Through Stage 1 of the process, we’ve sifted through every application as they have arrived via various routes, and performed a multi-faceted initial screening to identify people who seem to have all three attributes:
1)  capability and
2)  keenness to deliver results for us
3)  plus the probability of a cultural fit.

We’ve seen many candidates with one (sometimes two) of these attributes, and on some occasions the possibility of all three.

Last week we kicked off Stage 2…

Last week we met with a couple of candidates for full day sessions, and we will be doing the same again this week.

On the upside, these sessions do give us a good chance to get a reasonable sense of how each shortlisted candidate would deliver on the 6 key success criteria for the position.

However there are downsides with this approach, including the following:

1)  Because stage 2 is so time-intensive, we’re only conducting these conversations with people who seem likely to have a combination of skills, motivation and cultural fit.

1a)  It may be that the stage 1 screening has delivered us some false negatives, as well as some false positives.

1b)  It’s also the case that applications are still arriving – so we are continuing to work through a stage 1 approach with these later applicants, as much as time permits.

2)  There is, of course, the challenge that time invested in the recruitment process does take away from time that could be invested (now) in other things that might be more immediate, in terms of benefit to the company.  This is an investment we’re willing to make

It’s not too late to apply – though the longer you leave it, the less chance you’ll stand of full consideration.

The Book	What we thought
“The Medici Effect - what elephants and epidemics can teach us about innovation” by Frans Johansen	Useful concepts, at a deeper level than others I’ve read

.

1)   The main message

On the second page, the author states his paradigm – one in which innovation is much more likely at:

“… a place where different cultures, domains and disciplines stream together toward a single point.  They connect, allowing for established concepts to clash and combine, ultimately forming a multitude of new, groundbreaking ideas.  This place, where the different fields meet, is what I call the Intersection.  … This book is about how to create it.”

The author believes that three factors are contributing to a rise in the number of intersections being created (and hence “intersectional innovation” being produced):
(a)  Increased movement of people;
(b)  Convergence of science;
(c)  Increased computational capability

Despite these advances, most people still deliver “directional innovation” with a much smaller number producing the truly groundbreaking leaps forward.

For the remainder of the book, the author discusses how one can place oneself at this intersection – and what it means to do so.

2)   Placing oneself at the intersection

The majority of the book is devoted to providing rich examples of what the author sees as the building blocks that contribute to what might be loosely termed as being in the right place at the right time.

In the examples he has provided, he sees that a key step revolves around lowering one’s Associative Barriers – which he says can be done through:

2a)  Exposing oneself to multiple cultures

The author makes the point that we should not just think about different geographical cultures, in this context – as there are equally relevant contrasts in ethnic cultures, class cultures, professional cultures and organisational cultures (and, I would add, it should be less expensive to experience these other contrasts).

The author writes (p47):

“Simply by being aware that there are multiple ways of approaching a problem, he or she will more likely view any situation from multiple perspectives”

I agree that, simply being aware that there are multiple ways of approaching a problem is better than remaining unaware – however it is also so much better to have more than just awareness of these different paradigms (brings to mind the Shirlaws view of 5 layers of understanding – each layer potentially more valuable than the one above it).

From my own experience, being granted the opportunity to travel across a number of countries, and cultures, on my ES Cornwall Scholarship 15 years ago was a great opportunity for me to participate in this (and is, in my view, one of the primary benefits of the scholarship).

However, even staying within Australia within the same industry (electricity supply), my first few years of employment provided me the means of experiencing an excellent contrast in approaches (both of which had some merits).

---

2b)  Learned differently

The author notes that the challenge is to (p50):

“…learn as many things as possible without getting stuck in a particular way of thinking…”

Much has been written in various forums about the apparent correlation between Montessori schooling and later success at innovation.

I don’t know enough to know of the extent to which there is truth in this assertion, and this author does not even mention it.  Certainly, it’s something I’m personally considering, with children at school age, and questions arising about the “best” method of education (if, indeed, there is one).

Instead, the author writes (p51):

“Innovators are often self-taught.  They tend to be the ones who educate themselves intensely … and they often have a broad learning experience, having excelled in one field and learned another.”

Hence, with reference to considerations of schooling above, perhaps we could infer from what the author writes that the innovators succeed in spite of whatever shortcomings there might be in their own circumstances (no-one’s situation is perfect).

---

2c)  Reversal of assumptions

The author makes the distinction that this technique is useful (p53):

“…if we need some fresh insights right now.”

This technique fits in with a broader basket of tricks that are discussed in various places about effective techniques for brainstorming, etc…

---

2d)  Try on different perspectives

Best to read what the author writes (p57+) to gain the benefits of the nuances introduced there.

In this section, he also highlights the value of creating, and celebrating constraints – for the beneficial effect they can have on the creativity process.

---

3)   Generating Ideas

The majority of the book (p61 onwards) provides rich examples of how others have been able to deliver innovation, by following on the concepts above.

This is notionally separated into two sequential concepts – firstly, generating innovative ideas, and then putting them into action.

To generate ideas, the author proposes three building blocks:

3a)  Striking a balance

Of course, there’s a paradox between the need for people to have sufficient depth exposure to, and experience in, a particular domain to provide some core skill – but also some breadth of experience to allow for innovation to happen.

The author notes (p103) that:

“Most gained knowledge in one specific area before striking out to other fields …. enough to call it a core competence”

I recall several different people who’ve discussed with me the need to ensure people we bring onto the team have had “10 years of experience, and not 1 year of experience 10 times” – it’s through seeking/gaining experience in the former manner that a person can accelerate the speed at which they reach an intersection.

---

3b)  Generate more ideas

The author strongly makes the point that (p91):

“The strongest correlation for quality of ideas is, in fact, quantity of ideas.”

Again, it seems that he is postulating that the great innovators follow a “deliberate practice” of innovation.  This is aligned with a view that many “little bets” are better than a single big one.

In this light, the author provides a broader basis for principles of brainstorming – which are worth us referring to in future (p107+).

---

3c)  Taking time to evaluate

The author makes the point (p112) that:

“people are less creative under serious time pressure, but people actually believe that they are more creative during this these times … ” (and he goes on to note that the slump in creativity takes a few days to recover).

Whilst some might argue that this is a generalisation, I believe that there is (if at all possible) very real benefit in separating the idea generation step from the evaluation of the ideas – as discussed in numerous other places, such as in “Strategic Intuition”.

---

4)   From ideas to action

As discussed here, the quality of a plan is only proven in its implementation.

This is even moreso with most innovation, because the final destination is only arrived at from “executing past your failures” (which the author details in chapter 9).

How do we do this?  The author says that we need to:

4a)  Try ideas that fail, to find those that won’t

He paraphrases (p129) Robert Sutton, from “Weird Ideas that Work”, stating that we should be rewarding based on the volume of innovations – regardless of whether they generate success or failure.

My sense, here is that there needs to be a focus on the volume of implemented ideas (and not ideas implemented in only a half-baked manner).  To me, this is the essence of Deliberate Practice.

---

4b)  Reserve resources for trial and error

If we are almost guaranteed to fail first, before succeeding, it stands to reason that we need to budget our resources to last through several failures before we achieve success.

Jim Collins uses the phrase “firing bullets, then cannonballs” in his recent book “Great by Choice” – but it’s also discussed in plenty of others that advocate the Lean/Agile methodology.

---

4c)  Remain motivated

It would stand to reason, then, that the a high level of resilience is required to keep dusting ourselves off, after being knocked down by the first dozen failures:

This is something that, it seems, people tend to learn mostly by accident, or through life experience.  This is one of the reasons I’ve made copies of “the Adversity Quotient” available to everyone who’s come and worked with us – here’s a review penned by a former employee.

This resilience is especially required if we also suffer from those well-meaning people afflicted by #8 on this list of the 20 deadly habits.

Why do a significant number of people react this way to failure, or even the perception that failure is possible?

Despite the fact that it was about 16 years ago that I had the good fortune to visit a particular workplace in Utah operated by some interesting individuals, I still vividly recall the lesson taught to us by an external consultant there:

… when confronted with change, people tend to first fear what they are going to lose, before (if prompted) starting to think about what they could potentially gain, as a result.

In a sense, this is just another embodiment of a “Fixed Mindset”, which stands in the way of innovation (both for the individual themself, and also for others who are in their close proximity).

---

5)   Bringing it home

For us, Ongoing Innovation needs to remain at the core of what we do – that’s why Relentless Improvement is one of our Core Values.

For us to achieve our “20x before 2020” Vision, we’ll need to be innovative in more than just our Products Team – our new Sales Team also has challenges in reaching out to that many more clients, without ever having a small army of staff on hand.

An ability to draw on intersections to generate innovative Sales and Marketing is something we’ll be looking for during the recruitment process for our GM for Sales and downstream Marketing.

After taking a few minutes to get into his groove, David proceeded to give an interesting summary of Deloitte’s journey from being described as the ‘Sick Puppy’ of the big 4 accounting firms to being a ‘Crouching Tiger’, within only a few short years.

Having been through our own transformation of sorts over the past 2 years or so, and now focused on recruiting a Master Salesperson in to build on the new foundations created by our Products Team, it was particularly interesting (and timely) for me to hear how Deloitte worked through their process – and how they have, in parallel, used marketing to effect the change.

The following is just some random thoughts triggered by the presentation this week:

1)  “Syzygy”

Apparently David’s 7-year old learned this word before I did*– David used it to describe the concept of having three “layers” in alignment:
(a)  Growth strategy, at the base
(b)  Marketing strategy, in the middle layer
(c)  Brand strategy, at the top

* and even then I did not spell it right, first time - thanks David!

He used the illustration of the Nike swoosh, the apple bite, and a piece of a broken coke bottle to illustrate how even a piece of a brand could come to convey the whole meaning of the brand, if enough prior attention had been paid to aligning all three.

It was the unstated implication that being in such a position would be a worthy goal for any firm – and described it as “letting the meme do the marketing”.

He expanded on this concept to illustrate how the green dot (full-stop) from the Deloitte logo had taken on a life of its own, and was now being positioned to achieve the same types of ends.  In particular, they are striving to differentiate the green dot as a marketing meme, in the same way as the company is striving to differentiate itself from the other 3.  I’d have to say that I had not really noticed this before, but I suppose I will be much more cognisant of it when I see these brand messages in future….

For us, internally, we have been working through what might be a similar process:
(a)  Over the past 24 months, we have been working to upgrade our economic engine (i.e. the Team that makes the Products that meets customer need);
(b)  As noted here, our new GM for Initiating, Opening and Sustaining Client Relationships will have an initial, and almost singular, focus on generating the sales that with open up other options for us; and
(c)  When this is well in train, we’ll be able to think more about our own equivalent of the green dot (and no hyphens).

---

2)  Transformation

The essence of the transformation, David implied, was making the conscious decision to move from an “old economy” type of business (typified by planning, mobilising and directing) to a “new economy” type of business (typified by innovate, unleash and share).

Deloitte is not alone in making this shift (which I’d describe as a reaction against Taylorism, which has never really appealed to me) – though David did point out that it has not been without a degree of risk on Deloitte’s part (especially for a business based on the stodgy reputation of accountancy).

In our case, we have been around 12 years and have never did have an explicit focus on a Taylorist view of the world – nor did we have exactly the same perceptions to overthrow as the stodgy accountants (though geeks do have their own baggage).

However, that did not prevent our culture from being tugged the wrong way as a result of not enough attention to “right people on the bus”.

More specifically about their transformation, he mentioned a couple of things that are worth highlighting, with reference to our situation:

(a)  Intersections

To facilitate the innovation focus, he made implicit reference to Deloitte’s pursuit of Intersections (a term that jumped out at me because of something else I’ve been reading).

This is something we’ve already benefited on in our limited history – and something we have to proactively foster in future.

More about that later….

---

(b)  Granularity facilitates a scalpel

In focusing on supercharging their economic engine, David explained how they had broken the Australian business into 60 or so profit centres, which  enabled them to measure & report on the status of each of these on a colour-coded dashboard (with colours ranging from green for “Dominating” to red for “Needs Fixing”).

With this data comes the ability to then fix problems before they escalate, with a scalpel and not a sledgehammer.

I’ve noted before that we need to have better metrics of our own (such as a Customer Happiness Index) – and that this is the kind of thing our Sales and downstream Marketing Team will play a key role in, as part of our ongoing growth.

---

(c)  “Agile” Marketing Campaigns

In describing the way in which they now conduct marketing campaigns internally, it struck me that there were a number of similarities to the Agile (iterative) development processes we have now embedded into our Products Team.

For those wanting some background, here’s a post I made back in the dark ages that reflects where we were at the time, and what we were aspiring to become.  This part of our transformation has been substantially completed.

With us now starting to build up a Marketing & Sales Team, we can explore similar concepts with that team, as well.

---

3)  Responsibility

David also made the point that was something along the lines of the following:

“marketing is no longer the preserve of the marketing department – it’s the responsibility of everyone in the company”

At one level, this could be taken to mean that there’s the obvious ulterior motive behind incentivising all the Deloitte employees to wear funky shirts with cleverly imposed green dots (as a modern type of secret handshake) – and there’s no doubting that brand promotion in this way could have some positive effect (though not without potential downsides).

At a deeper level, I believe that David was moreso focusing on the reality that all employees (whether they consciously choose to or not) reflect, in at least a small way, the companies they work for, outside of work.

My take on what David said was that a by-product of the transformation is that their people are now quite comfortable, even proud, to wear and promote the Deloitte brand – hence leading (iat a macro level) to them winning an award as an employee-voted “best place to work”.

If this is David’s perspective, I’d tend to agree with this.

In our own history, we’ve learnt (the hard way) that the sequence of these developments is very important – i.e. fix the economic engine, then we have options in terms of foosball tables, hammocks, or our own globe shirts.  Customers First.

---

To summarise, David stated that the raison d‘être for the Deloitte marketing team was the following sequence of outcomes:
1)  Eminence
2)  Leads
3)  Conversion
4)  Retention
Pretty simple grounding, really – but worth posting on the wall somewhere, lest we get sucked into one rabbit hole or another, in the months and years ahead.

The following additional information has been previously provided:

1)  How we will be collectively measuring your success in this role.

2)  The 3-stage recruitment process we’ll be using, starting today.

We’re excited by the opportunities we’re facing over the next few years, and are keen to find someone who can, and will, help us grasp these opportunities.

If this is something that is of interest to you, we will look forward to hearing from you shortly – please email us your details to the following address:

gmsales@global-roam.com

Alternatively, if you know of someone ideally suited to assist us in this way, please do point them in our direction!

Since that time we have invested a huge percentage of our annual revenues in the upgrading of the capability of our Products Team – with a particular focus on our tool for energy traders, ez2viewAustralia – and our customer are happy, because of our efforts.  We’re also starting to win some new ones, as well (and back some old friends).

Now it is time for us to expand our attention to achieving a similar outcome with our Sales and downstream Marketing Team, starting with the recruitment of an equivalent General Manager.

I have recently posted about how we’ll be judging the success of our new GM for Initiating, Opening & Sustaining Client Relationships.

1)  Retrospective

The intervening 24 months have given us a good opportunity to  reflect on what we did right in the previous recruitment process, and what we could have done better – the following are some of the highlights:

(a)  What we did right

At the end of the day, our Products Team is now hitting its straps and we are producing a product that really does meet client needs (our main focus in the upgrade has been ez2viewAustralia, with others to follow).  Hence, in that sense, the recruitment process achieved the desired end result.

In particular, Derrick noted that he appreciated the time invested during the recruitment process in ensuring that there was a fit – and I agree that this was essential – indeed, I’d believe it even more strongly now, after seeing the uplift we can gain from having the right people on the bus, and in the right seats.

(b)  What we could have done better

In hindsight, I was not as prepared as I could have been for the recruitment process.

Whilst we were able to improve as we went, and whilst the end result was good, there is always something that nags at me that we could have done better – in particular:

i.  For those who were clearly not a fit, it would have been fairer to them to eliminate them more quickly;

ii.  For the shortlisted candidates, the process could have been smoother and (through communication such as this) we could have been clearer about the way we envisaged the process would work;

ii.  We received more than 100 applicants for that position, which meant we were just swamped – as a result of which the later applicants did not even really get a look-in (someone commented that the next Bill Gates could have been in there, and the reality is that this could have been true).

Hence, in the spirit of ongoing improvement (which is something we value), we have designed a three-stage process that should (we hope) deliver us the best available candidate, but also in a way that minimises the fuss for all involved.

2)  Our three-stage process for the GM IO&SCR

This process has been designed to cater for an unknown number of applicants for the position (but a number that could be as large as the 100+ previously for the GM Products position).

Stage 1 = Initial Screening

As a first pass through all the available candidates, we’ll be focusing on taking the steps that we can take to quickly work through the applicants to highlight a longer shortlist of those with whom we want to invest the considerable time in getting to know them (and them us).

Allowing a couple weeks for applications to roll in, we’ll be aiming to have this initial screening process finished within a day or two afterwards.

For any applicants reading this, we thank-you for your patience as we work through this process.

Stage 2 = In-depth interviews

In the next stage, we’ll be seeking to invest considerable time with a shorter number of candidates (but quite a few more just than 2 or 3) in order to learn more of their background and experience – and what it is that attracts them to this particular challenge.

This will be a more time-intensive process (both for us, and for the candidates) and so we will be seeking to minimise the disruption (to ourselves, and our candidates) through a rigorous initial screening in stage 1.

Once into stage 2, our curiosity will kick in, and we’ll be wanting to know much detail about how they have come to be an applicant for this position.

We expect that the reverse will also be the case, and so will be happy to provide a wide range of information in return.

Stage 3 = Planning

In the final stage, we’ll be down to a shorter shortlist of people with whom we will have the time to explain more of the detail.

In doing this, we will be completely open about our starting point, and about where we will want to head (for openness is something else we value).

Through this process, we’ll be effectively establishing the first-year plan for the successful candidate for this position.

Derrick called this “pitching for the job” and I suppose it is, in some respects – but in my view it works both ways, as it also ensures that the candidate knows pretty much exactly what they are getting themselves into and so can decide if it is really something that they want to commit to.

At the end of this process we hope that we’ll have attracted, identified, and employed a person who can play a key role in helping us achieve our “20x before 2020” vision.

Of course, like every plan we appreciate that it might need to change “in the heat of battle”.  We’re sure, though, that we’re in a better position having been through this process in the first place.

In the intervening period (whilst we were focused on upgrading the capability of our development team, and regaining some momentum in product development) we had plenty of time to think through what a Sales and Marketing team should do, when we start to hire for that team – starting (soon) with the General Manager.

Whilst we have ideas about what these activities will be, we also expect that anyone who is capable of filling the role of GM for Sales and downstream Marketing will have plenty of ideas of their own (indeed, it’s partly for this reason that we’re looking to hire them).

Hence we believe that it’s far more important to specify what success will look like for this person – and for their team, as they are hired:

1)  Success over 5 years or so

As a company, we have a Vision that we’ve come to call “20x before 2020”, summarised by our desire to grow our number of delighted clients 20-fold over the next few years – expanding our customer base into markets other than those in which we currently focus.

The Sales and downstream Marketing team will be integral to our success in achieving this vision.

As GM for this new team, you will know that you have achieved outstanding success in this role when you have achieved the following:

1) Progressively lifted our number of consistently delighted customers from the current 100 or so (primarily in Australia) to be approximately 2,000 (across multiple energy markets across the world)

2) Grown annual reliably recurrent revenues from the sale of shrink-wrapped products from the current level more than 20x, as a result of also increasing average sale per client.

3) Implemented a consistent, reliable measure of customer happiness, and be consistently scoring above 90% happiness through this measure.

4) Managed the required changes in, and development of, branding (and other marketing materials, systems and processes) to facilitate the delivery of the above.

5) Started from scratch, to progressively build a small team of committed & capable people to deliver the above.

6) You, and your Sales Team, will have constructively contributed to the product roadmaps for existing and new products, developed by the Products Team.

You will have achieved all of this, prior to 2020, utilizing the advantages (and within the constraints) of our bootstrapped funding model, and staying true to our core values.

2)  Success over 12 months

A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

For our GM Sales and downstream Marketing, this first step will be in the delivery (within the first 12 months) of an additional $1M in annual repeatable revenue.

Delivering this growth in sales will provide us options we can pursue later, to deliver on the longer-term objectives above.

More details will be discussed with applicants as they work through our recruitment process.

As noted already, I could not remember much about what this book actually said – so (because we’re about to begin the recruitment of our GM for Sales and downstream Marketing) I took some time to peruse the book again.

Unfortunately I was disappointed.

The Book	What we thought
“Develop your Sales Strengths – How the world’s greatest salespeople develop winning careers” by Benson Smith & Tony Rutigliano	Maybe I missed something, but it seemed a bit shallow and repetitive?

In general terms, my disappointment with this book boils down to two factors – one which might not apply to other readers (depending on what they have read beforehand):

1)   It’s repetitive and derivative

The authors are big on trumpeting the results of the large study run by the Gallup organisation about what really helps people perform at work – and the results of these studies are worth reading, but (in my view) in these other books and not this one.

Even with these other books (in my view) I believe a big caveat is in order. Like the other books, the authors here zero in on only one of at least three factors that (I believe) need to be together in combination to ensure someone truly delivers a strong performance.

Indeed, these authors stretch my patience (and reality?) a little too much when they seem to dismiss some of these other perspectives as “myths” (chapter 2) without also acknowledging that their own model, whilst certainly useful, is also just a 1-dimensional view of a multi-dimensional reality (as discussed here previously).

To be clear – I am not stating that the underlying Clifton’s “Strength Finder” is wrong, just that it is covered in a more balanced way in these other books, and that this one seems to add nothing significant to the discussion.

The high points of the book, for me, were just reminders of what I had read in others in the series – such as the 12 questions to assess the health of a workplace (already included here, for restricted viewing) and how sales managers (just like any other manager) should keep them front of mind, especially as a type of hierarchy of needs.

---

2)   It’s shallow, for a Salesperson’s focus

My other complaint about this book in particular is that, after extracting all that had been covered in other books about a “talent”-based view of the world, there is precious-little left to read.

Certainly there is little that seems specific to how to help salespeople (as distinct from the general workplace) to deliver great performance.

So my main objective in picking up the book in the first place (i.e. how do I become a better salesperson?) was not satisfied through this book.  Now I understand why I recall so little of it!

After seeming to downplay the idea that great sales performance is significantly affected by any of a number of other factors (including education, experience, on-the-job training, technique and desire) it seems that the authors devolve to an approach that simplifies to the admonition:

you’re all individual, so find your own groove! (my words, not theirs)

In their words (p156):

“What we have discovered is that your likelihood of developing engaged customers is directly tied to your own engagement and your own degree of fit“
(whilst I appreciate that this is true, it also seems very much common sense – and is covered better in the other books).

Chapter 6 appears to be an attempt to provide more substance – as it refers to what they say are the key elements of “fit” such that salespeople can become great:
1.  Find somewhere that suits the way one is motivated (it might need to include a high degree of intrinsic motivation for some companies – but that’s not the same for every business);
2.  The method through which one builds client relationships, and gains commitments (i.e. each salesperson is better suited to some methods and not others).
3.  Structure – which is about how the company works, internally.
4.  The degree to which we need to (and hence the approach we take to) understand and solve customer needs.

However, to devote only 20 pages in a 244 page book to these core areas symbolises how the book over-promises and under-delivers for salespeople.

Whilst I do appreciate, and support, that everyone is different (and that these differences can be turned into a competitive advantage, with focused effort) I also believe that there are other building blocks that need to be in place such that anyone – or any organisation – can be truly great.

This book does not really help to provide those.  Instead, is smacks of opportunistic brand extension.

---

In general terms, then, it seems my perspective is similar to some of the other 1-star reviews on Amazon.

In the recruitment effort for our GM Sales and downstream Marketing (to begin soon) we will certainly be looking for some of these other factors dismissed by these authors as insignificant – whilst keeping in mind that each applicant is their own individual.

If I have missed something significant, please let me know?

For ease of reference, the three questions are here:

Q1 =  Can you do the job?

This, George says, is all about what they call “Strengths” – whereby he references the Gallup series of books, but places equal weight on a Talent + Knowledge + Skills combination.

When reduced to a single question, it sounds quite simple – though I’m sure many have found that it’s like those board games of yesteryear that are “a minute to learn and a lifetime to master”.  I surely have.

We have, however, improved markedly in the process - and will be looking for a further improvement when we kick off our next recruitment effort, shortly.

Q2 =  Will you love the job?

Understandably, they say this revolves around Motivation.

George notes that “interviewing for motivation is much less straightforward than interviewing for strengths”.

I understand that part of the question revolves around “are you motivated to…” but the other part revolves around “what is it particularly that motivates you to …”.  Neither are particularly easy questions to seek answers for.

Certainly for me, seeking people who have strong intrinsic motivation (discussed in various places, such as here) is crucially important.

Q3 =  Can we tolerate working with you?

George says this revolves around “Fit” – and provides the BRAVE framework for assessing fit:
Behaviours
Relationships
Attitudes
Values; and
Environment.

He also notes that “this is one area where no-one should play games” because neither side can pretend to be what they are not for too long.

I agree with this – and I think that the same caution also applies to the first two questions above. I do understand the reasons why either participant might feel the need to tell a story not quite fitting reality – but, in my view, this would also prove self-defeating, over time.  This is one of the reasons why I have tried to be as open as possible through this blog.

Given that Fit is described as so important I find it disappointing that George uses the term “tolerate”.

In our case we’re looking for much more than mere tolerance – we’re seeking to continue making step change improvements to  our working environment, one new hire at a time.

One of our Software Engineers said the other day “I’m not going anywhere – I’m doing what I love to do!”.

It makes me happy to hear this, on so many different levels.  We have come so far in 24 months – but we can still go further, in terms of creating a truly great place to work.

---

As noted before, the devil is in the details.

Time will tell how effectively we can execute our plan – I am very much looking forward to speaking with candidates who apply to be our new Chief Revenue Officer, starting shortly.

A few loose pages fell out and surprised me – printed results from when I used the code in the book to take the “Strengths Finder” test online.

Reviewing the results now, it seemed that it might be useful to post about the five signature themes the test ascribed to me – as it would be one more data point that potential applicants might consider.

Past readers will understand some hesitation I have in posting these here – for a number of reasons, including:
(a)  The authors call these strengths, but I see them more as just a person’s predispositions – which can be positive, negative or neutral, depending on context and also the extent to which they have been nurtured, as discussed here previously
(b)  As with any other model, I believe it’s critical to keep in mind that a model is just a model, it’s not reality.
(that said – I do recall that my wife had a good laugh in reading them a year ago, so it does seem they are not too far off the mark!)

Of the 34 strength themes the authors have identified, the test highlights which 5 are the ones that an individual favours than more of the others.  These are mine:

#1 = Learner

The text says:

“You love to learn.  … The process, more than the content or the result, is especially exciting for you. … It enables you to work in dynamic work environments… This Learner theme does not necessarily mean that you seek to become the subject matter expert, or that you are striving for the respect that accompanies a professional or academic credential.  The outcome of the learning is less significant than the ‘getting there’.”

For anyone who knows me, I don’t think this won’t come as a surprise.

---

#2 = Strategic

The text says:

“The Strategic theme enables you to sort through the clutter and find the best route.  … It is a distinct way of thinking, a special perspective on the world at large.  The perspective allows you to see patterns where others see complexity.”

Note that the text also states that “it is not a skill that can be taught”, which is something I don’t agree with – of course, whether someone wants to learn, or not, is another matter.

---

#3 = Futuristic

The text says:

“’Wouldn’t it be great if…?’  You are a person who loves to peer over the horizon. The future fascinates you. … this detailed picture keeps pulling you forward, into tomorrow.”

For me this applies across a number of domains – with respect to where our business is headed, but also more broadly with respect to the significant challenges facing the energy sector in the coming years.

---

#4 = Achiever

The text says:

“Your Achiever theme helps to explain your drive.  … You feel as if every day starts at zero – by the end of the day you must achieve something tangible in order to feel good about yourself.  workdays, weekends, vacations … Your relentless need for achievement might not be logical.  It might not even be focused.  But it will always be with you.”

---

#5 - Focus

The text says:

“… Guided by this theme of Focus, you need a clear destination.  Lacking one, your life can quickly become frustrating.  And so each year, each month and each week you set goals.”

---

One thing I will say, however, is that in reading through these (initially, and again now), they do help me to see patterns in why I do some things the way I do.

Taking the test should be a beneficial thing for any person, I believe, so long as they keep the above caveats in mind.

Naturally for me, part of this time was spent with a couple of books borrowed from the growing office library – a couple others much harder going than this one here:

The Book	What we thought
“Great by Choice Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck–Why Some Thrive Despite Them All” by Jim Collins and Morten Hansen	More food for thought

Having previously read “Built to Last”, “Good to Great” and “How the Mighty Fall” by Jim (and others) I was not disappointed with a few more points of insight the authors have added with this latest piece of analysis.

In this book, the authors:

“… set out to find companies that started from a position of vulnerability, rose to become great companies with spectacular performance, and did so in unstable environments characterised by big forces (out of their control, fast moving, uncertain and potentially harmful)” (p2)

These factors do seem to apply to our situation (except for the “rising to become great”, which is a work in progress).  Hence I was keen to read more.

Their research helped to dispel a few myths about greatness (see p8-10), and presented some new findings.

Firstly, their research did highlight that one must choose to start the journey towards becoming great – it’s also implied, in what they write, that these other factors previously discussed factors were also necessary.

So what exactly did they find?

They authors note that companies in this “10X” category:

“10Xers reject the idea that forces outside of their control or chance events will determine their results; they accept full responsibility for their fate”

They say that they do this by bringing to life a triad of core behaviour animated by a central motivating force:

Behaviour 1 = Fanatic Discipline

The authors use the term “20 Mile March” to highlight the consistently intensive focus on discipline that the successful companies have seemed to be able to maintain for decades on end.

It seemed to me that they did NOT find that “slow and steady wins the race” – rather, it seemed that they more settled on an “it’s a marathon, not a sprint” approach.

Key to this seems to be that the 10X companies have adopted both a lower bound, and an upper bound, to their ambitions for any given period.

Thinking through this now, I see that we have performed poorly in this respect, consistently through our history.  Whilst it may be that we have been Fanatical at times, on other occasions we have lost Discipline – leading us to be more frenetic than was wise.

See p48-49 for a checklist of “Elements of a Good 20 Mile March”. Reading these again now, they do remind me of the elements discussed in various places about Deliberate Practice.

---

PS - it also occurs to me that a terminology of “Twenty Mile March” is perhaps also a more effective descriptor than labeling our second core value “Relentless Improvement“.

---

Behaviour 2 = Empirical Creativity

The authors use the term “Fire Bullets, then Cannonballs” to illustrate the process they have seen the 10X companies have collectively applied over many decades.

The authors note (p27):

“The 10Xers don’t favour analysis over action – they favour empiricism as the foundation for decisive action”.

In our own 12-year history, we’ve passed through three distinct phases of our productivity:
1)  In the early start-up years our small team shared an “all hands on deck” approach.  In these years we experienced some lucky breaks with products that sold relatively broadly within our narrow vertical market segment (NEM-Watch and the Market Maps were two of these).
2)  In our middle, wilderness years, we basically just lost our way – any creativity we had was misdirected and poorly implemented as a result.  A time in which I learnt a lot, but don’t want to repeat any time soon.
3)  Over the past 24 months or so, we’ve been re-building the company on a much surer foundation (starting with “first who, then where”) and instilling an approach something like what the authors talk about in terms of Empirical Creativity.  However it’s early days yet…

After realising that we could not return to the initial “seat of the pants” approach through which we got the company off the ground, I’ve invested a significant amount of time in thinking this through – and have found a large amount of material has helped over the years, spanning “10 Rules of Strategic Innovators”, and “Ready, Fire Aim” several years ago, through the Agile Manifesto and much more,  to “Little Bets” more recently.

Where this new book particularly helped me was in highlighting how the 10X companies successfully combined creativity and discipline, which is something we have struggled with in the past…

Mental note – return to p96-97 and review later!

---

Behaviour 3 = Productive Paranoia

The authors note (p29):

“By embracing the myriad of possible dangers, they put themselves in a superior position to overcome danger”.

The authors conclude that it’s maintaining the two in balance that is the especially difficult thing to do – and hence the most valuable tension to master.

In our own history, we’ve experienced the extremes on either side:
1)  The pessimists who just take the approach of “here’s 10 reasons that won’t work” without balancing this with the “… and never lose faith” that Jim wrote about earlier in “Good to Great”
2)  The people with their heads in the clouds, oblivious to the train steaming down the tracks.

We know that it’s a difficult approach to get right (and to maintain – in spite of our growing successes, and despite our many failures).

As we continue to expand our team into the future, we’ll be continuing to look for people who possess this balance.

As a memory jogger, p121-123 provides a summary of the key findings (including the 3 key behaviours).

---

… driven by “Level 5” Ambition

The authors note (p31):

“10Xers channel their ego and intensity into something larger and more enduring than themselves.  They’re ambitious, to be sure, but for a purpose beyond themselves, …”.

By giving examples of (and contrasting) the diverse range of personalities that steered the 10X companies to their successes, the authors make the point that it’s not a particular personality type that led to the success – but moreso that the personality of the individual was wholly congruent with what the company needed, to succeed (based on where they chose to head).

Here, they introduce another acronym, SMAC (for Specific, Methodical and Consistent) to describe the underlying principles that are used to guide the company over the years.  With reference to earlier work, the authors note (p186) that:

“A SMAC recipe is the code for translating a high-level Hedgehog Concept into a specific action and for keeping an organisation focused in the same direction, thereby building flywheel momentum”.

(apologies for the cryptic terminology for those who have not read Jim’s work before – we have to expect some of this, I guess, from a management consultant).

Whilst some elements of what might look like a “SMAC recipe” might have existed in my head for years, it was only relatively recently that I learned of the necessity of communicating this clearly (not just in deeds) as part of the process of getting the right people on the bus..

---

Of course, there’s plenty more valuable detail in the book, for those who wish to invest the time…