg and Taylor engaged with a variety of organizations through direct observation, project work, surveys, and other means and learned a lot about the ins and outs of executive teams.  Those learnings fed the recommendations and techniques presented in this book.

Be and be perceived

One aspect of the book I really liked is that it not only deals with how executives interact with their peers in the management team, it also addresses how the management team can improve or repair its image with the rest of the company.  Of course, some of the root causes of poor perceptions of management are a direct result of ineffective relationships within the management team, so it's not surprise both of these are dealt with in the book.

One of the sections in the book, "Dysfunction Reverberates," sums it up nicely: "...leaders [can't] expect their management and employees to be any more committed and passionate about the business than they demonstrate through their own actions. The same goes for teaming. You cannot expect the rest of the organization to work well together if the leadership team itself does not seem to care enough to work well together."

This book contains a lot of practical advice and strategies that you can apply within your own team, as well as some techniques you can apply personally to effect change even if the rest of the exec team is not on board.

Change begins at the top

Another element that is discussed very effectively in the book is how to influence the culture of the organization overall.  Much of this comes through willingness to address conflict rather than avoiding it, and setting a tone of constructive engagement and accountability throughout the organization.

Of course, all of this works best when there is consistent "tone at the top," which begins with the executive team. In other words, leading by example is not just a saying - it's a mandate.

Another notion in the book with which I am in enthusiastic agreement:  the most effective organizations are open to learning, and encourage learning as a part of how they do business.  What better way to make this real than to embrace learning as an executive team and tackle the challenge of becoming a more effective, high-functioning team?

I loved this book.  If you want to improve your executive team's effectiveness, I highly recommend Connecting Top Managers as a tremendous resource.

Advice: get some

I have been catching up on some old podcasts, and just listened to one from the Get-It-Done Guy about "internal advisory boards." In this podcast, he talks about creating a fictitious advisory board inside your head and using it to vet ideas.  Pretty novel concept, and he portrays it in an entertaining way - go give it a listen when you're done here.

That got me thinking about the use of external advisory boards, though.  I'm leading a project to define a very forward-looking product strategy, and I've come to realize I'm drawing too much on my own perspective and experience.  I don't want to limit my thinking so I've begun to engage with others as advisors, sounding boards, and contrarians to help me make my strategy stronger.

If you've never done this before, it can be daunting.  The first step is to admit you need help (pretty easy this time); the second step is to be open to others perspectives (again, fairly easy in this situation); and the third is to figure out who to ask to be your advisor.  That third one is a bitch, let me tell you.

I've been trying to make it easier by doing a couple of things:

1. I've written a list of the attributes I'm looking for (experience, perspective, type of input I'm looking for, etc.) for a number of advisor types;
2. I've begun to socialize this with some of my more connected friends who are most likely know someone or know of someone who can help;
3. I've written a document about the topic I want feedback on so I can get any potential advisors anchored in my topic;
4. I've begun talking to people more openly about their role as my advisor (interviewing, if you will).

This has worked pretty well - I have a couple of solid advisors on board, and a couple more in the works.  I am really looking forward to getting their input.

What about you - have you ever solicited outside advisors in any deliberate manner?  If so, do you have any advice you can share?