Hot Commodity

I just finished reading The Halo Effect by Phil Rosenzweig, and found it to be a particularly practical, candid, and insightful read. Rosenzweig’s book revolves around the concept of the “halo effect” which is defined as “a flawed psychological disposition that causes individuals, generally incorrectly, to align their thinking and evaluations of others across all dimensions based on knowledge of a single dimension”. In English, that means company performance sometimes creates a “halo” that shapes the way we perceive strategy, leadership, people, culture, more. When a company’s sales/profits are up we tend to claim it’s because of a brilliant strategy or a visionary leader. When that same company’s performance falters though, we conclude that the strategy was misaligned or the leader was unfit for the job. As a business student, this is a painfully accurate description of how we are often taught to think.

Rosenzweig cites several real life examples, but I really enjoyed his discussion of Wal-Mart because it was one of our case studies in my management class this past year. We were always discussing Wal-Mart’s “cost leadership” strategy and the company’s sophisticated use of technology, but we never really considered how the corporation grew large enough to have such low margins in the first place. Often a company’s “current” strategy evolves through a strange combination of decisions and luck, and it is difficult to look back and separate the two. Rosenzweig recognizes this fact, and comments that the “link between the inputs and outputs is tenuous”.

I was also fascinated by Rosenzweig’s insight into the ephemeral nature of success. This is one that it seems almost everyone struggles with. It was amazing to read about all the studies that considered “best in class” companies for a given time period and proclaimed that if others followed the examples set by the “best in class” they would be successful too- and then a few years later those “best in class” were under performing the market. Oops.

One of my projects this summer was an extensive M&A Mega-deals Analysis (we defined a mega-deal to be one in which the target was worth over $10 billion). As suspected, a year after the announcement date the majority of the deals resulted in value destruction and on average the deals consistently resulted in negative returns. We explored further and took a look at practical and strategic characteristics of the deals that might help explain the poor performance, such as price bidding, how integration was handled, cost synergies, macro-economic factors, timing, etc. While we did find that unsuccessful buyers and targets often grossly overestimated cost savings, underestimated merger expenses, and didn’t consider the full range of integration issues they might run into (technological, managerial, cultural, etc), even the few deals that outperformed the market usually did so only because of economic factors beyond their control. Basically we found it was often better “to be lucky than good” because even if the buyer and target considered all of the criteria we defined in our framework, it still didn’t guarantee success- and, like Rosenzweig points out, even when companies are successful it is often short lived.

Throughout the book Rosenzweig also describes eight other business delusions. One of my other favorites was “Delusion of Single Explanations”: many studies show that a particular factor, such as corporate culture or social responsibility, leads to improved performance. But since many of these types of factors are highly correlated, the effect of each one is usually less that suggested. This is a huge problem with research because even if the data is perfect, it is very very difficult to differentiate between the effects of several related elements. I think that even recognition of this fact is useful though, and an important clarification to make in reporting results. All too often we confuse correlation with causation or put more emphasis on a single factor than is necessary.

These were just a few points in the book that really caught my attention. In general it was a great read, though a bit repetitive at times. I guess as a student my “concern” is that while I understand what Rozenzweig is saying and though I’ve always agreed that copy cat cultures and celebrity CEO’s don’t work, how do you figure out how to run a company if you can’t really look to best in class and figure out what they did right and go with that? Rosenzweig talks about how chance plays a greater part than we think and yet the best managers act as if chance is irrelevant. I’ve written previously about how important luck is, although the best entrepreneurs are sometimes able to “create luck”. Either way, it’s pretty scary knowing that there’s only so much you can control.

I think more so with business than with many other disciplines there is really only so much you can learn in the classroom, because there aren’t laws and rules like in science and English. I think in business, experience is the only real credential that matters. So no, I’m not suggesting all of us business students drop out, but rather that field work, shadowing executives, and other forms of experiential learning are critical, and that no matter what you do and don’t learn you have to be willing to take some risks.

If any b-school kids are reading this (and everyone else too of course), you should take a break from Halo 3 and check out The Halo Effect.

We all know what the Mojave Experiment is so I won’t get into details… oh wait… no we don’t. Unlike Apple’s “PC vs. Mac” commercials that are universally recognized and quoted and have become media’s poster child advertisements (a recent favorite, and another, and a bunch more here because I just can’t get enough), the Mojave Experiment is an advertising campaign by Microsoft for its Windows Vista operating system that has not gained the kind of popularity Microsoft hoped for. In the videos, participants who had never used Vista before were asked about their perceptions of the operating system and then were shown a 10 minute demo of the Microsoft’s alleged “next OS” (codenamed “Mojave”). After the experiment was over, it was revealed that “Mojave” was actually just Windows Vista. The advertisements, which can be found on MojaveExperiment.com display skeptical consumers who, via the mere 10 minute demo, are suddenly convinced that Vista is incredible. Sorry for stating the obvious, but here’s what’s wrong with this scheme:

Length (bigger is not always better): Some of the videos are several minutes long… and I was bored after 15 seconds. In fact, the only time I’ve watched one of the videos all the way through was right before I posted this. If internet users can’t even read entire articles anymore and rely on content aggregators and blogs for much of their news, how can you possibly expect them to be engaged in a long commercial? Especially if it’s boring and cheesier than a cheesy gordita at Taco Bell.

The Cheese Factor: Speaking of cheese, the advertisements remind of me the millions of weight loss commercials on television every day. You know the ones that we all scoff at, ignore, or make fun of? The ones filled with unconvincing testimonials from people who consumers don’t identify with at all. In the face of suave, catchy, hilarious, and practical commercials from the competition, something like this is just not gonna fly.

Features vs. Execution: I’d bet pretty much any company can present a 10 minute demo that makes it seem like their product or services are infallible, creative, user friendly, etc. Several of the problems cited in regards to Vista included issues with installation and other functional problems. Cool features are useless if the execution is terrible, and the advertisements entirely overlook these types of concerns, further alienating, and in some cases enraging, customers

Rule #1: The customer is always right. Rule #2: If the customer is wrong, see Rule #1: The advertisements make it seem like the customers are at fault for not recognizing or understanding the features and functions that Vista provides. I don’t need to say much more here- never blame the customer.

But now to address the title of this post…I recently read that Microsoft plans to spend $300 million on a new ad campaign featuring Jerry Seinfeld and using some variation of the slogan “Windows not Walls”. I’ll admit that the slogan is short, sweet, and kind of catchy. It also avoids some of the jargon filled and vague marketing speak (”The wow starts now” or “Clear. Confident. Connected.”) that usually comes from the company. However, the slogan is still sounds too “high level”, and the words do seem to relay an inherently defensive view. Which walls, exactly, is Microsoft talking about? Several people have inferred that the company might be targeting Apple. If Microsoft is targeting Apple’s “closed system” it’s making a mistake, because this will only increase the perceived size of the competitive threat that Apple poses, without highlighting Microsoft’s own strengths. I’m not saying Microsoft should ignore Apple by any means- a focus on the competition is obviously important, especially in this case as Apple is taking the world by storm. I simply think that it’s a little late, and since the slogan doesn’t take as definitive and obvious a stance as Mac commercials, consumers may just end up confused by the message.

It’s also unclear as to who the campaign is aimed towards. Apple has a very specific target in that it aims its marketing largely at unsatisfied PC users. As evidenced by the Mojave Experiment, one large demographic Microsoft is targeting is consumers that are hesitating to make the switch to Vista. I’m not sure how the phrase “Windows not Walls” will appeal to that group, or how it’s addressing their concerns?

Finally, Apple’s ads are often cited as resonating so well because they “actually hold true”. The company has found a way to turn one of its greatest competitive advantages into a phenomenal campaign that consumers identify with and often validate. Will Microsoft users recognize and find themselves agreeing with the notion that Windows “tears down walls” or provides a much more comprehensive package than Apple?

Perhaps the campaign will take a different direction, no one really knows for sure yet, but either way it will be important for Microsoft to communicate a very direct, clear, and simple message if they want to be effective. I’m an avid PC user and you never know what sort of traction a campaign might get, but for now I remain pretty skeptical.

Talkbiznow.com, which claims to be the world’s first comprehensive interactive business networking website (try saying that five times fast) will launch on Monday in Europe and the United States with hopes of attaining three million users within the first six months says an article in Forbes (LinkedIn has been around since 2003 and had 24 million users as of May 2008).

One potential challenge for Talkbiznow that the article mentions is the perceived (lack of) efficacy of networking websites as a business tool. While LinkedIn’s “Introduction” tool is supposed to help professionals find “important” contacts, users apparently often get requests from strangers that have no relation to their business or line of work.

Nevertheless, the fact that LinkedIn just recently received $53 million in venture capital funds highlights the demand for websites aimed at business professionals, and Talkbiznow CEO Martin Warner has made it very clear that he believes his website is far superior to LinkedIn. He wants it to be much more like Facebook, with digital tools that the “business world is craving”. Talkbiznow offers professionals the ability to hold “Webinars” (online video conferencing), send instant messages, store files directly on the website, post a blog, create a calendar, and more. “The beautiful thing is that you have a world without many entrants, and until now it’s largely been about putting business cards online,” Warner says. “We want to go a whole step further and create a space for business professionals and companies to come together and communicate to do business faster and more effectively.”

Well, he’s right about the “world without many entrants” part, but I think this may be due to the fact that one has to very careful in merging business with social networking. In addition to the features listed above, Talkbiznow also enables users to “nudge” each other, which sounds a lot like Facebook “pokes” to me. It’s weird enough to get “poked” by friends or other people you know on Facebook- I can’t imagine how awkward it might be to be “nudged” by a stranger who you intend to interact and communicate with in a professional setting. Eeeeeeeeeek.

I’d say to some extent this is just another example of the copy-cat syndrome that I’ve written about previously. Just because Facebook has been successful so far, doesn’t mean that you can take its features and turn it into a professional networking site. In fact, I think that Facebook is too cluttered and informal and that the simplicity and practicality of LinkedIn are superior for professional networking. Apparently others agree, as WebWorkerDaily ends a review of LinkedIn by writing “As long as LinkedIn never offers anything with the word “poke” or “wall”, maybe they’re on to something after all.” Only time will tell, but I think Talkbiznow is talking a lot of smack now, and may suffer a similar fate as Cuil did by talking smack about Google before it launched a few weeks ago.

The reason that I had to end my internship at Brilliont a little earlier than the others was because I’m going to be an RA (Resident Advisor) for my College House at Penn this year. To be an RA we are required to attend a three week training retreat/session right before classes begin. Yesterday was the first day, and while I’m not an introvert by any means I can be a little shy when I first meet people. Thus, when I found out our first activity was an Improv Comedy Workshop you can imagine that I got a little apprehensive. Me? Improv comedy in front of people I don’t really know? Sounded a little disastrous.

The session was conducted by Avish Parashar, a former Penn student and the president of Avish Parashar Productions, Inc. (go figure). The company conducts workshops and presentations for several types of audiences to show them “how the ideas and techniques of improve comedy can make [them] more flexible, more effective, and ultimately more successful!” Throughout the session Avish kept reminding us that while the activities we were doing might seem silly, they could actually empower us and help us in several of the roles we play as a Resident Advisor- these include being a mentor, a friend, an advisor, a role model, a motivator, a specialist, a Penn representative, etc. As we discussed his “Four Keys to Creativity” and each of the roles I just mentioned, I realized that many of these ideas also applied directly to being a successful entrepreneur and/or a successful manager:

Focus on the outcome: Here Avish pointed out something that is obvious but often overlooked- that the end goal is usually more important than all the little details. This doesn’t mean detail and organization aren’t important, of course, but that a balanced perspective is necessary. Avish gave us a simple example that I’ll share. He told us to think about a time when we were going out to a fancy or important dinner with our families and the restaurant was overbooked or closed. Some people let this ruin their evening- they complain about it in the car, they complain about it over dinner at another restaurant, and they complain about it on the way home. Others recognize that the point of the evening is simply to spend time with loved ones, and have a great time anyways. At Brilliont I noticed that if I got stuck somewhere along the data collection process or the data analysis process, the team would help me take a step back and look at what our end goal was. Often we found that there was a different, but equally valuable means to the same end. Sounds pretty basic, but sometimes you get so wrapped up or frustrated with what you are doing that you find it difficult to look at the big picture: what do your customers need and want, and how can you effectively, efficiently, and ethically deliver those results in a profitable manner.

Let go: It’s amazing how difficult it can be to grasp the meaning of these two words. I don’t think this means you should leave everything to chance, because as I’ve mentioned before, in my opinion the best entrepreneurs seek out opportunities and occasionally create their own luck. Nor does it mean that you shouldn’t challenge the status quo- because you should. It does, however, mean that you should make a conscious effort to recognize what you can and can’t control and stop trying to fight things that are entirely beyond your reach. Your energy and resources will be better spent if you focus on the areas where you can make the most impact. I view the importance of this personal resource/energy optimization and allocation as similar to the importance of how companies allocate their funds and resources to optimize results and progress. One of my favorite movie quotes comes from Something New: “Let go, let flow” says the lead actress.

Say “yes and” as opposed to “yes but”: This was one of my favorites. It’s not meant to be taken literally as Avish pointed out. Gentlemen, if your girlfriend asks you if she looks fat then “yes and ugly too” is not quite the response she is looking for. More generally though, this key reminds us to be open to new ideas. The thing is that I’ve noticed that pretty much all entrepreneurs like to pride themselves on being open to new ideas. Isn’t that what entrepreneurship is all about? The subtlety here is perhaps in the way we approach and react to new ideas. I know that I can be pretty critical- not because I don’t like new ideas but because I like to consider all of the facts and think about all of the long term consequences before I make a decision or express approval. Sometimes, though, this means that I appear to be negative at first. I’ll say “yea but XYZ”. This limits the conversation and tends to draw our focus to only one element of an idea where as a “yes and did you think about XYZ” tends to encourage more brainstorming and further exploration. Again, this is not to be taken literally because you shouldn’t always agree with people, it just reminds us that sometimes if you are willing to explore a “bad” idea a little further before nixing it completely, a new “good” idea might arise in the process.

Tap your creativity: Finally, we discussed how difficult it can be to apply or call upon your creativity. We’ve all experienced writer’s block at some point or another. Somehow it seems that we are most creative when we’re not trying to be… like right before we go to sleep, or in the shower, etc. Avish basically pointed out that we often have trouble because we analyze and critique ideas as they come and this can hold up the process. One thing we’ve always used on the Wharton Dean’s Advisory Board is the “Parking Lot” method of brainstorming. We allot ourselves a small amount of time to get as many ideas on to sticky notes as possible. We don’t discuss the ideas until after everyone has had a chance to write them all down and put them up on the board (when all the Post-its are on the board they look like a parking lot, thus the name). This is just one way of doing things, but the gentle time pressure and the momentum that builds when you aren’t giving yourself a chance to think about how silly or crazy an idea might be are extremely powerful tools in fostering fruitful brainstorming sessions.

There were of course some great (slightly embarrassing) games associated with each of these keys but I won’t get into detail about those here as you should probably hire Avish to come out and run a workshop for your organization if you’re interested. Overall though it was an extremely fun way to put yourself out there and think about how to harness your own creative powers. It put everyone at ease and enabled us to comfortably interact and collaborate right from the start. One other theme I noticed throughout the improv workshop was that the more willing one was to fail, the less likely failure became. Within reason, I think this is very true of entrepreneurs as well. I think it’s a great idea for corporations (small or big) to give improv a try. In addition to getting a few laughs at the CEO, the team might find it very effective.

The end of August is one of my favorite times of the year. Not because it signals the end of the summer, but because it signals the start of football season! I just finished watching my Jacksonville Jaguars dominate the Atlanta Falcons, and I’m looking forward to some exciting upcoming games. During halftime and commercials I was also checking out other news in the NFL realm. Major highlights include the fact that Brett Favre just officially signed with the Jets as their new quarterback and how terrible it might be for the Colts that Peyton Manning has been out during their training camp (because he is recovering from a knee injury). Whether I go on NFL.com or flip to ESPN on TV, I see one of two images- mobs of reporters fighting to speak to Favre or mobs of reporters trying to speak to Tony Dungy (Colt’s head coach) and other members of the team.

I love Peyton Manning, so much so in fact that I wrote about him in my college admissions essays two years ago, but sometimes the celebrity status that QBs achieve is over the top, and worse, harmful to the team’s dynamic. Furthermore, it’s not always the QBs that attract the attention, but rather the media (who needs content to engage viewers/readers) that often creates too much hype.

Well, the same thing happens with celebrity CEOs. There is absolutely no doubt that a great CEO, or QB, is extremely important to the success and development of any company, or football team, but importing someone just because of their “celebrity status” can often be detrimental. In the case of the CEOs, one of several problems seems to occur frequently:

1) Celebrity CEOs come in feeling like they must immediately change or raise the stock price- but if they don’t recognize the environment within which they are working, they end up harming the long-term returns of the very company they set out to strengthen in return for ephemeral short-term gains. They are so intent on making their own mark that they forget the importance of conserving or nurturing key aspects of the organization’s culture.

2) Celebrity CEO’s all too often try to impose a copycat culture by attempting to replicate the strategies of a current market leader, their last firm, or a contemporary favorite (today’s include Google, Apple, Toyota, etc). They forget that the mission, values, and practices that form the core of an organization’s culture should be unique to afford competitive advantage and value creation. This may be a terribly shallow analogy, but to me this is similar to when girls see a sexy black dress on a celebrity or model and assume it will look just as good on them. In either case, the result is usually not so “hot”.

3) Some celebrity CEOs get caught up in the “fame” and find themselves interacting with the press more than the organization. Conducting a few town-hall meetings and being interviewed for business magazines and newspapers unfortunately does not lead to success for the company. They state and restate the “importance of” the company’s strategies and values so often for the media that employees end up thinking the speech is just for the sake of investors and analysts and not actually aimed at the people that make up the core of the organization.

These are just a few examples of how the CEOs themselves can wreak havoc. Other times, when something goes wrong just because of changes in market trends or macroeconomic factors beyond the control or predictive powers of the company, people find it easier to blame celebrity CEOs instead of focusing on the real problems at hand. Also, people begin to doubt the capabilities of the firm without it’s “fearless leader” even though there are often others who could do just as good a job if given the opportunity.

I’m not proposing that it’s bad for a company to find its CEO in the public eye often, but rather that too much idolizing can be harmful. There are several that I idolize myself; but as CEO, one must always be cognizant of this potential pitfall. Basically, if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

French Pantry is supposedly one of those “gem” restaurants in Jacksonville, a tiny family run café hidden away on an unfamiliar road with no billboards or arrows to signal that a restaurant is what lies beneath the maroon awning that overlooks the building. I had heard that the food was heavenly though, so a group of friends and I decided to go there for lunch to celebrate someone’s birthday. We’re all vegetarian, so when the waiter brought out our first appetizer with bacon bits on top we were a little disappointed but figured it’d be no big deal to have it exchanged and were thankful that we had seen it right way. What follows is my first conversation with the waiter (after spending 15 minutes trying to get his attention): 

Waiter: What?

Me: Well we’re actually all vegetarian at this table and had asked that there be no bacon on this salad.

Waiter: Oh, well I didn’t make it.

Me: (staring speechless for a minute) Ummm yes I know but we’re vegetarian…

Waiter: (cuts me off) Well yea but what do you want me to do?

Me: (again incredulous) Uh well I was hoping you could maybe bring us a new one…

Waiter: So you want me to take this one back and exchange it?

Me: (Now I’m thinking “No you idiot we’d love to have this one sit here and just ogle at it in all its bacon-y glory”) Yes that would be greatly appreciated…

Waiter: (with attitude) Ok, fine but next time make sure you tell them you don’t want meat on it.

Me: Well we did, in fact I saw the woman at the front write it down…

Waiter: (leaves without listening)

Okay so things are not off to a great start but we begin eating the bruschetta and it’s pretty delicious so we start enjoying ourselves again. The new salad comes out a few minutes later, along with our other entrees, and we eagerly dig in. My friend takes a bite of the sandwich and, to our dismay, discovers that it has large chunks of chicken in it. At this point we’re all pretty upset so I try to grab the waiter’s attention again. 

Conversation with waiter part duex:

Me: Sorry, but this sandwich has chicken in it.

Waiter: (stares at me blankly)

Me: We’re vegetarian remember…

Waiter: Oh yea, well that’s not chicken it’s just uhh… well it’s a Panini….

Me: Yes it is a Panini but it has chicken on it…

Waiter: Uh well I don’t know I’ll go ask the people in the front.

Me: (“What exactly does he need to ask them?“) Um okay…

Waiter: (comes back nearly 5 minutes later) Can you take the plate up there and show them the chicken?

Alright so give us a break. We may be vegetarian but we certainly know what chicken looks like…

Me: Uhh okay I guess…

Long story short, we spend 15 minutes arguing with the people at the front and end up leaving without having eaten any sort of sandwich at all. 

The thing is that as a vegetarian I’ve had this experience several times. But when the waiter is at all apologetic, or the manager personally brings out a new dish for us, I tend to quickly forget about the problem at hand and end up remembering the great customer service instead of the meat. Based on the fact that we waited in line for 20 minutes I’m pretty sure that quickly bringing out a new sandwich without doubting our ability to tell what was and wasn’t on our plates would not have hurt their bottom line. Plus they would have spent less time on the situation and had a group of happy customers instead of fuming ones. At a place like this where they take a minimalist approach to marketing and advertising and instead rely on word of mouth and a small but loyal customer base, customer satisfaction is critical! 

It’s amazing that so many restaurants (and several other companies that interact with consumers) can whip up all sorts of fancy desserts and delights but can’t figure out a simple recipe for customer satisfaction/experience. I think part of the problem, however, (drum roll please) is that companies confuse premium customer services with good customer experience and customer satisfaction. 

Let me explain. Just because Lexus offers to drive out to your house, pick up your car, and drop off a rental vehicle for you to use while they change your oil and take care of some maintenance issues does not mean that they provide a great customer experience. If the sales representative or employee that drives to your house is rude, irritable, or simply not very friendly, you will probably forget that he/she drove all the way to your house to perform this premium service and instead fixate on how unpleasant the experience was. Granted, companies that offer premium services often have very well trained personnel that are experts when it comes to customer satisfaction, but what that doesn’t mean is that you need to offer premium services to also provide a great customer experience. Perhaps this is a bit cliché, but after a recent firsthand experience I feel justified in saying that a smile, a good attitude, and an aggressive attempt to satiate small customer requests can go a long way in retaining a loyal customer base and in developing a competitive advantage over other, perhaps larger, competitors. Companies should take a minute to recognize this difference and first establish rules, policies, and practices around customer satisfaction and a memorable customer experience before getting their hands dirty with premium services, fancy foods, and other unique (sometimes unnecessary) measures. 

A fellow Penn student is in Jacksonville for an internship and asked for restaurant suggestions. Despite the great food, French Pantry will not be on the list I give him.

Today I ate a yellow watermelon. When I closed my eyes, it tasted perfectly normal. When I opened them though, I couldn’t help but expect each bite to taste like pineapple or some other citrusy fruit.

Some changes companies make are advantageous because they are symbolic, more efficient, or an important marketing ploy.

Wal*Mart… oops I mean Walmart*… changed its logo to signify changes in the company’s policies and customer service and a revamping of the company and its reputation. I’m not saying that a simple logo change will help them accomplish all this, but I understand where they are coming from.

When Zephyrhills and Poland Springs changed the shape of their bottles it was not only more eco-friendly but also allowed them to showcase their new eco-friendly focuses. Plastic water bottles, in general, are the most anti-eco-friendly invention ever, but that’s a whole different story. Again, the change makes sense from their perspective.

When Head & Shoulders overhauled their shampoo bottles to emphasize their change from a functional consumer product to a “desirable beauty brand” the sleek new curved bottle shapes were important from a consumer awareness point of view.

When Heinz decided to sell green and purple ketchup, however, the change was unwarranted.

There was just something weird about putting green goo on my French fries (as opposed to red goo), and it seems like others felt the same way because the green and purple bottles were off the grocery store shelves as quickly as they had gotten on. This change was completely unnecessary- change for change’s sake it seems. The taste was the same, but red ketchup is a successful staple and there was no reason to tinker with that. Mass idea generation is great, but these ideas then have to be assessed from all angles before spending time and resources on them because unfortunately, all ideas are not created equal. For example, the idea to find a way to grow yellow pineapples watermelons should never have been supported.

 As you can probably tell, every week I basically wait around for Sunday’s Dilbert like it’s my job.

Anyways, as usual, this past Sunday’s comic highlights another very important aspect of management and that is performance feedback. Now I’ll admit that I’m not quite old enough and haven’t worked long enough to have people work for me, but I have been on the receiving end, and I have directed a summer camp for the past few years, have been a Co-Chair of the Hindu Students Council at Penn, and have generally held other leadership positions that required me to give feedback to my counselors, my fellow board members, etc. Performance feedback is critical to the growth and success of any organization, and yet it is often handled very poorly. I guess this makes sense though, because it is often very difficult both to give and receive feedback (especially when it is negative). In large organizations it seems that people are pawned off to each other and that each boss will sometimes pass the difficult feedback situations up the ladder as to avoid awkward confrontations with their employees. It will always be a touchy subject, but in my opinion there are a few important measures both parties can take to ensure that feedback is constructive and useful as opposed to hurtful or discouraging.

If you’re on the feedback giving end…

• Lay out clear objectives, expectations and deadlines right from the start. It may take a little extra effort at the beginning to be thorough but it makes it much easier to evaluate someone objectively and fairly at the end. Be willing to discuss these expectations and deadlines and make changes as appropriate, because sometimes the work flow may go in a direction that you didn’t expect.
• Set up regular times to chat. This helps the employee/counselor/etc. organize and schedule their work and helps both parties to catch mistakes or oversights along the way. A second set of eyes is always refreshing, and when you have to explain what you’ve been doing to someone else it forces you to clear things up for yourself first.
• If you are going to be critical, give specific examples. And, this might be a little silly, but it helps if you offer examples of when you’ve made the same mistake in the past. It makes you more human, and makes the criticism seem less harsh. Also, outline some specific steps one can take to make amends. And mentioning a general time line for improvement is useful too.
• Don’t try to sugarcoat your comments or make a bunch of disclaimers. This usually just makes someone feel worse.
• Write down what you want to say before you go into it! It’s a lot easier to think about what you want to say when you’re not face to face with someone. If you plan ahead, it prevents you from forgetting or neglecting to say something “in the heat of the moment”.
• Formally invite the other party to give you feedback. Just saying “if you have any questions or feel like you aren’t getting enough instruction just let me know” won’t cut it.
• Finally, be careful to avoid falling prey to the fact that we gravitate towards people like ourselves. Just because someone has similar interests, style, or sense of humor as you, or as Dilbert points out is particularly attractive, doesn’t mean their work is better (although it’s great if it is!). Be sure to separate these characteristics from your objective feedback session. This doesn’t mean that you can’t extent a special invitation to spend time together outside of the work environment or take on an elevated mentor role for the person as I’m sure this will be greatly appreciated. The relationships we develop at work or in any organization most certainly give it meaning. In fact, sometimes they even give us a greater sense of accountability, and that is always good news.

If you’re on the feedback receiving end…

• Prior to the feedback session from your employer/director/etc. do your own self evaluation- even if it’s not required. Often this helps you to predict what the other party will say even before you start. This means you are better prepared to respond and have already had a chance to think about how you might make changes in the future or figure out any questions you might have.
• Accept praise elegantly. Nothing annoys me more than people that reject compliments, and I end up not complimenting them anymore. Confidence in your abilities is appealing and puts the feedback giver at ease. This doesn’t mean you should be arrogant of course.
• Accept criticism as a learning opportunity and be aggressive in understanding exactly what the problem was. Sometimes we brush past these things and avoid details because we don’t want to think about it. That makes it difficult to fix in the future.
• Be as thorough and thoughtful in your feedback of your supervisor as you’d expect them to be in yours. This encourages open communication and reminds managers that their actions and behaviors really do matter! Don’t be afraid to give compliments because you feel like you are sucking up. As long as you are genuine, it will be appreciated. They are, after all, only human- and we all enjoy some encouraging praise every once in a while. You’d be surprised at how nervous feedback sessions make managers/directors too.

This is by no means an exhaustive list (although my earlier post on lists might lead you to believe it is). Several stem from my recent experience at Brilliont (I can assure you they do everything right!) and I hope it is somewhat insightful.

If you have feedback for me about this list, please feel free to post a comment. That’s about as formal an invitation as I can arrange for on here

Friday was my last day as a summer intern at Brilliont. The nine weeks I was here absolutely flew by, and I learned more and had more fun than I had thought possible. I’ll get into this more in a later post though, because right now it just makes me sad to be done… don’t worry though, I’ll still be blogging! But speaking of flying, I caught a flight back home to Jacksonville from Philly on Saturday and made an interesting observation about Southwest…

I “LUV” Southwest Airlines because they “LUV” the Philadelphia to Jacksonville and Jacksonville to Philadelphia routes. This works out perfectly since I go to school in Philly (Penn) and live in Jax. And because of their awesome deals on Ding! I probably spend as much on flights during the entire year as some of my friends spend to fly home on Thanksgiving. Southwest is a unique company in several ways, and one of the few remaining airlines that allows you to check in 2 bags for free. What’s more wonderful is the fact that they still hand out free drinks and snacks even if it’s a short local flight! My favorite part, however, used to be the fact that there was no assigned seating. No annoying air hostesses trying to direct you to your seat even though you know that 12D probably is right behind 11D, no stupid boarding pass forcing you to squeeze in between two screaming children, no hassle of trying to find someone to switch seats with because the rest of your family is on the other end of the plane. The system was first come first serve, which worked in favor of both the customers and the airlines because it rewarded and encouraged passengers to get to the gate just a little early.

Now, however, it seems Southwest has gotten so caught up in the “open seating” idea that they have forgotten some basics. Like the old method, the newest boarding method assigns each person a letter (A, B, C) representing their boarding group. Unlike the old method, however, the new method also assigns each person a number that represents their exact position within their boarding group. This means that even if someone with the letter/number combination A34 has been at the gate (or worse, in line) for 20 minutes, a person with the letter/number combination A33 can mosey on over and slip in front whenever he/she feels like it. This process not only eliminates any incentive to arrive early (or even on time), but also breeds irritation among passengers that are often already on edge after a packing, travel, or stress filled day. Not that I like getting to the airport early, but I do hate when a flight departs late because passengers are running late. And admit it, if you’ve been at the gate for 20 minutes now and someone walks up at the last minute and cuts in front of you just because their ticket has a lower number than yours, you’d be annoyed too. Southwest claims it is more efficient and innovative (whatever that means these days), but most people just seemed annoyed or confused, and I’d say the boarding process was a lot more chaotic and took much longer than in the past.

While there is no direct connection (pun intended), this reminds me of companies that make electronic gadgets and devices so complex that while they have wonderful technological capabilities, users just find them overwhelming. This isn’t exactly the same thing, but it’s along the same lines. A focus on “innovation” is critical, but a quick reality check with regards to human nature, customers, and simply whether or not the decision/method is achieving its end goal is kind of important too, and I think Southwest has missed the boat (or perhaps flight) on this one.

I’ve mentioned several times that I’ve been researching innovative companies from around the world for a project at Brilliont. Several of these companies can be characterized as belonging to the “social web” category, but few companies that are in this category, in my opinion, are truly innovative. I’ve written previously about The Point, a community website that helps people congregate around the issues they care about and combine forces to make things happen. This, I believe is a novel idea. The majority of the companies I read about, however, are social networking sites, which despite their best efforts, are simply not innovative. Most of these websites fall into one of three categories, each as unappealing as the one before.

The first is the “copycat” category. A few days ago I came across an “in pictures” list on Forbes of “Facebook Copycats Abroad” that details a few of the several hundred Facebook clones around the world. I’m not sure how you can call yourself “innovative” for starting the 8 millionth “social networking” website and basing both the aesthetics and the functionality entirely off a website that already exists. Although I must admit that I am quite a fan of Hatebook, an anti-social utility that disconnects you from the things YOU HATE. Its tag line reminds us that “the enemies of [our] enemies are [our] friends” and encourages us to find them on Hatebook.

The next bunch fall in the “niche but totally outrageous” category. My boss recently told me about a social networking website for women that like ex-convicts. Hilarious? Yes. Creepy? Definitely. Innovative? I don’t think so. Then there’s Petster, a social network where you, the human with typing abilities, can make a profile for your pet and share with others every detail of your pet’s existence. And if this is too vague or broad for you, I’m sure either Dogster, Catster, or Hamsterster will suit your fancy. You thought I was kidding about that last one right? Nope, check out the link. I’m sure ferretster.com is coming soon. I could go on for years, but I think you get the point.

Finally, we have the “let’s get every single human being under the sun to join because quantity is so much better than quality” category. Yesterday my boss sent me a link to myyearbook.com, a social network started by two high school students because “friendster gets boring, myspace is creepy, and classmates is a rip off”. So what makes myyearbook.com so different from these other social networks? Nothing. The founders want myyearbook.com to “be the only community of people worth going to. It would have every high school, every college, every graduate school, every summer program, every employer, everyone.” Let’s go back to basic principles. You cannot be everything to everyone (unless you are Google), and if you try then you will fail (again, unless you are Google). The only thing that I think makes any social network at all unique or useful is exclusivity, and this website has clearly thrown that to the wind. Even Facebook, the one social network that I am a member of (I joined because it was exclusively for college students), has lost much of its appeal by opening its doors to anyone and everyone with an email address.

I’m waiting for the day when the founders of any one of these social networks are able to truly monetize their website. Meanwhile, I’ll enjoy reading about the ridiculous ideas people keep coming up with. Better yet, maybe I’ll even start my own social networking site.