Manage by the Same Numbers?

Becky Carroll over at Customers Rock! posted an article about marketing and customer service that got me thinking. Now her main point is about the impact that both marketing and customer service have on a brand, especially if each communicates a different message (think about the difference between your ISP's ads and what you experience when you call them).

However, the comment that got me thinking was when she noted:

Yet too often, marketing and customer service are managed separately in a company or organization, they don’t speak to each other, and they don’t have common metrics (you know, those things that drive the behaviors?).

In the context of my previous post on managing by the numbers, this is an important addition. When subsets of an organization have the same outputs, both groups need to be managed by numbers that are based on solid and consistent methodology, clear definitions and common understanding.

But do we think of these subsets as having the same product? Think about your Line Managers and your Training Department? Both groups share employee satisfaction and productivity as metrics. Yet Training will often be judged based on units delivered, pass rates, and often 'customer' satisfaction surveys (I could do a whole post about the wholly ineffective ways that training groups 'survey' learners to determine how 'good' their training is.) Line Managers will be judged by productivity, attrition, employee satisfaction, and so on (and don't think the way these numbers are 'created' wouldn't be worthy of a few posts as well).

I think an organization that measured its operational and support groups with the same scorecards would have some very interesting results.

Tweet

Manage by the Numbers

About a year ago, I made a post decrying the way people ascribe meaning to numbers. Well it seems Tom Vander Well over at QAQnA thinks along similar lines. He is specifically looking at the world of call quality, but in my experience the flaws he points out are epidemic in today's business world.

People want to hear the number. "What's our market share percentage?" "What's our employee satisfaction index?" "What is our customer satisfaction score?" But businesses really need to know the meaning behind that number. Saying you have 100% of the market doesn't mean much if your market is for left-handed tent stake hammers. Having an employee satisfaction index of 5 is useless if the survey was conducted by managers walking around and asking employee's if they are satisfied with the company. Believing that 95% of your customers are satisfied doesn't mean much if your churn rate is 50% a month.

I believe that companies desperately need to learn to use business intelligence more effectively. The first step of that process, though, is to understand that a number only has meaning when it is arrived at by a solid and consistent methodology, is based on clear definitions that bear some relation to common sense, and when everyone using that number understands the methodology and definitions.

Otherwise, you might as well take Tom's suggestion and just use the same report forever.

Tweet

The Brutal Facts - Part 2

I know I've drawn a number of posts from Jim Collins' Good to Great, however I think it is one of the most thought provoking books I've read in a long time. I want to revisit the concept he calls Confronting the Brutal Facts. Collins posits that one of the key characteristics of the organizations that were able to make the leap from Good to Great was that they were able to confront the brutal facts.

Back in March, I wrote a post about how companies seem filled with people who want things spun rather than being willing to face the brutal facts. At that time I was working as a quality analyst and had contact with some peers in other organizations who were able to validate my perceptions based on their own experiences.

I'm now an internal auditor for the same company, which brings this whole issue home again. Yet I now begin to recognize the critical nature of the duality inherent in what Collins calls the Stockdale paradox. The Stockdale paradox is based on the story of Admiral Jim Stockdale. Stockdale was captured in the Vietnam War, and was tortured numerous times during his incarceration. He never deluded himself with false hope, yet he retained a faith that he would survive. That faith, coupled with the stark acceptance of reality allowed him to survive the horror in which he found himself. It also allowed him to lead others in a way that enabled them to survive as well.

So what does that have to do with auditing? I think a key characteristic needed to be a successful auditor is to face the realities I find as I audit. But I also have to retain the faith that all the problems will be overcome and we will make this a truly great organization.

I will confront the Brutal Facts so that I can help build the company to be all it can be.

Tweet

Our People are our Greatest Asset

I've been writing and rewriting a post on this topic for months now.

I guess the problem is that I'm horribly conflicted about the concept. I fully believe that the people in an organization are the most important asset it has. But I think most corporations may approach this concept from entirely the wrong direction.

Jim Collins proposes, in Good to Great, that rather than figuring out strategy first, an organization should make sure it has the right people. In his analogy of 'Getting the right people on the Bus" he posits that the Level 5 leader will say:

“Look, I don’t really know where we should take this bus. But I know this much: If we get the right people on the bus, the right people in the right seats, and the wrong people off the bus, then we’ll figure out how to take it someplace great.”

This seems intuitively wrong, but I really think it's right. The right people are going to be the right people regardless. They will adapt as needs and the business environment evolve. I don't want someone who is amazing at leading in a bullish economy when the economy goes bear.

But very few organizations recruit this way, and they hamstring themselves right at the start.

I know I've recommended it before, but you really should read Good to Great.

Tweet

I'm The Problem

One incredibly common theme in many of the organizations I know (either directly through my own involvement, or indirectly through associates and friends) is an unwillingness to take responsibility. The ability some people have to deflect is absolutely astounding.

Development Group: "It's not our fault. The Database Group didn't design the database properly!"

Database Group: "It's not our fault. The Development Group didn't give us the correct specs."

The line blames management. The management blames the support groups. The support groups blame the senior leadership. Senior leadership blames the line. No one is willing to say: "This is my responsibility. What I'm doing isn't achieving the results the organization needs. I need to change what I'm doing."

In my own organization, I've decided to approach each challenge from the point of view that "I'm the problem." Every challenge that I'm facing must first be met with an assumption that there is something I could do differently to overcome that challenge. I think I've generally approached things that way, but I've never formalized it quite like this before.

It will be interesting to see if it has an impact.

Tweet

The Brutal Facts

Brutal Fact Number 1

It's been over 3 months since I posted. I can give a number of reasons, but I doubt anyone's really interested.

Brutal Fact Number 2

I'm mostly inspired (or provoked) to write by work. Anyone who knows me knows how much I define myself in terms of what I do. I like to think I'm very good at what I do, although sometimes I'm not even sure how to even describe that. I'm a Quality Analyst, but if you looked at my typical day, you'd find I spend very little time in a traditional analyst role.

However, as an analyst, I feel it's my duty to try to present things clearly and correctly. I try to avoid significant spin. I try to present the good and the bad without being a Pollyanna or prophesying the apocalypse. I believe that one of the signs of a truly effective analyst is that ability. One of the other signs of a good analyst is the number of bullets they take. Everyone shoots the messenger these days.

Jim Collins proposes that one of the characteristics of an organization that is poised to go from good to great is the ability to face the brutal facts (If you haven't read Good to Great go do so. Now.) In talking with friends and associates in different industries, I've come to realize how rare that is. Most organizations seem to be filled with people that want things spun. They don't want the facts. Which means, if Collins is right, that their organizations are not poised to ever be great.

Tweet

Corporate Altruism?

I'll start by noting that I work for a large multi-national corporation.

My friend and gym partner, PJ, had a rather interesting discussion about corporate reality. I'm not sure if he would characterize the discussion that way, but I do. Basically, we ended up discussing whether a corporation could, would, should, have other motivations than profit. PJ contended that corporations should have other motivations. I felt this was an unrealistic expectation.

Now, to immediately deflect certain arguments, I want to be clear that we are talking about publicly traded corporations. I'm not talking about charitable organizations, governmental entities, etc. I fully recognize that a privately owned company may act based on the personal philosophy of the owner.

Corporations, like the one for which I work, exist to make money for their shareholders. All actions they take are intended for that purpose. This is even true of 'altruistic' actions by corporations. I'm not denying that the people who decide that a corporation will donate to charity 'X' may care deeply about the goals of the charity. However if there was no benefit to the corporation for making those donations, there would be no donations. Corporations undertake 'altruistic' actions, expecting certain benefits. Improved image, improved employee morale, and tax breaks are all very valid reasons why corporations undertake these actions.

I would go farther to posit that corporations are no different than individuals in this regard. We, as a race, only do things that meet our needs. All actions we undertake are intended to create some sort of benefit for us. Barring true psychosis, every individual acts for their own benefit. Mothers protect their young, philanthropists give away money, and masochists inflict pain upon themselves, all for the benefits those actions provide to them.

Corporate or individual, altruism is simply a way of saying that I do something for less apparent benefits.

Tweet