“You haven’t taught it until they’ve learned it.” – John Wooden
Tied to this simple nugget, Bill Parcells (in his biography) describes a lesson from his early days of coaching. Parcells was an assistant coach under Dean Pryor. A player messed up in practice and Parcells recalls ‘unloading on the guy.’
Pryor, voice raised, cut Parcells off. “Well, you obviously didn’t go over it enough, because he didn’t get it.” The teachable moment was the first time that Pryor had ever scolded his assistant, and it happened in front of a bench full of players.
“That cut like a knife to the heart,” Parcells remembers. “But it was one of the best lessons I ever learned.” Regardless of the mistake made by a player, his coach shared responsibility for any lack of execution. The onus falls on the coach to foster an environment conducive to learning—and retaining—instruction. Over the decades, Parcells would convey this same lesson countless times to his coaches when they blamed a player for not following instructions.
Every organization is perfectly designed to get the results they are getting.
This is one of our refrains. Whereas many consulting companies do feasibility studies or manage capital campaigns, at The Suddes Group our aim is to help an organization *design* for the right results — and then help implement to get those results.
As is the case with design work and culture change, this is often messy, iterative, and complex. It requires that we identify leadership and the process by which to make necessary decisions (that will move the enterprise forward).
Drawing on several frameworks, here are the decision-making modes that we seek to identify, name, and direct.
Autocratic: While this can have a negative application, there are times when a decision just needs to be made, in order to move forward quickly. Leaders of social impact organizations tend to default to building consensus, but during an organization’s infancy, or when there is no ‘right’ decision, it might require that someone ‘just make a decision.’
Input still has one (clearly defined) decision-maker, but that person gathers input from others first; this style places an emphasis on participation, listening, and openness.
Democratic and Consensus: These are similar in some ways — they both favor a majority (or highest vote tally). Stylistically, a democratic decision-making process can sometimes be polarizing (think: Congress). In contrast, consensus is about finding an option that tries to build the most bridges, and the most understanding of different points of view. Note: Practically speaking, you can see the difference in this way — a consensus-building process requires many more rounds of back-and-forth, revisions, etc.
Unanimous: This is the hardest and most time-consuming option, to get everyone involved to agree on the decision. It requires a deep commitment from the team to listen, to let go, and to move forward as one.
The power of these styles comes from being deliberate about DECLARING them and then COMMUNICATING them within a process or plan.
Ichak Adizes created the working theory and framework for organizational lifecycles. Many ‘gurus’ have duplicated, or built upon, his lifecycle framework.
Here is a nugget nestled in the introduction of the latest edition of his work. It’s a specific insight about the importance of INTEGRATION as a key factor in predicting organizational growth. Most leaders might grow organizations a few times in their careers. We’ve worked to transform hundreds of organizations… and scaled just as many ‘funding efforts’… built and developed teams… to help raise over $2Billion. To us, this little nugget is HUGE and not to be missed!!!!
“I have learned that although it remains true that entrepreneurship causes growth and a lack of entrepreneurship causes aging, Integration is the factor that precedes entrepreneurship in predicting organizational growth and aging. This factor enables the creation of the nurturing environment essential for entrepreneurship and, thus, for organizational growth. Integration also allows organizations to treat aging problems more proactively—that is, earlier. Because this factor is subtle, it is commonly ignored and neglected in the pursuit of growth. That neglect is what causes organizations to take the typical path—with all its pains—on the organizational lifecycle.”
Adizes observes that large organizations are often working on ‘integration’ of teams, functions, systems. But his wording is insightful: integration is the ‘factor that precedes… in predicting’ where organizations are going.
We use this insight in our coaching.
Let’s suppose we’re helping you START an effort to build more individual giving. The trick is to balance ‘entrepreneurship’ (i.e., moving fast / doing things) and integration. In practice, this might mean that we prototype an effort inside of a large enterprise. Then, after there is some funding success, we’ll focus FIRST on how to integrate that function with other elements of the enterprise. That integration (buy-in, alignment, role clarity… the ‘culture stuff’) is predictive of the organization’s ability to successfully scale the funding model in an enterprise.
The title of this post is supposed to be reductively simple: To increase sales, spend more time selling.
This morning I’m reading through old HBR articles on ‘selling.’ We do this to find the research, studies, and science, and then use that information to back our approach and/or innovate. Here’s a little ‘finding’ from a 2006 article: The New Science of Sales Force Productivity.
Another question that leading sales organizations ask themselves is, Are the field reps spending as much time as possible selling? When we measure salespeople’s “non-customer-facing time,” we find that it often amounts to more than half of their total hours. If sales executives uncover that kind of problem, they have a variety of tools at their disposal. They may be able to channel some of the reps’ administrative functions to support staff… They also may simplify the systems that the reps are expected to deal with. Several years ago, sales executives at Cisco set a goal of reducing reps’ nonselling time by a few hours a week and charged the IT department with making it happen. The improvement led to several hundred million dollars in additional revenue.
I’m sharing this because it looks so simple. And it IS that simple. The problem is that most social impact organizations hold – as a cultural point of pride – the ability for each person to wear many hats. I was on the phone last week with a director of development who said, “Our president expects EVERYONE in the organization to be on the front lines providing service at least three mornings per week.”
That’s a decision.
In addition, we often see front-line salespeople being tasked with other functions – like running events. Or, in health care, the ‘fundraising executives’ are often asked to be at every health care system executive meeting (often this takes the BEST sales person offline for 40% of the month!).
These organizations are all trying to find ‘new ways to raise money.’
Our advice is not ‘innovative.’ It’s simple: Free up more time for your SALES PEOPLE to FOCUS on SELLING.
The late J. Richard Hackman, a Harvard sociology professor, found that teams are much trickier to build and maintain than we like to think. The issue is not that teams never work, but that team dynamics are powerful but delicate, and expansion is a surefire way to break them. “[It’s a] fallacy that bigger teams are better than smaller ones because they have more resources to draw on,” he explains. “As a team gets bigger, the number of links that need to be managed among members goes up at an accelerating, almost exponential rate.”
In his handbook Leading Teams, Hackman reminds us of “Brooks’s Law”: the adage that adding staff to speed up a behind-schedule project “has no better chance of working… than would a scheme to produce a baby quickly by assigning nine women to be pregnant for one month each… adding manpower to a late project makes it later.”
Reflect on this excerpt and think about the implications for your team(s).
On a large, late, or urgent project, the tendency is to add more people. We must first put extra resources into clear planning and then be prepared to commit resources (e.g., time and communication) to building/managing the exponential links a ‘team’ requires.
Amazon sells over 21,000 books on leadership, and we’ve read a lot of them. When it comes to effective leadership, the famous Supreme Court framing could apply: “We know it when we see it.”
A wonderful philanthropist, veteran business leader, and For Impact friend Bob Werner says it best: “Leaders Lead.”
Here are some themes and definitions we commonly use across all sectors, geographies, and types of organizations:
Leadership is about making decisions! This is a top challenge we encounter. One of the most important tasks of leaders is to MAKE DECISIONS. Teams can usually adjust and learn from a wrong decision, but they can’t adjust and learn from INDECISION.
Casting the Vision. It could be argued that this is a form of decision-making, but someone (read: ultimately ONE PERSON) needs to set the vision. Too often we see people in leadership positions waiting for the vision to emerge by magic, or by consensus (which–in this case–is also magic).
“Lead toward a brighter tomorrow.” I think I picked up this definition from Marcus Buckingham. But so much of leadership is about setting the STORY and CONTEXT for the organization, team, or project. As humans, we want to feel a sense of progress in what we do. We need leaders to chart that path forward.
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”
– John Quincy Adams
Abby Falik (Founder of Global Citizen year – also a For Impact alumna and friend!) penned a ‘Leadership User Manual’. It’s crisp and composed in a way that creates a human connection. I know this is proving to be an effective communication tool for Abby and highlight here here for others.
What I value
I value resourcefulness and proactivity. Be smart, move fast and pivot quickly. Ask forgiveness rather than permission.
I’m obsessed with efficiency: I touch each email only once (respond, delete, delegate, or delay), and live by the law of 80/20 – often prioritizing promptness (ie. 24-hour rule in following up on a meeting) over perfection. I start each day by “eating my frog” when my energy and attention are fresh.
I expect my teammates to value efficiency as well. Before doing something “the way it’s always been done,” scan for an easier, cheaper, simpler way to maximize your “return on effort”. Before starting something from scratch, ask if it’s already been tried.
I value scrappiness and feel an obligation to our staff, Fellows, partners and donors to focus our limited time and resources on the “real good” vs. the “feel good”.
I believe work-life alignment matters more than work-life balance, and that strategic self-care – whether sleeping enough, leaving work early to exercise, meditate, or spend time in nature – is the key ingredient to becoming our best, most productive and happy selves. I am religious about spending time unplugged – a day a week, and a few weeks a year.
“Every organization is perfectly designed to get the results it’s getting.”
We redesign organizations and teams for results. Redesign is about CHANGE.
Change to the ORG: Vision, Mission, Message or Priorities
Change to the TEAM: Roles, Seats-on-Bus, Skills, Team
Change to the FUNDING APPROACH: Sales Process, Funding Model, etc
It’s become a handy ‘coaching nugget’ to share with leaders that the change they are seeking or leading will take 18 Minutes and 18 Months…
There are things that teams will latch onto immediately (think: 18 minutes). In the For Impact world, these would be the Point of View, Vocabulary or some Nuggets. Teams will start to implement them ad hoc. But it will take a while (think: 18 months) for the team DNA to be the generative force for these actions.
We’ve observed the 18 month phenomenon again and again. It’s a point at which a client says, “I think we finally had some real breakthroughs with our board. It’s like they are coming to the place where we started 18 months ago!” Or, “I no longer feel like I’m trying to correct everything the team does. They get this. I’m just providing strategy and inspiration… they’re taking this (culture change) in directions we never dreamed of!”
Of course, there is nothing precise about 18 minutes or 18 months. It’s the idea that this can be immediate AND it’s a journey.
At the start of a campaign we’ll often facilitate an exercise to have a team declare the new culture. This exercise effects immediate change: we get to name the things that will be different! It also creates a vision and it’s important that teams give themselves time to change. Too often we see leaders become frustrated because they think of this ‘change’ as a check mark that wasn’t completed successfully in three or four months.
Nota bene: this is just a ‘helpful frame’. In truth, change is constant and so is the work of leading (change). General Stanley McChrystal says “An organization is no more enduring than the physical conditioning that keeps a soldier fit. An organization must be constantly led, or, if necessary, pushed uphill toward what it must be. Stop pushing and it doesn’t continue, or even rest in place; it rolls backward.“
About ten years ago our founder, Tom Suddes, started to step away from the business. He wanted to focus on writing and speaking, not on running the business. He would step away and invariably – whether through passion or some other gravity-like force – get sucked back into the business. If you’ve ever observed this phenomenon, you’ve also experienced the challenges it creates.
From a leadership perspective, the founder is a ‘perma-leader.’ Even if you construct operational roles, preserving the operational structure is like working against gravity. The founder walks in with an idea and everyone can’t help but direct energy toward that idea.
This was challenging – for our founder, and for me, as President. We were either blowing up each other’s plans (unintentionally), or investing energy to ‘tread lightly’.
We ended up creating a role (and STORY) to break the tension and embrace strengths + role clarity. Tom became our Chief Spirit Officer. It was only natural for him to be the defining force and inspiration for our team. The CSO defined our… SPIRIT.. and by naming this, we were able to separate SPIRIT from VISION… INSPIRATION from DIRECTION.
I am lucky. We are lucky. It worked really well for us!
I find myself sharing this story and ‘frame’ more and more. Especially when larger-than-life founders try to ‘step back’. In some cases – not all cases – I think the founder can step aside from operations AND have a continued imprint. It requires that that Chief Spirit Officer and the CEO / President are in lock step, of course.