On the one hand, the key to business success today is systematization. On the other, systematization is what kills businesses today. Why the paradox?

Systematization does three critical things for business. First, it enables business to be profitable, by pushing down more and more tasks to less expensive resources. Equally important, systematization builds trust. The reason franchises like McDonalds do well is consumers know what to expect and they are never disappointed. McDonalds doesn’t pretend that it sells gourmet burgers. It sells speed and consistency. And consumers have come to trust them to do just that.

Businesses that are not systematized are untrustworthy. They may do great work one day, but the next day could be a disaster. Any business that intends to grow, must introduce systems. This is the third thing that systematization does for businesses is it enables them to scale.

If systematization does all of these wonderful things for business, why do I say it kills business? The problem with systematization is the very order it creates. We don’t like chaos in our business so when we figure out systems and process that bring order, we tend to get intensely attached to those systems and we do all we can to preserve them. In a fast moving economy where the future is unpredictable and customers needs and priorities shift, there is no guarantee that the systems and processes we implement will continue to create value for our customers.

Systems need to be in a constant state of evolution to ensure they continue to bring value to customers. We mustn’t be afraid to re-evaluate and even pull the plug on systems when we detect their utility is eroding. Many businesses miss tremendous opportunities to increase their value simply because people who implemented the existing systems, processes, and procedures have become overly attached to them and are no longer wondering how to increase customer value but rather, how to maintain the orderly, predictable and familiar environment they’ve created for themselves.

The one exception to the personal agenda trumping corporate agendas is the Level 5 Leader. The Level 5 Leader concept comes from the book
Good to Great by Jim Collins. In my opinion, this is one of the best modern business books written. Primarily because it is not based on opinion. Jim Collins and his team analyzed a list of 1435 public companies and settled on 11 that made the leap from good to great and then sustained superior performance for at least 15 years. Each of these companies were compared to another company in the same industry that did not make the leap (the comparison companies). According to the Jim Collins web site, “To find the keys to greatness, Collins’s 21-person research team (at his management research firm) read and coded 6,000 articles, generated more than 2,000 pages of interview transcripts and created 384 megabytes of computer data in a five-year project.”

The first and most important conclusion they came to is great companies had a different type of leadership. They had Level 5 Leaders. These leaders possessed two distinguishing traits: First, they were extremely humble. Whenever a problem existed, they looked in the mirror. Whenever they were praised, they looked through the window and gave credit to others. Second, they possessed an iron will. They knew what they needed to accomplish and they did everything in their power to achieve it.
Level 5 leaders are extremely rare. One level 5 leader that I work with is Cameron Hay.

He is the CEO of Unitron (www.unitron.com), a manufacturer of digital hearing instruments based in Kitchener, Ontario. I first met Cameron about six years ago, shortly after he assumed the role of CEO. One of the first things you notice about Cameron is his humility. He is soft-spoken and gracious. If you were to attend a company function, it would not be clear to you who the CEO is. However, as you interact with him, you quickly realize how incredibly intelligent he is and how driven he is. He has gradually transformed Unitron from a second tier player into the fastest growing company in their industry.
In observing this leader over the last six years, I’ve come to realize why level 5 leadership is so essential for making the leap from good to great. First, the leap from good to great requires great and sustained energy. The mistake a lot of leaders make is they think their charisma is what is required to inspire their people to greatness. While charisma does inspire people to greatness, there are two problems that I can see. First, the charismatic personality tends to overshadow all others. Direct reports lose confidence in their own abilities as everyone engages in collective adoration of the leader. As the charismatic leader becomes more and more decisive, the direct reports become more and more dependent on the leader’s decisiveness. This develops a culture that Collins describes as “the genius with a thousand helpers.” The second problem with the charismatic leader is the necessity of his or her presence. Once the leader leaves, the organization implodes. Collins suggests that the charismatic leaders secretly enjoys the implosion as it underlines just how critical he or she was to the success of the organization.
Leaders without charisma, however, create other problems. They tend to lack the power necessary to get their team aligned around a common goal. Strong personalities below them develop their own decisiveness and begin to drive the company according to their personal agendas rather than the corporate agenda.
My observation of Cameron Hay is that while he has a humble personality, he has an inner energy which is tireless. He has gone to great lengths to create corporate clarity around the company’s mission, vision and values and has been very selective about who reports to him (Collins talks about getting the wrong people off the bus, the right people on the bus, and the right people in the right seats). I think it is this inner energy of the level 5 leader that drives them to invest in clarity and surrounding themselves with the right people that is pivotal to making the leap from good to great. When they are surrounded by the right people, these people feel the freedom to develop their leadership abilities and in so doing, they bring the best of themselves to the corporate mission. They respect the leader but they do not feel overshadowed by the leader. They feel safe enough to speak openly and make tough decisions. This collective momentum over time transforms the company. When the level 5 leaders leaves, there is no leadership vacuum. The leader ensures there is a succession plan in place because what matters most is the corporate mission not the personal agenda.
If you do have the opportunity to work with a level 5 leader, do everything you can to understand the corporate agenda. This is what matters most when a leader is at level 5.

Every corporation has a strategy. Employees are hired to help the corporation achieve its strategy. Vendors can increase the value of whatever they are selling by aligning it with the strategic objectives of the corporations they are selling to. We must remember, however, that nothing happens without emotion and corporations, although they are people in the eyes of the law, do not possess emotions. Corporations are vulnerable, therefore, to the emotions of the people they employ.

Typically, the mission and vision of the corporation come from the heart of the founder or CEO. As leaders, they are emotionally invested in the strategic outcome they are pursuing. The passion for their vision engages the emotions of others, who join them in their cause. Unfortunately, this emotional engagement gets diluted and many employees simply align their efforts with the mission of the corporation simply to get a paycheque.

When the corporation’s strategic objectives conflict with an employee’s personal agenda, the personal agenda will always win. Why? Because emotions drive action. People are either driven toward something or away from something. The driving force is either fear or desire. So, even though something might make sense for the corporation, if it doesn’t fit the personal agenda of the person you are selling to, they will not support it.

Take the time to understand the personal agendas of the people who buy from you. Help them see how what you’re proposing not only meets the corporate agenda, it also meets their personal agendas.

If you want to be successful in sales today, DON’T handle objections. There are so many courses and articles focused on how to make you effective at handling objections. Some titles are: Handle Every Objection, Close Every Sale, Use Your Prospect’s Objections Against Them, etc.

Here’s the problem. Handling objections is an Industrial Age concept. It comes from a product-first philosophy. The corporation needed sales reps to sell its product. Prospects who would not buy were a problem. Sales experts then anticipated all of the potential reasons a prospect might not buy and came up with approaches to address these objections. If the prospect says they can’t afford it, say this. If they say they need to check with someone else, say this. When in doubt, use the “Feel, Felt, Found Formula” which goes like this: Really Mr. or Mrs. Prospect. I understand how you feel. Many of our customers felt the same way, until they found…” Successful sales reps came home with the order or the contract.

Handling Objections is Nonsense

In today’s post-modern world, handling objections is nonsense. Avoid anyone who tells you they will train you or your people on handling objections. Success today is not defined by how much you sell but by how well your solutions get implemented and the success you bring to your clients. Consequently, the quality of your sales matters more than the quantity. Of course, quantity matters. You have to make your targets. But you must make your targets by delivering real value.

Real value is delivered over time. Superficial value does not stand the test of time. If you do not deliver real value, your brand will suffer. In this age where everyone has a voice and anyone can amplify their voice, you can’t afford to deliver superficial value. This means that you must partner with your prospects to ensure you can deliver value to them and to minimize the risk of delivery.

Rather than “handle objections”, the focus of your sales effort in the latter stages of the sale, must be on mitigating risk. Rather than wait for the prospect to bring up reasons why they are apprehensive about proceeding and being forced into a reactive position, why not partner with your prospect and proactively address this issue?

Risk Mitigation

Prior to signing the contract, schedule a meeting with your prospect to address the issue of risk. You are in the business of helping your clients solve their problems. Remember, the issues you address are not your problems. They are your client’s problems. This is an important realization. The burden is not on your shoulders; it’s on your prospect’s shoulders. You are there to help them remove the burden. Home Depot has the right idea. Their slogan is, “You can do it. We can help.” You are there to help not to do everything. Sales professionals who don’t realize this take on too much responsibility for the solution. Prospects knowingly or unknowingly collaborate with your sales rep to shift the burden of responsibility to your company. When things go wrong, you are to blame.

You Can Do It, We Can Help

Your sales team should make it clear to the prospect that your company is there to help. They should also make it clear that risk is involved, Based on their experience, they should proactively tell prospects the nature of the risks they believe the prospect will face and solicit input, based on the prospect’s knowledge of their environment, of the risks they believe they will face. Once all the risks are on the table, they should be grouped into categories based on severity and likelihood. Together, the sales rep and the prospect should develop approaches to deal with the potential risks.

This approach keeps the responsibility where it belongs – with the prospect. It also develops trust and respect. More than ever, prospects are looking for partners not pitches. When you handle objections, you broadcast that you’re only interested in making a sale. When you broadcast that you are only interested in making a sales, you trigger your prospect’s defense mechanism. When you help your prospect mitigate risk, you broadcast, very clearly, that you are sincerely interested in building partnership. When you broadcast that you are interested in building a partnership, you inspire your prospect to connect with you.

I think we need a new term in our post-modern world - Attention Addiction Disorder (AAD). AAD is the inordinate need to be the center of attention. I think this disorder is directly related to the fact that we live in a society that enables anyone to have a voice. Soical media technologies such as YouTube, MySpace, Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, etc. enable anyone with an Internet connection to be seen or heard. On the whole, I think this is a good thing.

The down side to anyone having a voice, however, is now anyone can have a voice. And that means anyone. No longer do people have to do something meaningful to be on center stage. Developments such as reality TV exacerbate this. Rather than go through the difficult and expensive process of writing good stories, reality TV enables producers to just roll a camera on someone’s dysfunction in order to appeal to the voyeuristic nature of many people.

The ability for anyone to be in the spotlight has created an appetite among many to publish complete nonsense as long as it is about themselves. They blog, tweet, upload and publish all types of content about what they are eating, wearing, who they are seeing. The more outlandish they are, the more of a following they attract. They get high off the idea that they have an audience.

The story of Richard Heene, the Balloon Boy’s father, is tragic as I think it reflects this growing AAD. Jon and Kate plus 8 (a phenomenon I have completely missed) is the same thing. In both cases, the parents are quite willing to sacrifice their children and their family life in exchange for being in the spotlight.

I think these cases are harbingers of the erosion of the value of personal relationships. Could AAD spill over into the business world? Will we see businesses engaging customers for the sole purpose of being able to publish what is happening in the relationships but completely missing the value of the personal relationships?

This is a fascinating story of innovation and human connection. Selected prisoners (most convicted of murder) enroll in a program where they help to train puppies to become sniffer dogs for law enforcement. As a result of the program, hardened criminals are transformed into caring people; people who had no regard for the law are now strengthening law enforcement.

What is most fascinating to me is how this story demonstrates the need for human connection. All of us have a reptilian brain that is focused on survival. It wants to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Protect or connect. Hardened criminals function primarily from the “protect” mode. They only think of themselves and they have given up on connection. Seeing former murderers enjoy connecting with another living being is inspiring.

Here are the words of William “Bear” Purnell, one of the inmates enrolled in the program: “I don’t want to be the bad guy no more and the puppy showed me that I don’t have to be, that it’s all right to be a person; that it’s all right to express myself; that it’s all right to want to help someone.”

Remember, everyone wants to connect. Your employees want to connect. Your clients and prospects want to connect. It’s a fundamental human need.

After 17 years, on May 29, 2009, Jay Leno made a clear exit from the tonight show and graciously handed over the reigns to Conan O’Brien.

Three months later, Jay Leno launched his new show on September 14, 2009. Of course, as the master of humour and timing, his debut was not a disappointment - well, not entirely. I have to admit, however, that I was a little bit disappointed. I was expecting something new and I thought new meant different.

The Jay Leno Show was not dissimilar from The Tonight Show. Jay’s loyal sidekick, Kevin Eubanks, also made his debut with The Prime Time Band (different in name only from the Tonight Show Band).

Just Like a CEO

As I processed my disappointment with the apparent lack of creativity, I realized that Jay is the same as CEOs who move from one company to another. After many years, they develop their formula for success. They have a certain way of getting things done that leverages their strengths. They also have a network of close associates that they trust, that understand them and that they can rely on to get things done.

When a CEO moves from one company to another, the strategy he or she will initially employ to make a mark and put some quick successes on the board is entirely predictable. It will be the same strategy that brought them success in their previous role. In order to execute that strategy, the CEO will need to be surrounded by reliable people. Inevitably, they will recruit their trusted network into the new company in an effort to reduce the number of unknowns associated with their new role.

When Does This Approach Fail?

This is a perfectly reasonable approach except in the following circumstances:

1. The new environment differs significantly from the old one and the strategies that worked well in the old environment are ineffective in the new one. This can be as a result of the strategies being ineffective in the new environment or the strategies violating deep-seated cultural norms or tightly held values.

2. The trusted network that is recruited into the new environment does not have the deep relationships and influence that are needed in the new environment in order to get things done.

3. A competitor understands this tendency and employs a counter-strategy that sets the CEO up for failure.

What Does This Mean To You?

First, realize that all of us are creatures of habit and we repeat the strategies that work for us. Consequently, you should work to show up on the radar of your C-level clients as a resource that can be trusted to make them successful. If you do, they will take you with them wherever they go.

Second, if you are taken into a new situation by a new CEO, don’t assume that the strategies that worked in the past, will continue to work. Be sure to assess the environment you are being brought into and determine what variables have changed.

Third, when a new CEO shows up in your environment, take the time to find out where he or she is coming from and what/who made him or her successful in his/her previous role. Look for the strategies and the people that were employed and expect elements of the previous strategy to be immediately repeated. If you are competing against such a CEO, figure out what steps you might take to neutralize these strategies. If you are supporting such a CEO, find out how you can ensure these strategies become more effective in the new environment.

Finally, if you are hiring an executive, realize that people will do what they have done. Hire someone who is doing or has done exactly what you need done. Don’t hire someone hoping they will figure out what needs to be done and they will grow into what you are looking for.

The Success Formula

Jay Leno knows what his success formula is and he knows the people he can rely on to execute his strategy. Your C-level clients know their success formulas. Are you on their radar as someone who they can rely on to execute their strategies?

Well, it’s not just Twitter. It’s Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, and most of the new social networking tools. Twitter is probably just the worst offender.  While the popularity of these social networking tools continues to skyrocket and our networks within them continue to expand, we have to ask ourselves if we are missing the point.  

I am currently on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Plaxo, among others.  LinkedIn is my favourite, followed by Twitter and then Facebook.  I haven’t yet figured out the value of Plaxo.  The danger I see with these technologies is, by their nature, they are focused on quantity of connections rather than quality.  In fact, services are now available where you can buy thousands of Twitter followers or Facebook friends (see Usocial). There is a built in psychic reward associated with having a bigger network.  Conversely, there is a personal, psychic penalty associated with having a small, fledgling network.  The inevitable consequence is an inner hunger for ever more connections.  But to what end?  

Meaningful Connections

As humans, we are social beings.  We need social connections.  We thrive with healthy connections and wither without them.  We also thrive with diversified connections.  The person with a homogeneous group of friends, who all think and act alike, is narrow-minded and boring.  Hanging out with people who have different perspectives challenges and broadens us. Learning different perspectives enables us to think with increasing layers of complexity and to think more creatively and more intelligently.

Having said that, having lots of superficial connections does nothing meaningful for us or our connections.  Social media is just a technology. It’s just one of many ways we can reach out and touch others. It’s flattering to receive emails notifying me that I have more followers on Twitter or to receive invitations to join different networks on LinkedIn or Facebook. Wouldn’t you agree? However, as we reach out and make new connections, let’s not forget to bring increasing value to the people who are already in our networks.

I recently took a look at my client list. Like you, I’ve got great clients! They’re interesting and they’re doing great things with their careers.  I’m honoured to have the opportunity to work with them.  Spending time with people who know me and value my work and who are open to a deeper relationship is far more valuable and rewarding than making another superficial contact.  I think we need consciously to prioritize true and meaningful connections over superficial ones.  

Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against social media.  The danger is we can get sucked into chasing what we don’t have rather than valuing what we do have.  This is true personally as well as professionally.  We need to look at the relationships we do have and realize how fortunate we are to have these people in our lives. We need to spend time thinking about how we can enrich their lives. Parodoxically, the more fulfillment we can create for the people who are already in our network, the more attractive we become to people who are outside our network.  

Front End vs. Back End

I think the people who are spending an inordinate amount of time in social media are robbing themselves of rich relationships.  Social media is just one of many lead generation front ends to bring people into our network.  But once they’re in, then what?  Investing in the back end is what matters.  Build depth in your funnel so that as clients work with you, they are constantly amazed at the value you provide.  Once you’ve got that figured out, social media, like other front end technologies, will bring new people into your world and you’ll be confident that their journey with you will be meaningful, fulfilling and mutually rewarding.  

Here are 3 things you can do, to enrich your network and ensure you don’t get caught in the superficial net of social media:

• Reach out to an inactive client and get caught up on what’s happening in their world;
• Invite an active client to come to your office and talk about what’s going on in their world and what their most pressing priorities and challenges are;
• Ask a long time client to tell you what they value about you and how you might bring greater value to them.

Life is all about relationships.  If we are not in meaningful relationships and doing meaningful work, we will be haunted by an increasing feeling of insignificance.  Connections matter not because they are many, but because they are meaningful. 

25 Years Old
It’s hard to believe that PowerPoint has now been with us for 25 years. I remember when I was first introduced to PowerPoint. I was working for KPMG and one of my colleagues introduced me to the program. It was fascinating. The idea of being able to present information in a piecemeal fashion so that, layer by layer, greater understanding was achieved was powerful. I think the main difference between then and now was back then, our ideas were already crystallized before we turned to PowerPoint. It was a matter of taking the crystallized ideas and reflecting them in the presentation tool.

Today, I think it’s a different story. I think many presentations are actually developed using PowerPoint. The result is a very dense presentation as every thought is reflected in either a slide or a bullet point. I think this is unfortunate. Most people instinctively flinch when presentations begin because they suspect they are going to be subjected to 50 slides with way too much text and a presenter that does little more than read from the slides.

The best presentations are conversations. Visual support is great if it is used as visual support. In this case, the less slides, the better. The slides that are used should be highly visual rather than laden with text.

Personally, I am now experimenting with another presentation tool. It’s called Prezi. This tool is forcing me to think much more clearly about what I want to say and only when I am crystal clear on what I want to say and why, do I think about where I might need visual support.

We do live in a highly visual society. As a result, we do need to think about how we present our viewpoints. But this is the point, we need to THINK. Too many presentations are streams of consciousness. They are not succinct and well thought out. Consequently, PowerPoint is used as a crutch for the speaker to remember what they are going to say next rather than a visual support to help the listener gain greater understanding.

I’m sure PowerPoint will be with us for many more years. I just hope we learn to use it and any other presentation tools as supports rather than crutches.