Author Archives: Tom Foster

About Tom Foster

Tom Foster spends most of his time talking with managers and business owners. The conversations are about business lives and personal lives, goals, objectives and measuring performance. In short, transforming groups of people into teams working together. Sometimes we make great strides understanding this management stuff, other times it’s measured in very short inches. But in all of this conversation, there are things that we learn. This blog is that part of the conversation I can share. Often, the names are changed to protect the guilty, but this is real life inside of real companies.

Time Span in the Selling Process

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I recently enjoyed your presentation on Time Span at a Vistage meeting. I’m curious about your thoughts on the success of Stratum I or II Sales or Account Execs selling to Stratum III or IV buyers?

Response:
Time Span helps us measure all kinds of things including matching people in the sales process. Here is a (very) raw rule of thumb in the sales process.

  • Stratum I – Order Taking, matching features and benefits customer needs, very trainable.
  • Stratum II – Relationship building, for those sales where there is risk in the selection of a vendor, where the selection criteria may rest in trust, integrity, reliability. Often the Time Span associated with this sales cycle is longer than three months.
  • Stratum III – Engineered solutions. Where the criteria for vendor selection may not be apparent or may require some analysis. This analysis may start with a customer needs assessment to determine the precise nature of the problem, then perhaps testing to determine if the solution is viable.
  • Stratum IV – Integrated solutions. Where the selected solution not only impacts the specific problem, but will also impact other systems surrounding the problem. This is the world of unintended consequences that must be explored.

It is easy to see each of these levels when we think about Time Span. Now, pit a Stratum I salesperson with a Stratum IV buyer and you can see the mismatch from the get-go. They speak a different language, use different buying criteria and may appear not to like each other. Sales consultants would lead you down the road of personality testing to resolve this conflict, or suggest that the conversation start around a fishing trophy on the wall of the customer. Both are ineffective strategies.

Matching the Time Span of the salesperson with the Time Span of the customer (buyer) makes for a more productive conversation, a more effective selling process.

Without This, Glue is Just a Sticky Mess

2 Replies

In response to last Friday’s Post – An Important Role for HR

Question:
My question is how is HR going to create the goals & time span for all the departments in an organization? Should they do that alone or is it in fact a shared responsibility between HR with the MOR and Hiring Manager?

Response:
HR can be the glue that holds this discipline together, but without the active participation of the MOR and Hiring Manager, glue is just a sticky mess. The content, the criteria, the judgment about the open role has to come from the MOR and the Hiring Manager. And it is the Hiring Manager that we will hold accountable for the performance of this open position.

Yet, I find MORs and Hiring Managers are very “busy” with production issues and will, if allowed, short-cut this process. HR can bring that discipline to the process. HR can make the process easier, more visible, consistent and insistent. HR can be the teacher of the process.

But the active participation of the MOR and the Hiring Manager is required. Period.

Important Role for HR

Leave a reply

From a comment posted yesterday by Michael Cardus on the flow of the hiring process.

Background
In his research on Time Span, Elliott Jaques observed an important role for the Manager Once Removed (MOR) in the hiring process. The MOR is identified as one stratum above the Hiring Manager and for most companies only gets involved in the last stages of the hiring process, for final candidate approval. Elliott was quite insistent that the MOR be the person at the front end of the hiring process, creating a qualified talent pool for the Hiring Manager to select from.

Question:
This flipping of the funnel is a great idea, although, what concern do you have about the HR team feeling that their turf is being stepped on by the MOR wanting to see the resumes up front? I have found that, often, HR is very territorial and not very understanding of a manager wanting to see the resumes first. The system is built to go through HR initially.

Great idea of eliminating the delay that is caused, I just have to think through the concept.

Response:
The problems created as resumes travel up the food chain is that qualified candidates get screened out. There are a number of reasons. The Hiring Manager may perceive a threat from a candidate with the necessary capability. Others may not identify or understand why a threshold capability is required in the role in the first place. The person best in position, who is not threatened, who most clearly understands what is required in the role is the MOR.

The biggest hiring mistake that most companies make, is underestimating what is really required for success in the position. When a company makes this mistake, they settle, compromise and eventually accept a person who cannot perform at the level required.

The biggest contribution that HR can make in the early stages of the hiring process is to enforce the discipline in the process.

  • Creating a role description, including the goals that must be met in the role.
  • Assigning Time Span to each of the goals.
  • Identifying the criteria that will be used to evaluate candidates on skills, interest and behaviors.
  • Creating a bank of written interview questions around each of the identified criteria.
  • Insisting that the MOR schedule and execute the necessary time to create the qualified talent pool.

Most companies skip these steps and then wonder why the rest of the hiring process seems disorganized, rushed, ending with a group of mediocre candidates.

Getting What You Designed

1 Reply

Tyler thought for a minute. “If we did something wrong, then we have been doing it wrong for some time,” he observed. “That’s the way we have always hired people from the outside.”

“And how is that working out for you?” I asked.

“Ten percent of the time, we get lucky, most of the time we get someone who is okay, and ten percent of the time, we get stung.”

“As you look at your process, who is the first person to touch the resumes on their way to the Hiring Manager?”

“That’s easy,” Tyler replied. “HR.”

“And, you, you’re the Manager Once Removed. When do you finally see the resumes?”

“Well, right before we extend the offer, I usually see the last three resumes. Often, I will bring back the strongest candidate for a final interview.”

“And, what would happen, if you turned your system upside down, so you were the first person to review the resumes?”

“Now, wait a minute,” Tyler stepped back. “I have enough to do without looking at dozens of resumes.”

“Tyler, what more important thing do you have to do than to focus on building the infrastructure of your team? In fact, the reason you are so busy, is because your hiring process is designed to produce exactly the people you end up with.”

Finding Defects

Leave a reply

“What went wrong?” I asked.

Tyler recounted the steps they used to qualify candidates. First, they killed a couple of trees printing resumes. Because there were so many, the stack was moved to the reception area. The large stack was divided in two, those from out of town were discarded, those in town were delivered to an area supervisor. The area supervisor was familiar with the job tasks, so that’s where the first real cuts were made.

The final forty resumes were delivered to the hiring manager. The hiring manager was very busy and a little put off by having to deal with forty resumes. He made quick work of the process, however, quickly finding some defect in thirty-five candidates. In the final five, two wanted too much money, two were working somewhere else, so that left one candidate who could easily start within 48 hours. Too good to be true.

“So, where do you think you went wrong?” I repeated.

Our Personal Cows

Leave a reply

I don’t often do book reviews, but this one caught my eye.

Once Upon a Cow by Camilo Cruz, is a story about our own personal cows. The beginning parable is about a teacher and a student who journey to a small town, the teacher telling the student to look for the poorest home where they would seek refuge for the night.

The two men stopped in front of the most dilapidated little shack they had ever set eyes on.

The structure, at the point of collapse, belonged, without a doubt to the poorest of families. The walls stood as if only by a miracle, threatening at any moment to come tumbling down. Water filtered through an improvised roof, and all kinds of rubbish against the walls of the house.

The teacher and the student were invited to stay the night in the small home. A father, mother, four children and two grandparents, thin bodies, ragged clothes, sad faces and bowed heads left no doubt that indigence had taken root deep within them.

Curiously enough, the family had a most unusual possession. They owned a cow.

The animal was not much to look at, but the family’s everyday life and activities seemed to revolve around it.

  • Feed the cow.
  • Make sure the cow’s had enough water.
  • Tie the cow up tight.
  • Don’t forget to take the cow out to pasture.
  • Milk the cow.

You could say the cow played a prominent role within the family, although the little milk she produced was barely enough to keep them alive. It was the only thing that kept them from complete and utter misery.

The next morning, the two travelers set off to continue their journey. The elder teacher whispered, “The time has come for you to learn the lesson that brought us to this dismal place.” The teacher walked slowly toward the cow, slipped a dagger from the sheath he carried.

The student watched in disbelief as the teacher sliced through the cow’s throat in one swift movement. The fatal wound caused the animal to drop silently to the ground.

The story continues one year later when the teacher and student return to the home. They find the family flourishing and learn the story of how the death of the cow caused the change in their fortune.

We all have cows that need to die.

Getting Back to Work

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I’ve been in charge of a project for nearly a year. I go away on vacation and come back to rumors about me all over the place and it appears my boss gave my project away to someone else.

I confronted him about it and he still says I am in charge so I boldly take charge. I think things are going ok again, until I find out both my boss and the “substitute” project manager are undermining my authority behind my back.

Response:
Politics uncovered. This is a script from Dunder Mifflin, but it’s not funny when it’s your job being worked around. You are either already out and your boss doesn’t have the guts to tell you or the “substitute” project manager has an alternate agenda, probably hidden.

Either way, your response is still the same. As you enter this conversation with your boss remember this:

The person who can best describe reality without laying blame will emerge the leader.

While this scenario seems to be all about you and a competitive threat from a colleague, the reason to get it resolved with clarity is bigger than you. Here is the way I would approach your boss.

“I thought we had come to some resolution about the ABC Project, but there still seems to be confusion on the part of my team that I am unable to clear up. This is important to both me and the company, because, as long as there is confusion, my team can’t be as productive as we need them to be. As the Project Manager of the ABC Project, I have made task assignments to achieve the goals we agreed to. Since my return from vacation, my team has received conflicting task assignments from other people. These conflicting task assignments are causing confusion, rumors, gossip and behaviors that have nothing to do with reaching our goals.

“I can get my team re-focused on the goals of the project, but not when they are getting mixed signals. I would like to get this situation resolved so I can get my team back to work. In what way can we make sure that, as a management team, we are sending clear signals?”

Then listen. Listen carefully.

Not About Prosperity

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
We used to be the big dog in the construction business. We had the technical specialties that others couldn’t deliver, but now our market is almost stopped. There is still work, but the projects are further apart and the bidding competition has sliced margins razor thin. We have had to let some people go, but we went from cutting fat, to cutting muscle and now we are in the bone.

How do we put structure around multiple disciplines when we have to choose which discipline to keep? We can’t ask a VP of Risk Management to manage a project. And to terminate the position only adds to the chaos. You cannot cut your way to prosperity. How do we stop the chaos and improve efficiency when we are still contracting.

Response:
You are not cutting your way to prosperity. You are cutting your way to survival. Residential construction may have found a bottom, though September new home sales dropped 3.6 percent. Commercial construction is still behind the curve with significant downside ahead. If you think your market is shrinking, buckle up.

Last year, I took my clients into a meeting and asked them to project 2009 revenues. This was after the brew-ha-ha with the first stimulus, so some reality had set in. Across the board, all revenue projections were downgraded. I had the numbers inscribed on a 3×5 card and set in front of each participant. Then, I asked them to take another 20 percent off and explain how they intended to adjust their overhead to stay in the black. There was pushback, never happen, they said.

As I visit my clients today, those cards are still posted around. We talk about that exercise.

Here is the process of survival.

  • Eliminate (everything that is not necessary)
  • Simplify (everything that is too complicated)
  • Combine (things that go together so we can consolidate responsibilities)
  • Outsource (whatever you can to reduce your fixed overhead related to a function, especially part time functions)
  • Automate (the things that are left. Don’t automate things that should have been eliminated in the first step)

Credit to Timothy Ferris Four Hour Work Week

Finding Game Changers

Leave a reply

“They are buying the work,” Tony explained. “They bid the job below our cost, so I know they are not making money. Sooner or later, it is going to catch up with them and they will go out of business.”

“How many projects have they beaten you on, just this year?” I asked.

“More than you can count on both hands and one foot,” Tony replied.

“Tony, you can give me all the excuses you want. Their bid was lower than yours because they have a lower cost structure than you. Their bid was below your cost and there is still profit in the job for them. You have costs in your system that your customer doesn’t value, isn’t willing to pay for and it’s killing your edge in the marketplace.”

Tony’s face was sullen. He had expected me to agree with him. “Look, we have done our layoffs, reduced our inventories. We value engineer every project. What else are we supposed to do?”

“The answer is not some incremental, value engineering, corner cutting line item. You have to go back to fundamentals and look inside your systems, and how your systems handoff, and how your systems impact each other. There are likely three or four game changers, permanent game changers. Your competitor has already figured out some steps that you are unwilling or unable to take. That difference can be counted on both hands and one foot.”

Value Stream of Hierarchy

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
As I look at Elliott Jaques model organization, I notice that it is a hierarchy. Over the years, I have heard, or been taught, or read articles about how it is important to flatten out the hierarchy, drive decision-making down to the front lines, closer to the customer. It makes sense to me, but Jaques seems to ignore these new flat organizational models.

Response:
Your observations about Elliott Jaques’ high regard for hierarchy is correct. And these new organizational models really aren’t new. The flat organization, for all its well intentioned “new-ness” is the way things were before there was hierarchy.

Why has hierarchy gotten such a bad rap? Likely, the adverse experience comes from poorly run organizations who blamed their tribulations on something they didn’t understand.

Most people see organizational layers as reporting relationships. Who reports to whom? Who is a direct report? An indirect report? A dotted line report? This view lends itself to command and control and the pushback is predictable in today’s business environment.

But Elliott saw things differently. Elliott was a scientist who spent his time observing the way organizations worked, both functional and dysfunctional. He didn’t make up a bunch of warm and fuzzy theories, he just observed, in a scientific way. He gathered data, documented his findings and arrived at principles he found helpful.

Elliott observed, in functional organizations, that each layer had a Time Span orientation distinct from the next and that, if you drew a picture of those layers, from the longest Time Span goals at the top to the shortest Time Span goals at the bottom, you ended up with a picture of hierarchy. If his findings had been a circle, he would have reported it to be a circle, but his findings supported hierarchy.

As he examined each layer, he found that they solved problems differently. And the way they solved problems was directly related to the Time Span of the goals each layer was working on.

The value he found, in this hierarchy, was the capability of each successive layer to assist the next layer down with their problem solving. This capability created a value stream for problem solving and decision making throughout the organization.

Where we get screwed up with all this pushback on hierarchy is that we see hierarchy as a reporting structure. The real power of hierarchy comes from its value stream. Here is the way Elliott saw it:

Every employee is entitled to have a competent manager with the Time Span capability to bring VALUE to their problem solving and their decision making.