Do You Have a Director of GSD?

One of the biggest challenges for a small company in dealing with a giant customer is navigating bureaucracy. When two smaller businesses are working together, there is discussion, negotiation and decision. In a big organization, that is just the beginning of the process.

A sales call, or more frequently multiple sales efforts, leads to a Request For Proposal (RFP). Submission of the RFP requires a statement of qualifications, delineating your company’s history and track record. Several rounds of negotiation settle the price and terms. Often, those terms are then passed up through several layers of management, sometimes with additional negotiation at each level.

Finally, you win the “contract.” This is the point where a smaller company wants to swing into action. Buuutt Noooo! (Thanks Steve Martin.) First the agreement has to be submitted to Contracting.

A document the size of a small novel is presented, requiring the aspiring vendor to describe their parentage, their affirmative action policy, their compliance with cyber security standards, their willingness to follow Federal contractor wage guidelines, their paper reduction and sustainability processes, and a slew of indemnification clauses that absolve the customer from any screw-ups (often including the failure to pay according to contract.)

It’s a pain, but it’s worth it to land the big sale, right? Wait! It’s time for Procurement. Their job is to make sure you are really qualified to do business with Big Corp Inc. Are your systems compliant with theirs? Do you use any components requiring a Country of Origin certificate? Do you have redundant suppliers or backups for your self-performed services? Who are your contacts for any and every phase of the relationship?

Approval by Procurement gets you passed on to Purchasing. Because Purchasing doesn’t even look at the buying process until you’ve cleared the other hurdles, this is all new to them. More process ensues, unless of course bigger and more important vendors are in line in front of you.

One client of ours who negotiates this labyrinth on a regular basis has a secret. He seeks out the Director of Getting S**t Done. It’s not an official position (but probably should be.) It’s the employee of Big Corp who understands the  system, has developed personal connections in the critical departments, and has the crazy notion that crossing T’s and dotting I’s is a mite less important than accomplishing the objective. Identifying that person doesn’t make the paperwork go away, but it helps identify what is important and what can be glossed over or ignored.

Every business owner needs a Director of GSD. They may appear anywhere in your organization, and at any level or job description. You know who they are.

multitasking businessmanIt’s the employee who never, ever says “That’s not my job.” The one to whom everyone turns for help when they are behind. The one who tackles new projects as a challenge, not a burden. The one who doesn’t say “I don’t know how to do that,” but rather says “I’ve never done that, but I can figure it out.”

If you don’t have a Director of GSD, then it is probably you. If you have one, take good care of him or her. If you have several Directors of GSD, then I’m betting your company is growing and most your time is spent doing the things you should be doing.

And if you can make everyone in your business a Director of Getting S**t Done, you’ll have one h*ll of a company.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Management | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Do You Have a Director of GSD?

  1. Mike Wright says:

    These characteristics of dealing with large businesses can be wonderful barriers to competitors once you get in, and they are very similar one to the other. They are used to paying considerably more because of the few small businesses who go after them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Will Small Business Win in the End?

A few weeks ago Schumpeter, the nom de plume for each current author of the business op-ed column in The Economist, postulated the decline and fall of the Western Corporation. Could small business be the little furry mammals of the 21st century, triumphing over the seemingly invincible Tyrannosaurs of the business world?

At first, the signs aren’t obvious. Corporate profits are now 10% of world GDP, and at the highest level in proportion to the American economy since 1929 (gulp). The number of multinationals has doubled in the last 25 years. Some are sitting on piles of money sufficient to start a country (Apple’s $200 billion in cash, for example). This wealth and power is increasingly concentrated, as exchange-listed companies in the USA have declined by half since 1996.

T RexFacebook serves as many people every single month as populate China. Entrepreneurs last names, like Musk, Brin, Zuckerberg and Gates are now associated with space exploration,  third-world aid and medical research, usurping the former exclusive province of governments.

Does all this add up to a Rollerball planet, where corporations replace elected officials in deciding what the world will do? (Assuming, of course, that you don’t believe that has happened already.)

Schumpeter says not. The rise of emerging market businesses and the speed with which a new technology can place its owners among the big boys are two ameliorating factors. Privately held tech companies and family conglomerates are breaking the chains of Wall Street’s quarterly expectations to follow a longer term vision.

Populism on both the left and right in Europe and America is casting a bright light (and one that is none too flattering) on many formerly opaque corporate practices. The 99% (anyone making less than $350,000 a year) increasingly demand that their votes be repaid, if not with handouts, at least with the opportunity to make a decent wage and advance economically through an individual career.

Increasingly, elected officials win votes by mandating higher wages and benefits. They bolster their budgets when (as under the specific direction of Attorney General Eric Holder) they file charges against big companies with the express intent of forcing large financial settlements.

I can’t quite wrap my brain around a world without big corporations. There are changes I’d like to see, like a reining in of executives who award themselves multigenerational wealth while providing a lousy return to shareholders. I think Schumpeter has a point, however. The world of big business has only been around for about 100 years, and has been dramatically taken to the woodshed multiple times in the past. It may be happening again.

I don’t think small companies are likely to inherit the business earth, but some leveling of the playing field would certainly be nice. We’ll see if that can happen without just making the life of every employer, both large and small, miserable.

Posted in Leadership, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

4 Responses to Will Small Business Win in the End?

  1. There is innovation which comes from smaller sized organizations. Then they get absorbed by ← larger fish in the food chain. Economic set backs create the groundwork for entrepreneurial growth – starting a business in lieu of not getting a job with bigcorp or the government. it is a cycle. the proven successful small businesses get acquired by larger companies with capital and no innovation. mom and pop video stores were acquired to make Blockbuster but even these have a life cycle and big does not always mean an enconomy of scale. red box in your grocery store lobby seems to be doing just fine as a vending machine operation.
    none of us lead active business lives in the historic perspective of 100’s of years. We have to make payroll or the rent this week, satisfy the customer with good qualty at a market price which is not increasing and do all of the other things required of us by the community we operate in. Small business people are heroes but because we do such a poor job of economic education in our schools their success is viewed as a lucky lottery instead of hard work.
    we will be in trouble when they start saying why bother?!

  2. Hi John,

    I see small businesses growing and playing a bigger part in the US, and heck, around the world, in supporting economies. As more entrepreneurs get the gist that they are making a difference and with the ease of buying a domain and hosting more folks are growing prospering small businesses. Side note; I’m awake and it’s almost 2 😉

    Ryan

  3. Luis says:

    The longer insterest rates remaiin at zero or below zero levels, the more difficult things will be for SMBs and middle classes. Because real zero rates are just for Big corps, banks, etc. in most of the Western world. This means they can almost print money.
    On the other hand, all the rest of us are deeply indepted with them (either through credits or public bonds), and we have no other resources but our working hours to pay them, competing on a global basis to sell them.
    Inequality is absolutely inevitable, and it will get much much worse beacuse politicans and central banks are into this strategy of ‘asymmetrical capitalism’.

  4. Mike Wright says:

    Last night I heard on the presidential debate that they were going to do something for small business in new tax codes. They also said they were going to do something for the middle class and those at of near the poverty level. All of the money of the wealthiest people cant come close to covering the budget. Maybe the politicians have a plan to bleed the dinosaurs. But, in true financial wealth theory we need to grow companies capable of moving large sums of money into our economy. Curious! When might we start focusing on educating future voters on economics and understanding how capitalism works as a whole. Small furry mammals or cockroaches? We must remain nimble to stay out from underfoot of Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Boomers and the Lost Generation

Those who read this column regularly are well aware of the huge shifts underway as a result of the Baby Boomers’ coming exodus from the workplace. Those who aren’t familiar with the issue are invited to download my free, 45-page eBook Beating the Boomer Bust.

Almost four years ago I mused about the chances of Generation X, smaller in numbers and less accustomed to competition than the generations immediately before (Boomers) or following (Millennials) becoming another Lost Generation, much like that of the F. Scott Fitzgerald era.

Now, I’m seeing and hearing more evidence that such may be the case. A friend who works closely with the large corporations in the oil and gas industry noted a different trend in the layoffs that are accompanying the fall in prices. The Great Recession, like previous downturns, saw buyouts of many workers who were approaching retirement. This time around, companies are getting leaner by cutting less experienced workers, and keeping their more experienced core regardless of age.

older workerI see a similar trend in smaller businesses as well. Owners who traditionally filled lower and mid-level positions by seeking younger workers are now much more inclined to hire people in their 50s and 60s. What is causing this shift?

First, there is a new expectation about employee retention. It’s well documented that workers from GenX and the Millennials are far less likely to take a job for life. Regardless of how well they are treated, younger workers take a position with the expectation that they will be moving on when they find a better opportunity, or simply when the job interferes with their chosen lifestyle.

The majority of small businesses are still owned by Boomers, and they are often more comfortable with employees who share their experience and attitudes. If a young employee has an employment life expectancy of, say, five years, why not have that position filled by someone who understands that paid time off is something that has to be accrued before it’s taken?

If you have to accomplish more work with fewer people, employers naturally want people who will stretch to get things done. Most Boomer workers accept the need to work late on occasion, and are accustomed to planning personal activities around the job. Younger people often see that as being too docile, or foolishly loyal when “It’s only a job.” Employers, on the other hand, cherish such dedication.

Boomers are generally healthier than preceding generations. They haven’t been great savers, and most plan to work longer than their predecessors. As the pace of change accelerates in almost every industry, a worker who needs little ramping up and can be expected to produce for another ten years looks better and better, regardless of any gray hair.

Not all Boomers have the skills necessary to function in today’s workplace. If you are looking for technical abilities, however, someone in their 30s (a Millennial) is likely to be faster and more savvy than someone in their mid-40s. That’s why Generation X is getting squeezed in the middle.

Of course, as another friend says, “A Millennial will figure out how to use technology to accomplish in a single day what would take a Boomer three. Of course, then he wants the other two days off.”

Posted in Exit Planning, Exit Strategies, Management, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Boomers and the Lost Generation

  1. Lb says:

    Growing up, technology was touted as a way to make life easier for the next generation. We have arrived!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Measurement is Not Management

“The employees respect what the boss inspects.” Since Frederick Winslow Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management in 1911, breaking down tasks into measurable pieces had been the cornerstone for employee training and tracking performance.

Why then, do many large organizations with over 100 years of measuring work still  have problems with productivity? I once had a friend who supervised a plastic bottle production line. Every quarter, new productivity goals came down from “management.” He could always tell when they were too aggressive. A yellow hard hat, required wear in the plant, would accidently fall into the plastic mix.

MetropolisThat necessitated a work stoppage, and several days of lost production while the feed lines were cleaned out. Production goals went out the window. A rash of such accidents first generated threats of retaliation, but it was never the same employee twice. The next quarter, goals would be jiggered to emphasize a reduction in lost production, not the speed of the line.

Things would run pretty smoothly, until the word came down to speed up production again.

Employees like to excel. I’ve seen scores, and probably hundreds, far exceed their own wildest expectations in the proper circumstances. Everyone wants to be recognized for their effort, and measurable goals are a part of that.

I knew an owner who hated “motivational techniques.” He took pride in what he considered adult treatment. “You  know what you are supposed to do, and as long as you do it, I’ll leave you alone.”

One week he put a number on a piece of paper on the wall. Literally. Hand written, no explanation, no rewards even hinted at. Everyone recognized it as a sales number about 25% in excess of anything they had ever done. By midday on Friday the whole team was frenetically pounding the phones looking for new opportunities. They beat the number by a whisker, and threw themselves a party after work.

That’s a great story about the value of goals, but would putting a new number on the wall the following week have had the same effect? What about the week after that?

Of course not, but it’s what many business owners try to do. When simply setting goals isn’t sufficient, they try adding incentives. When some other factor such as product quality or customer satisfaction, declines, they set new goals in those areas. Their management style becomes a juggling act; an ongoing effort to balance objectives and rewards. Somehow, they never get to the Holy Grail of consistent and motivated employee effort.

Measurement is not management. It’s a tool for tracking performance, but it isn’t performance. It helps in motivating employees, but goals aren’t motivational by themselves. It can direct employees’ attention to important areas, but it doesn’t make them want to improve.

Management is not leadership. We all know owners who are lucky if they know what their revenue is, yet run effective operations that make enviable profits. You probably know others who “run by the numbers,” but seem to struggle when it comes to getting good results.

Simon Sinek has put his stamp on “Start with Why?” His big-picture approach, of a company that builds raving fans internally and externally is great, but not everyone can come up with (or buy into) the Big Why.

Your job as a business owner is to help employees understand why they want to do their jobs well. Some of that may be a Big Picture, but more often it’s because they have a good place to work, are recognized for their performance, and can go home at the end of the day feeling like they accomplished something.

Measurement is part of that, but it only deserves a supporting role.

 

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Management | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

4 Responses to Measurement is Not Management

  1. In French the word is Saboteur for throwing you wooden shoe into the mill to stop the work. before Mr. Taylor or you friend experienced in in the bottle factory. That is the real issue. why do we keep reinventing the wheel? people don’t change – the environment in which they work and are surrounded does. They are not guinea pigs to experiment on. The real issue is what knd of employee do you reruit and grow within your organization.

  2. Todd Marquardt says:

    I’m impressed by your awesome insight as usual. I’ll keep your article in mind as we manage by statistics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Is There Anything CEOish for Me to Do?

The line is from one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons. It’s being asked by an executive of his secretary. It is also a common question of business owners who have built successful organizations.

The need for a CEO is present in every company, regardless of size. For most owners, the idea of acting as a CEO gets subordinated to the urgency of their day to day responsibilities as President and some other C-level title; Chief Operating Officer, Chief Sales Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or sometimes all of the above.

If they do their job well, if they learn to train, mentor and delegate operating duties to managers, owners may reach a point where they aren’t buried in the minute-to-minute operations of the business. They have time to think about the future. They can analyze the company’s direction for how it supports their vision.

Thinking ideaA CEO is supposed to think strategically. He or she is the only person in the organization charged with looking for what isn’t there. What missing key capabilities will prevent the business from making the next leap? What competitors or new products threaten the existing flow of products or services? What disrupters challenge the customers themselves?

In reality, most small business owners who can actually carve out quiet time from their workday don’t know what to do with it. They dive deeper into reports, or call additional meetings with their managers to assure themselves that things are still on track. Setting aside time for strategic thought is tough. It feels too much like goofing off.

New ideas don’t come on demand. They are responses to stimuli. The best way to generate those is to be in a situation where they occur. That’s not accomplished by meeting with the people or attending the events that have always been part of your business. You need to expose yourself to different stimuli to get different ideas.

Join a peer group that isn’t focused on your industry. Attend some professional events that your customers frequent for education, not the ones where you sell to them. Attend trade gatherings of your vendors to see what your business really looks like to them. Go to local presentations about business topics that you may have little natural interest in, like technology or finance.

Most importantly, get out. Just carving out time to “be strategic” has little value if you are sitting in the same office surrounded by reminders of your day-to-day challenges.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

2 Responses to Is There Anything CEOish for Me to Do?

  1. That is right on for a successful company. I continue to stimulate with outside influences and appropriate the time for projections on business needs and direction along with diversification. Good and simple read, but most overlooked in small business. Good job John!

  2. Steve Davies says:

    Well put, as always! When I was running my computer service company we moved to a new building, and I was a little embarrassed at the size of the CEO office that the new office layout had. The thing was huge with a cathedral ceiling, and I always felt that you could play basketball in it! I was talking to a consultant one day who was helping me with strategy, and I mentioned my thoughts to him. His reply has always stuck with me and is germane to your point: “Your job is to sit in your big office and think the big thought.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *