Leadership and Learning

Posts Tagged ‘brand’

There is a great old story about a great old drummer named Bernard Purdie, who, if you’ve not heard of him, played on records by James Brown, Frank Sinatra, BB King, Aretha Franklin, Miles Davis and Steely Dan.

Bernard has a beautiful sense of time. When you hear him playing a simple beat, you want to move. (For an example of that, click on the following link.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FX_84iWPLU

The story goes that when Bernard was hired for a session, he would come in, set up his drums, and then before beginning to play, would also put up two signs, one on each side of his drum set.

One sign read: “You done it.”

The other sign read: “You done hired the hit-maker, Bernard ‘Pretty’ Purdie.”

That’s pretty bold.

If you watch the video clip above, you’ll understand why he was so bold. If you watch this video clip below, you’ll hear Walter Fagen and Water Becker (they are Steely Dan) talking about Bernard’s signs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ldtieSEyQM

“Boldness” is a word used in coaching that turns out to have some real significance. Boldness is about confidence, belief, passion and conviction.

It may be easier to understand by its opposite: lack of confidence, lack of belief, lack of passion and lack of conviction.

Boldness comes from processed experience. That means that not only have you lived something successful, but you have thought about it, and consciously concluded you have reason to be bold about something. (Sometimes people are very good at something, but taking a page from the “aw, shucks. It’s just little old me” playbook, they downplay or minimize their contribution. Not recommended.)

A key with boldness is to find where it naturally occurs in your work. Where do you find your voice? What gives you energy? Where does fear dissipate?

Where can you put up your own signs?

It’s the end of an era.

Tonight, the death of Steve Jobs was announced.

Much has already been written about the man, so no need to go over all that.

From my seat, Apple was a company unwavering in its commitment to excellence. This is in opposition to just plain bad – but not quite bad enough to get you to cancel the contract or switch providers. The new model of customer service for many corporations is “Drive the cost of customer service down as far as possible until customers start bailing.” Just yesterday I had a conversation with a friend who said he hates his bank, but it is such a hassle to change banks that he stays.

Apple unapologetically charged for its customer service, and it’s excellent.

So what about the money? Jobs once famously said something to the effect of — when hearing an interviewer talk about the company’s financial position – that this was a nice number, but it was really just that. A number. It wasn’t very important to him. What really mattered was whether Apple was producing great products.

Do you feel that many of the products coming from large corporations today are really motivated by a quest for greatness? Or a desire to cut costs and maximize shareholder return?

Apple dared to be different, and this should not be understated. At a time when the entire world was rushing to PCs, Apple stood by its vision. Its OS, applications and graphical user interface. Imagine the temptations there must have been to be a PC wanna-be. After all, that’s where the big money was, right?

Jobs demanded the best, and he had a vision. In this way, he was no different than any respectable junior high sports coach, when you stop to think about it.

What is it about the economy, the business culture today that such a posture should be so radical?

Jobs also bridged the artificial gap between art and science. He studied calligraphy as a young man, and this exposed him to aesthetics, design and beauty. Can you say the products of most companies today are aesthetic, designed well, and even beautiful?

But what always got me about Apple was empathy. Empathy is not sympathy – it is the ability to see and understand something as someone else may experience it. It is a cognitive and emotional skill.

The first time I bought an iMac, I opened this beautiful, sleek box and the first thing I saw was a note that said, “We’re as excited about your new Apple purchase as you are.”

They “got it.” They understood that customers were more than revenue-generating units to be seduced with promises of 3 free months of service and then to be shafted at customer service time. Apple related to customers.

Apple products are easy. One of the machines I bought over the years had instructions to the effect of: “Take the computer out of the box. Plug it in. Press the power button.”

That was it. You were in business.

Who hasn’t sworn at a personal computer at some time – trying to get it to print, network, configure or just cooperate?
I have compared Apple’s sense of customers with traditional PC companies’ sense with an analogy. It’s as though we’re at the beginning of the automotive era (and make no mistake; we are at the beginning of the computer era). Most manufacturers think the job of the car is to get a passenger from A to B. And they’re right.

But another company comes along with the question, “How do we make the ride enjoyable?” They start coming up with suspension systems, windshields, padding in the seats. This is Apple. Thinking about the user, not just going from A to B.

Apples are fun. They are built with a sense of humor, irreverence, freshness, even frivolity.

When Jobs recruited John Sculley from Pepsi to be CEO, he asked him, “Do you want to sell sugar water? Or do you want to change the world?” He had a big vision.

It’s the end of an era, and I sincerely hope Apple can keep the vision alive.

The Apple home page tonight, October 5, 2011, doesn’t feature the new iPhone, or any other products.

The home page embodies what Apple has been all about. Beauty, simplicity, grace.

It had an evocative picture of Jobs, and simply says, “Steve Jobs. 1955-2011.” It’s beautiful, and it made me cry.

Thank you, Steve, for making our world, and thousands of my own hours in front of a machine, so much better.

And I hope you’re up there right now telling the Man how much better the whole computing system up there could be – just let you at it.

A final point. You, the reader, and I,  don’t have forever to do what we need to do. The clock is ticking on our contribution, greatness, and dreams. We don’t know what our dates will be. But we do have today. And that’s all we know for sure we have. Let’s make the most of it.

What’s not to like about a check-off?

You know, that feeling you get when something is finished and with a satisfied stroke of the pen, you draw a checkmark through that empty box that you drew just so you could put the checkmark through it.

The check-off is particularly satisfying for those whose last letter in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is “J” (Judger). This preference likes closure, completion, resolution and finality. What organization doesn’t like that?  I once worked with a group of coaches who insisted on whiteboarding the tasks for our meetings, each one prompting a “woo-hoo!” when checked. In contrast, “P’s” (Perceivers) like keeping options open, exploring possibilities and continuing to think about what could be. I believe P’s actually experience a kind of grief when something comes to an end. After all, all those exciting other possibilities (which they can sometimes surface late in the process, much to the annoyance of the J’s) are now history – at least for whatever just went out the door.

But Steve Jobs once famously said, “Real programmers ship.” By that, he meant they didn’t just indulge their fantasies around cool code. They complete the application and it goes out the door to be sold. Check.

Jobs and Apple are not a bad place to start a check-in on the institution of check-offs – and yes, they are an institution now. They are such a part of the workplace lingua franca that they occupy a special place right alongside the organizational drivers and DNA strands like “goals, priorities,” and “planning.” They are a huge part of work life.

Think about it. There was a big series of check-offs at the World Wide Developers Conference, where Apple released its new OS and cloud-based connectivity.  But today, millions of other people will check many other things off, big and small.

But the real question for them, and you, is: Is what is being checked off any good?

Immediately, a provocative question like this can create significant discomfort, defensiveness and even confusion among those wedded to check-offs. Check-offs are binary, either/or. Once this question of quality is raised, everything moves into a new realm that is harder to measure, more controversial, certainly more subjective, laden with differing values, politics, assumptions and worldviews.

Wouldn’t the busy, overstressed, maxed-out management team really just rather hear if it got done (binary), and maybe secretly, quietly hope it was good?

Microsoft and Dell and other companies have their big check-offs, but do you hear much about them? Are they good? I hear much less excitement and enthusiasm.

Could it be that Apple cares both about shipping code, and shipping the right code, the good code?

That’s an important question for any organization trying to stay viable, innovative, leading-edge and valued. A simple yes/no can potentially disguises the real issue.

Broaden and deepen the question. What is it that you’re really checking off? How do you know it’s good?

Then, when you’ve answered it satisfactorily, go ahead and draw that checkmark.

Part of my mid-life and daughter-going-to-college-soon plan involves building a recording studio in my basement. (There are worse ways to handle this phase of life.) I like to play the guitar and drums, and apart from occasional purchases that have to be carefully explained in advance of the credit card statement arriving, it’s all good.

If you thought some of your friends were snobs about their stereo sound systems or home theatres, you ought to talk to musicians. They salivate and practically genuflect over the really good equipment, and go out of their way to trash-talk inferior products – it’s almost personal to them. They get angry about bad product.

In looking for the equipment I need – mixers, mics, audio interfaces, DI boxes, pre-amps, etc. – one thing I have noticed is that some companies go to great lengths to build a box that makes their product look very sleek and high end. But when you read the reviews and user opinions they are withering in their criticism.

It’s an interesting strategy – make your product look like something it’s not. Maybe you can fool enough people to get rich, like if you put a really attractive label on a bad bottle of wine.

Where does your energy and effort go? Is it about building something great, or making something mediocre look great? Is it mostly about packaging, “messaging” and covering?

No one faults beautiful design that covers beautiful product, but most people figure out eventually when there is a mismatch.

The great organizational sin of flashy PowerPoint slides must be mentioned here. Some people, with few original ideas, valuable contributions or insights will spend a lot of time making their presentation look oh so good.

Others spend the time on the ideas and concepts, and focus on conveying those clearly and effectively. If you have ever sat through a whizzy PowerPoint presentation but not really know what the point was at the end, you know what I’m talking about.

What’s in your box?

Like probably almost everyone else reading this blog, I have spent much of my adult life horsing around with software.

By this, I mean trying to navigate user interfaces, trying to understand the architecture of forms, trying to understand responses in the FAQ or Help forums that ironically assume proficiency in the programs or at least a master’s degree in software engineering, encountering bugs, eliminating viruses, losing saved work, spending half an hour trying to figure out how to do something that seems like it should take half a minute, and a variety of other tasks that added zero to productivity.

And like probably almost everyone else, I have just gotten used to it. It seems like just part of the terrain that software should be counter-intuitive, frustrating, buggy, quirky, glitchy and time-sinking.

No one intentionally sets out to design bad software. But people do design it in a context – that context being what’s in their head that they understand about the program and code, and how they see the entire software system.

Notice one word missing here: “customer.”

The shift involved in moving from thinking about one’s own distinctions, knowledge, perspectives and assumptions to those of the customer is nothing short of profound. It means letting go of whatever you think is “the right way,” and all the knowledge and beliefs you bring to the work, and instead entering a state where you get into the head of the customer. It doesn’t mean that’s the only legitimate point of view, or that the customer is always right. It does mean understanding the customer, though.

It is a great example of the platinum rule: Don’t treat others as you want to be treated. Treat them as they want to be treated.

This is why relationships matter. If you are not in a place where you want to make this shift, you’re done before you start. The door is closed to solutions that delight customers, that meet them where they are, and help them perform the work they have to do.

The shining example of a company that has embodied users as the point of the software is Apple. Every Apple user I have talked to makes the point that there is a significant difference between a Windows-based computer, with its attendant software and hardware, and an Apple computer. As a user myself, I appreciate the experience every time I use my iMac or iPhone. Steve Jobs’ fanatical insistence on elegant, customer-friendly design is the key.

I often think of software as the automotive industry 100 years ago. The prevailing mental model was probably that the goal of the car was to get people from point A to B. And it was. Except that along the way, people started to think about things like rider comfort (shock absorbers, better tires, suspension, frame construction), safety (frame construction, bumpers and seat belts) and fuel economy (more efficient engines). It has culminated now in cup holders, DVD players and music systems. The user experience is very different now.

Yet most of the discussion in the software field seems to remain around features, power and technology. The machine, not the person, is the focus.

This is why the user experience today is not really a technology problem. Apple has already proven a company can create a great user experience.

No, it’s really a problem with relationships. For any successful relationship, the parties have to understand each other, and unfortunately, I think most technology companies understand technology a lot better than customers.

A breathtaking example of this came when one company I worked for rolled out new technology for a Wall Street firms, who can be accused of being many things, but stupid not being one of them. After a steady stream of complaints from bond traders and analysts regarding the complexity and difficulty of use of our product, the marketing manager who had presided over the development of the software proclaimed in a meeting, “Well, the customers are stupid.”

This is a crisis in relationships. Such thinking cannot lead to products and services that are Apple-like in their beauty.

I was reminded of this over the weekend when my wife reported that her mother had been experiencing computer problems. She had called the help desk, where a technician asked her to unplug and replug a USB cable. When she couldn’t do it fast enough and the technician became impatient, she let him know that she’s 80 years old, the USB port is just above the floor, and in the back of the computer. It meant she had to crawl around on her hands and knees. While I’m sure the technician understood the USB configuration (actually, maybe not – it didn’t solve the problem), he didn’t understand enough about the user to ask, “Is the USB port easily accessible?”

It all starts with a question: Do you care? Do you want to try to understand the world through the customer’s eyes? If not, just go back to work. But don’t ever expect to be great like Apple.

If you do care, the door swings open to tremendous learning. One fish-in-a-barrel phenomenon – you could retire on this bet – is around what happens when a senior leader goes out an interacts with real customers. Every time, it results in some kind of significant learning.

It’s an interesting time right now with Steve Jobs on a medical leave of absence. The speculation is around how the company will do without his vision. It’s a startling and sobering point that he may be that indispensible. Is there no one else who is capable of putting customers first and foremost as Jobs has done?

A central question, and a great place to start, whether it’s your software, customer service, or any touch point with customers, is in asking the question: Are your processes and practices customer friendly, or are they organization friendly?

Apple “gets it.” Do you?

“Whatever job you are asked to do, at whatever level, do it well because your reputation is your resume.”

This statement by Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State and the first woman to hold that post, says a lot about perception and performance. This connection is likely to be made no matter what gender you are. But is stellar performance enough when it comes to establishing a leadership brand that adds conceptual context to your tangible performance record? If not, is the process of perception-building any different for women in leadership roles than it is for men?

I think it is, and the recent laser-like focus on Elena Kagan, President Obama’s pending nominee for the Supreme Court, bears this out. Here’s an example.

Several of the news items about Ms. Kagan have focused on her personal appearance (especially her wardrobe), the fact that she has never married, and the primarily academic career she has had outside of the courtroom, including her role as the Dean at Harvard Law School. Taken to the extreme, the not-so-subtle undertone of these articles also implies that Ms. Kagan is somehow less qualified than she should be for the role of Supreme Court Justice. This may or may not be true; I don’t know her and can’t say that I’m an expert at assessing her critical thinking or decision-making skills from afar. What I have noticed, however, is that an article about the color of Justice Roberts’ tie, or the state of Justice Breyer’s marriage, is unlikely to make it to mainstream media coverage about their rulings.

There are likely to be many reasons for this disappointing state of affairs, starting with the fact that media coverage today is no longer the journalistic endeavor that it once was. I also submit that although we have come a long way, women leaders still need to work harder than men do to establish the brand that sends the message they want others to get about their professional capabilities. While you may not be able to change the norms in the environment you lead in, here are some tips that I have used and that I have offered to multiple women I’ve coached as they sought to establish their own leadership brand:

• What comes to mind when you think about the 3-5 essential professional characteristics that you want others to notice and remember about you? Write them down, and keep it short so you can remember them easily. For example: articulate…prepared…decisive.

• Think about the key meetings and other activities that comprise your workday. When you are in those situations, what do you need to start doing, or perhaps stop doing, to convey that you are articulate, prepared and decisive? Write this down as well, and commit to practicing over the course of a few weeks.

• Enlist the aid of a trusted colleague or two so you can receive regular feedback. This is a piece of the puzzle that some of my coaching clients have found almost as valuable as the reflective time out to consider their brand more intentionally. One client has shared that by asking a colleague to help her process her behavior in key meetings, she has substantially increased her self-awareness of times that she may be detracting from her intended brand.  She has also received a compliment from her senior leadership team about the way she is now being perceived in meetings with them.

Thanks to women like former Secretary of State Albright, there are many examples of strong leadership brands that we can all draw from today. What’s yours? How have you built it and conveyed it successfully to others? I’d love to hear from you.