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.

Celebrate With Us

Anniversaries. Don’t you love ’em? Management Skills Blog just celebrated five years of publishing. Captured an ice-cold Guinness with a clover leaf in the foam.

Our Next Project
For five years, we have been working with business owners and managers on how to create more effective organizations. It is time to release our next project. Go check out Working Leadership Online. During this past year, every couple of weeks, we recruited ten volunteers to help us test our platform, slowly creating a powerful online learning system. The pilot phase is over.

To load the system, we reserved 200 annual memberships, now available for $100.

What We Know

  1. Our participants have a day job, as a manager.
  2. Our participants are really busy.
  3. Our participants want to be more effective, now.

This is Real
Working Leadership Online is practical. There are no quizzes or tests. There is no make-work. This is not extra work. The Field Work is real.

At Your Pace
Participants login on their schedule.

Unforgettable
The problem with most training programs is they stop. After a few classes, it’s over, good luck. Working Leadership Online goes year-round. It changes the way you think about your role as a manager.

How This Works
Go to Working Leadership Online. Follow the FREE TRIAL link. Your first Subject Area is on us. Then you decide. We are holding the first 200 memberships. Word is already on the street, so we expect to close this offer in the next few days.

Here’s Some Feedback

This program is anti-matter to today’s barage of costly management solutions. The program covered a great deal of critical leadership material that managers can immediately benefit from. -Cathy Darby

Some people live online and I’m not one of them. I’d much rather be in a human presence. Having said that, after Tom’s first response he won me over. His honesty and feedback is invaluable. -Jane Hein

There’s a lot of valuable information in this course that isn’t easily available elsewhere, and the coaching from Tom in addition to accountability for actually carrying out the assignments makes for a solid learning experience. Keep up the good work. The online format makes the course accessible, and makes it easy to put into practice directly in a work environment. -Erik LaBianca

Your Investment
$100 for an annual membership ($8.33 per month). If your company won’t pay for it, maybe you should. Looking forward to seeing you online.

www.workingleadership.com

Here is the schedule for the coming year.

  • Nov 30 – Bringing Out the Best in People
  • Dec 21 – Jan 10, 2010 – Winter Break

2010 Subject Area Schedule (Total 15 Subject Areas in 2010)

  • Jan 11 – Planning – Your 2010 Business Plan
  • Feb 1 – Goal Setting – The Essence of Time Span
  • Feb 22 – Decision Making – Time Span of Discretion
  • Mar 15 – Managing Time – Managing Yourself
  • Apr 5 – Spring Break
  • Apr 12 – Communication – Mineral Rights Conversation
  • May 3 – Delegation – Leveraging Time Span Capability
  • May 24 – Control Systems and Feedback Loops
  • Jun 14 – Team Problem Solving – Time Span Inside a Team
  • Jul 5 – Summer Break
  • Jul 12 – Coaching – Bringing Value as a Manager
  • Aug 2 – Coaching Underperformance – Time Span and the Employment Contract
  • Aug 23 – Coaching High Performance – Time Span and Maximum Capability
  • Sep 13 – Fall Break
  • Sep 20 – Managerial Authorities – Time Span and Accountability
  • Oct 11 – Managerial Authorities – Time Span and Hiring Talent
  • Nov 1- Time Span and Effectiveness
  • Nov 22 – Break (Thanksgiving USA)
  • Nov 29 – Bringing Out the Best In People
  • Dec 20-Jan 9, 2011 Winter Break

Power of Reinforcement

“Maybe, I will have to give them some more training. That might perk them up,” Victoria replied. “The J-curve says that productivity on anything new will decline before it gets better, but more training might be the ticket.”

“And what else?” I prodded. Victoria was getting push back as her team took on more responsibilities.

“I guess I could talk to them, as a group, let them know how much I was counting on them,” she added.

“Those are both things that you could do, probably won’t hurt, but probably won’t have the impact you are interested in,” I explained. Victoria’s face twitched. She was looking for more approval than I was giving.

“Both things you suggest,” I continued, “occur before you get the behavior you want. Most managers go there. It’s not that it’s bad, just not very powerful. The power is not in what you set up before the behavior, but what you set up after the behavior. Consequences. And the most powerful consequence is a positive consequence.”

“You mean like a bonus?” Victoria guessed.

“A bonus is a reward, not a consequence. An immediate positive consequence is more powerful than a reward. Rewards are always delayed, can get taken away, the qualifications may change. Immediate reinforcement is more powerful than an uncertain reward.”

“I don’t know. If I can’t ply them with money, what can I do?” Victoria cringed.

Getting a Different Result

Victoria looked a little down. “Why the long face?” I asked.

“Ugh,” she replied. “I think I just entered the J-curve. We had to let two more people go last week, I had to reassign some of their work to other people. Empowerment, you know the drill. It’s tough getting people to do new kinds of work. Their new responsibilities are suffering, big time.”

“What do you think is the problem?”

“The new things they have to do aren’t that difficult, but I am getting resistance. And some of the new decisions they have to make, well, maybe, with a little experience they will do better.”

“Describe the resistance,” I shifted.

“It’s not really resistance. They don’t say anything. But I can tell. It’s like a blank look. A nod that says yes, but a feeling that says no.

“What do you think you are going to do, to get a different result?” I pressed.

“I am going to give it more time. Maybe things will improve.” Victoria was an optimist.

“And, what if they don’t improve? First, how will you know whether they are improving? And what if they don’t improve? What will you do differently?”

Change is Necessary

“Why are we making these changes?” I asked.

“We need to look at our efficiency. We will be a better company for it,” Henry replied.

“If that is only reason, then we are likely to fail in making these changes. Why are we making these changes?” I repeated.

“Well, when we sat down and looked at the numbers, because we did look at the numbers, our analysis showed that we needed to make some adjustments.”

“Your analysis showed that you needed to make some adjustments? Where does that need come from?” I pushed.

“Well, the need is pretty strong. Things are tight. Our market has changed. I don’t want to be negative, but we need to change to survive.”

“It is that need that will drive your changes. It is not that you want to become a better company, or should become a better company. It is only when you need to become a better company that you will. The question is why is it necessary for us to become a better company? You will become a better company only when it becomes a necessity.”

Time Span and Team Selling

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

We must have touched a hot button on Time Span in the Selling Process.

Question:
Can you talk more about the team selling approach. As my company grows, I am trying to move out of the sales area. In the past two years, we recruited three salespeople, capable guys, but when the big deal stalls out, I have to come in to close it. Will I ever get out of sales or is the team approach, with me as the closer, something we just adopt and live with?

Response:
Do what is necessary. The sales process is a designed process. When you are brought in as the closer, it’s not like a major league pitcher breaking down in the seventh inning. It’s all in the match. As your sales ticket gets large, the customer is likely to bring in more players to inspect the deal, kick the can around, ask questions. The larger the deal, the more likely a higher stratum player will be in the mix.

I have witnessed an entire deal stuck in an endless meeting cycle. The customer was uncomfortable because the salesperson was not matched with their Time Span. The differences in language, approach, depth of solution were all glaring. We brought in a higher Time Span player on the selling team and the deal got wrapped up in a ten minute meeting. It had nothing to do with the terms of the deal, the contract, a better sales technique or any specific objection. Five minutes after the meeting started, the customer had his pen out of his pocket. Five minutes later, we left the room with a signed contract.

Designing a team approach to selling is matching players on your selling team with the players on the buying team. Time Span helps us calibrate who those players are.

Matching the Hatch

From a comment posted yesterday to Time Span in the Selling Process.

Question:
Does the Time Span of the Solution “prop up”, like a crutch, the Time Span of the Sales Person? Does the Stratum of the Sales Person need to match the Buyer’s Stratum AND the Stratum of the Sales Cycle or is the Sales Cycle enough?

Say we have a Stratum III Solution for a Stratum III Buyer (match), yet we have calibrated the Sales Cylce at 3-6 months (Stratum II), so we have recruited and assigned a Stratum II Sales Force. Will the Sales Person (Stratum II) be mismatched to the Buyer (Stratum III), or is it necessary to have a Stratum III Sales Person? Of course, I would prefer to match it, but knowing how few Stratum III Sales People are out there, it makes Outside Sales hiring bleak.

Response:
Before the first cast, any good fly fisherman sits and observes the micro-ecosystem of the stream. The clue is in the hatch. Matching the hatch. The fisherman observes the bugs, the color, the size, the action, then pulls out a box of artificial flies to select the match.

Sales is a process of matching. Matching problems with solutions, matching buying cycles with selling cycles, matching selling people with buying people. The tighter the match, the more likely the completion of the sale. Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) helps us understand the importance of the match.

You can call it chemistry, people buy from people they like. NLP, as a science, demonstrates that we, as buyers, respond to people we like, and we like people most like us. At a physical level, the match is in breathing, energy, body language, dialect, facial expression. Often the match is unconscious. We call that natural chemistry, but from a scientific perspective, it is still matching, conscious or unconscious.

Understanding Time Span brings another dimension to understanding matching. People with the same Time Span will more likely be matched in the way they see the world (in terms of logic). Elliott Jaques very specifically described these patterns.

  • Stratam I – Declarative. This way of seeing the world is disjunctive. The elements of a solution may be in plain view, yet Stratum I may not connect any of the elements together. The discussion will be mostly opinion without evidence to support the position. Engaging someone in a Stratum I argument can be very frustrating, for there is no requirement of evidence to hold a strong opinion.
  • Stratum II – Cumulative. This way of seeing the world is conjunctive. Those same elements seen by Stratum I can be organized and connected together. This person can connect the dots. Often connecting the dots reveals the solution to a problem, especially if that solution has solved the problem before.
  • Stratum III – Serial. This is the world of cause and effect. While Stratum II can connect elements together, Stratum III can see cause and effect relationships between those very same elements. Cause and effect elements can be rearranged into system solutions.
  • Stratum IV – Parallel. But the world is made of many single serial systems. Stratum IV looks a one system and sees its impact on other systems. The role of Stratum IV is that of the integrator.

Now, we are back to matching. A Stratum II sales person may present a Stratum III solution to a Stratum III buyer, but when questioned about the “why” of the elements inside the system, the conversation will begin to fall apart. Some companies have successfully adopted selling teams comprised of Stratum II and Stratum III team members. Stratum II may gather customer information and identify customer problems. Stratum III may take that information and create a system solution. The selling team may now interface with the buying team, put together for the same reason we put together our selling team. In this process, we still have to identify the decision maker, but also the influencer, the technical expert, the user, and the transaction person.

Matching the hatch. Understanding nature. Understanding Time Span helps us design a more effective sales process and select players for specific roles inside that process.

Time Span in the Selling Process

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

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

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

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.”