Often Wrong, Never Unconvinced

I grew up with a certain amount of arrogance that's tied to a perception I have about my own intelligence. I suffer from a malady described by Dr. McFarland in 1961. I am often wrong, but never unconvinced. You may benefit from a realization that the same situation pertains to you, or to others you work with every day.

Choosing to recognizing it can help you make better decisions and do better business.

Here is a small portion of a talk that I gave recently describing this phenomenon.

You can visit CJ online at cjcoolidge.com.

Do You Know too Much to Increase Your Profitability?

In 1267, Roger Bacon published his Opus Maius, an 845 page work, said to contain all the knowledge in the world. Imagine that. All the knowledge in the world in a single person, and in a single volume. You'd have to be a teenager to make such a claim today.


In 1961, before the dawn of Moore's Law, and before the proliferation of the silicone chip, Dr. Kenneth McFarland wrote that there was already a veritable information overload, such that a seeker could often find entire sets of developed knowledge in direct contradiction of other entire groups.


The only way that a person could hope to avoid inaction and indecision caused by confusion due to such disparity of truth would be to limit the intake of information, and the type of source for information.


Dr. McFarland said that such a defense strategy would necessarily produce individuals who would be "often wrong, but never unconvinced."


In January, 1999, UNESCO reported that there were some 869,000 books in print. By December, that number had jumped to 1,963,000. The pronouncement that, for the first time in verifiable history, human knowledge had more than doubled in less than a year.


With Moore's Law in full swing, there have been at least 30 doublings since Dr. McFarland's pronouncement in 1961, and 6-8 doublings since 1999, when UNESCO reported its findings.


To whatever degree Dr. McFarland's observation could have been observed to be true in 1961, there can be no doubt that it is certainly true today, true of more people, and true more often.


More than in 1961, today there are multiples of bodies of information in direct contradiction to other bodies of information.


How else could NASA Scientist, James Hansen assert that oil company CEOs should be tried for crimes against humanity for their contribution to "Global Warming" now called, simply, "Climate Change." At the very same time, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, wants to sue AL Gore for financial fraud in order to "expose [his] fraud of "global warming." You can't get any more diverse with these "bodies of information."


There are thousands of other examples.


As to the tendency to limit the types of sources from which we learn: Well, some listen to Rush Limbaugh, others to Al Franken. But nobody listens to both. What about the blogosphere? Some read Townhall.com, others DailyKos.com, but nobody reads them both.

How else could we find our political system so polarized?

Now I'm not advocating that people need to become open-minded. And I'd be the last one to say that every position is valuable, or even worth consideration. What I am saying is that if Dr. McFarland could report way back in 1961 that people are "often wrong but never unconvinced," that the situation is multiplied many times over today, particularly in the entrepreneurial world.

The average entrepreneur, small business owner, is dangerously susceptible to this condition. With ever increasing distractions and decisions, the opportunity for error is increasing by the day. The occurrence of error is increasing every day. But the error is invisible. (The decider is convinced that he is right!) As a result, the inefficiency created, will also be invisible.

I've started calling this condition "Business HIV." It's the "Hidden Inefficiency Virus." It's the situation in which a business builds inefficiency into the very business model. It's what a 2008 Reuters report says about a software business that spends 10x more "fixing" than "producing."

You might have Business HIV if:

• You feel relieved when an employee quits, knowing that your payroll expense will be reduced while the position remained unfilled.
• You reported to your board that you had cut your health insurance plan increase in half; You didn't report or realize that the cost of the use of corporate resources exceeded the value of the reduction.
• You handle harassment training by making your employees watch the inexpensive generic videos. It was "affordable" training, too, so long as you don't recognize that you wasted an hour of time, energy and focus boring them to death, and accomplishing nothing important. Well, you did check a box on some compliance checklist.
• You try to take every offer from a vendor/associate to the simplest form so that you can "shop it" and minimize your expense. You believe that all those "value adds" are just excuses to get you to pay more than you have to.
• You assume that, if Peter Drucker said it, it doesn't apply to you.
• You believe that the less you pay, the better the deal.
• You believe that if anyone could take two weeks off from the job, you really didn't need them anyway.
• You measure and monitor your sales cycle, but not your attrition.
• You believe turnover is a "soft cost."
• You don't believe that your company can afford to hire great people.
• You believe outsourcing is a way to get another company to do the same things you used to do yourself, for less.
• You believe that outsourcing is a stopgap, a temporary way to handle things that, when you get big enough, you can bring them back in house.
• You believe that sometimes it costs too much to do it right.

The pressures of today's business world don't tolerate the same level of inefficiency acceptable in days gone by. "Often wrong" then, happened far less often, and had far less impact than "often wrong" today. And "never unconvinced" just looks stupid.

Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at. Then, find somebody smart, and let them handle what they're smart at. It is a lot more efficient.

Visit CJ online at cjcoolidge.com.

My High Cost of Not Outsourcing

If it isn't part of your central value, it ought to be outsourced.

I couldn't be any more convinced. Not doing so causes me more time and focus waste than I can afford. I can't afford doing thigs that I am not gifted, resourced, talented, or interested in doing.

Today my hard drive failed.

I turned my HP laptop on this morning. The little power lights illuminated. Then, they shut off. Then they illuminated again. Then they shut off. A 3rd time, they illuminated. A third time, they shut off. Before it happened a 4th time, I pressed the power button . . . an attempt to start over, fresh.

I removed the battery and the A/C power connection. I waited 15 minutes.

I re-inserted the A/C, and re-launched the machine. Nothing had changed.

I did notice that the light which indicates that the hard drive was spinning was not lit.

OK. This is not good. I have seen hard drive failure before.

I called the warranty service group. They asked me to repeat what I had already done. No luck.

"We will send you a lable so you can send us your machine."

"How long will that take?"

"You will have the label in 3-5 days."

"How long will you have the machine?"

"We will have it for 7-10 days."

"And then?"

"We will send it back."

So, in the perfect world, if 'everything' works, I won't be able to get back into full service for at least 2 weeks.

What if the hard drive needs to be replaced? That's easy. I'll just reinstall my backup. Whoops, I don't know how. I guess I can learn, but it will cost me another couple of hours, not taking into account the hours it will take for the data transfer.

What will this cost me?

From the mechanical model perspective, maybe nothing. The postage is paid, the warranty covers the service. They'll even replace the hard drive, everything good as new.

From the organic, real perspective, it will cost a small fortune.

There's the direct time I need to "waste" fiddling with the machine. With all the time invested, the best result would be a return to equilibrium. Time and focus invested, noting gained.

There's the opportunity cost for what I would have otherwise been doing during the direct time.
There's the opportunity cost for the things I will not be able to do because I don't have the machine.

There's the cost of the total lack of focus, and the distraction. You see, this morning I was to finish the composition of my latest speech, one I had started yesterday, a breakthrough presentation based on an inspiration I received this past week, to be delivered at a major event early July. That one speech could be worth $ thousands. But, as we creative folks know, I could lose it if I don't finish it while inspired.

Wait, with the distraction and frustration of the morning, I have already lost a good deal of that inspiration. I think I'm going to be sick.

I needed an IT outsource.

What I need is an IT outsource to make sure that my systems are what they need to be, how they need to be, and where they need to be. I don't need a full time IT person, neither do I need a quick fix technician who will get his initial look at my system only when he sees it not working.

What would a good outsource have done? I don't know all the details, but I do know this. I would have made a call to someone who knew the who, what, where, when, and why behind my little IT operation, and then I would have been able to relax. In just a minimal amount of time, I would be back in business, minimizing my distraction and down time. I would complete my inspired project. I would hardly stumble through the day.

As it is, my mechanical, cost saving approach is going to cost me a fortune.

You'll Need a Whole new Mind to Survive: The Backbone of the Innovative Company - People

In case you ever wonder how you can help your company be more profitable, or innovative . . .

In case you fear that you may not have a long term competitive advantage in your industry . . .

In case you wonder if you'll ever really fit in to today's workforce . . .

Here is a groundbreaking book which well describes the powerful, changing forces at work in our world, changes that, when fully accepted and embraced, will increase business profitability exponentially. The Book is titled, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future by Daniel Pink.

Pink writes in his introduction:

"The last few decades have belonged to a certain kind of person with a certain kind of mind – computer programmers who could crank code, lawyers who could craft contracts, MBAs who could crunch numbers. But the keys to the kingdom are changing hands. The future belongs to a very different kind of person with a very different kind of mind – creators and empathizers, pattern recognizers and meaning makers. These people – artists, inventors, designers, storytellers, caregivers, consoler, big-picture thinkers – will now reap society’s richest rewards and share its greatest joys.

This book describes a seismic – though as yet undetected – shift now underway in much of the advanced world. We are moving from an economy and a society built on the logical, linear, computer-like capabilities of the Information Age to an economy and a society built on the inventive, empathetic, big-picture capabilities of what’s rising in its place – the Conceptual Age.”

Value, Innovation, Creativity, Employability and Profitability

Anyone looking for the clearest picture into value creation in the coming century should read this. Understanding this great shift will bridge the generation gaps with Gen X, Gen Y and Boomer employees, making your company organically innovative, giving you sustained competitive advantage in your marketplace.

If you are a potentially disillusioned member of GenX or GenY and you wonder how you fit in, you will love what Pink says. You also should be familiar with Ryan Dorsey, and his bestseller, My Reality Check Bounced.

Did I mention that this is a key to sustained higher profitability?

My practical study into the People-Profit relationship parallels much of what Pink and Dorsey describe sociologically. There is a huge deficit of profitability missed by most every company, simply because current mechanical management practices prevent them from realizing the tremendous creativity and innovation contained in their own, current workforce. [Read again: Current practices actually prevent companies from making as much as they can.]

Don't wait until you get much further behind before you begin to convert from the mechanical to the organic business. You might lose your best resources while you wait.

As always, early adopters will reap the greatest benefit.

Did I mention profit?

Wanna keep struggling, or maybe become a loser? Then keep using your internal HR departments.

What's wrong with building an internal HR department? What's wrong with hiring HR professionals to manage people processes in your company? Nothing, really.

• It just won't help you get the best out of your most leverageable asset.
• And it certainly won't help you build a dynasty.
  

A great illustration of this counter-intuitive reality came from a CEO friend of mine who had done research into profitability and employee alignment. He was not happy. His company had a well-functioning HR department. He had always been satisfied and proud of this. They had good HR professionals on staff, and believed that they were doing a good job. Turns out, they were – as far as internal HR groups can do a good job. But it wasn't much good at increasing his profitability.

He told a story to communicate the dissatisfaction he was experiencing.

“Suppose that our company was a football team. Success, then, could be characterized as winning football games. Then, suppose that, of our 11 players on the field at any time, only 4 knew which end zone was theirs. Suppose only 2 actually care. Suppose only 2 know their positions. Only 2 know what their position is supposed to do? Then, what if only 2 trust their coaches, and fully support the plays that were called. What if 8 of the 11 were, somehow, actually helping the opposition? To make matters worse, suppose 10 of the 11 aren’t even committed to finishing the game. This team, so composed, will be hard pressed to win a single game.”

Then, he applied the story to his business, and what he had learned about profitability and employee alignment.

Well produced, traditional, internal HR departments have yielded the following results when employees are surveyed. These results come from case studies of 25,000 workers from all kinds of industries. The best, traditional HR practices yield less-than-stellar results.

37% know what the company’s trying to achieve and why.
20% are enthusiastic about their team objectives and organizational goals.
20% know how their job contributes to the company’s organizational goals.
20% know how their individual tasks affect those objectives.
20% believe that the organization enables them to execute key goals.
20% trust the organization and their leadership.
15% feel engaged enough to want to continue doing their job.

85% are ready to bolt if and when a better opportunity presents itself.

This CEO ran some internal surveys of his own, and although his results were a little better than these averages, he could see just how much more effective and inefficient his organization could be if he knew how to handle things differently.

He hired an outsource HR company, not to reduce costs, or to provide standard HR services, but for expertise at employee engagement and alignment. This group of non-internal specialists immediately went to work. Their fresh, external approaches suggested by multiple experts (he could not have afforded for himself alone) changed many of the dynamics within 3 months. Employee attitudes were improved, and his alignment survey results also started up. The result: Creativity, innovation, contributions by employees skyrocketed. So did his profits.

What excites him more is that he sees so much more happening in the future. He actually believes that his people can accomplish anything. He knows that he can create a sustainable competitive advantage, a "dynasty."

It's all good, now. The NE Patriots have nothing on him. Move over Bill Belichik. Step aside, Tom Brady. Well-aligned employees can do the impossible.

Don't be lulled into pseudo-satisfaction by traditional HR in your organization.

Check out CJ's professional profile at http://www.linkedin.com/in/cjcoolidge.