Recently in Influence Category

Fastest way to the Moon

By Steven Feinberg on September 5, 2011 9:50 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
photo credit to moon maker

Fastest Way to the Moon

Accelerate. 
Velocity is know-how
Efficiency indicates intelligence
Those in the know go fast, those who don't go slow.
Tai Chi masters movements are efficient, smooth and ready for lightning fast moves

How to untie the Gordian Knot when your future depends on it?
Cut it.

Complexity belongs to the rocket scientist, not the rocketeers.
Making things complex is not smart, smart is making things simple.

Accelerate around, over, through, under, however you can move past obstacles. 

There is no time like the present to create the future!

The advantage-making tactic of shifting; the advantage of tactical shifting

By Steven Feinberg on August 14, 2011 9:41 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
People have been asking me why all this focus on shifting? 
The implication is we don't want to rock the boat in a storm. 

While that is true, there are a couple of real world consequences.
1) 60% of opportunity is wasted on a daily basis because of failed shifts
2) A reactive mode produces different outcomes than a proactive advantage-making mode.
3) The level of uncertainly and waves of change now pulsating through the economy warrant shift skills at a new level of proficiency for survival and thriving. Being equipped to shift is a survival tactic.

So, how would an advantage-maker approach uncertainty and a sticky challenge?
How would you?
Here's a scenario that approximates real world events.

You are running a huge banking operation and putting in new ATM machines. There is a technical glitch (that's putting it mildly), customers can't get their money, and newspapers are making it front page news. Most of the executives think you should slow down and reduce the customer complaints. Seems sensible, doesn't it?

Select your action from below:
a) You agree and reset the workload and expectations to minimize customer complaints
b) You know that slowing down won't help, but it's important to reduce the level of customer noise and upset.
You select areas that you can proceed with quickly and areas you must slow down.
c) You disagree about slowing down, you go even faster to get the task done sooner. Your reasoning is that going slower will prolong the customer dissatisfaction and the papers will extend the story and perhaps elevate it further.

The conventional approach is answer A. Seems logical and common sense but the outcome is barely adequate.
A better approach is found in answer B. Now you are figuring out the forces at play and trying to thread the needle. The likely outcome is improvement faster.
The Advantage-Maker approach is answer C. You have a good handle of the contextual forces - customers, newspaper, profitability, performance. The way to help customers faster is to go faster. You actually want to help the customer asap. The way to get off the front page faster is to go faster. The way to profitability is go faster. It's counter-intuitive at first look, but standing back from the vantage points gives you an obvious edge.

In order to act with answer C, go faster, you must shift the tactics, and you must know what to look for to shift. This is the value of being equipped with the five tactical shifts. Shift the question, time, interactions, perceptions and structure.

Shift question and the givens - from get rid of customer complains now to get rid of them by going faster
Shift time - from go slower to go faster
Shift interactions - interact with customers differently and with the newspaper
Shift perceptions - this is key, shifting the winning strategy from going slower to going faster
Shifting structure - this is what you are doing with the entire implementation process.

If you didn't answer options C, then look at the same situation with the lens of the 5 shifts. 
This is the value of experience cycles with the right tools. With the wrong lenses, everything continues to be blurry.

To your clarity




How did Ken Kec do it?

By Steven Feinberg on July 18, 2011 8:05 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How did Ken Kec do it? (got 4 minutes? Here it is)

 

Last week, I asked if you were Ken Kec, metaphorically. Are you the person in the room to whom everyone listened? http://www.stevenfeinberg.com/blog/

The person who put his/her finger on the essence of the issue that was non-arguable. Ken had command presence, not in ordering people around, but he had command over the issues – including the customer issues and political issues inside the company.

 

So how did Ken Kec do it? Was Ken simply smart or was there a secret sauce?                                      If you recall I said that it wasn’t just that Ken was a sharp guy, it was the nature of his intelligence, in particular, his shift intelligence that mattered. Ken shifted. He shifted the questions, he shifted time, he shifted interactions, he shifted perception and he shifted structures. Its easier to remember the acronym QTIPS (question, time, interaction, perception, structure) for each shift.


Let's pull back the curtain and see behind the scenes what really went on.

Here’s how he did it.

He removed 2 mistakes people make and added 5 shifts that create advantage, and he did it in every situation.

Let me tell you what he didn’t do and you shouldn’t either.

On the don’t do list,

1) He didn’t obsess about unnecessary details, and

2) He didn’t wax platitudes about abstract white space.

If you think this is marginally important, listen to the discussions at your next meeting and you will find time wasted toggling back and forth between obsessive details or abstract pontificating. If you are doing this it won’t help you get to the essence fast.

 

This ability to shift to the right content level, that is, what is relevant, can make a huge difference in your meetings and in your approach. During one strategy session, we made signs that people held up when the group got off target. The signs said, Obsessive Detail, Abstract and Very Obsessive Detail. It made for both an amusing and informative strategy session. The meeting accelerated.

 

What Ken did (on the to do list):

1) The first task in his mind was creating a strategic framework to understand and solve the issue. To do this, to get to the essence he focused his mind on patterns, repeated tendencies. And the patterns he was looking for were the patterns of interaction – between people, between the customer and company. You could say he was looking at the ecology of interactions, a supply chain of interactions. What worked and what didn’t. The relationships between key elements and people. And what kept repeating itself. Ken was intent on determining the real forces at play, and shifting interactions to change the game.

 

2) Next Ken established a hierarchy of importance. What mattered in this specific situation? When people say you need to be more strategic, that actually means you have to think hierarchically. Not who’s who in the office hierarchy but what’s most important relative to the stuff that people care about. For example, which is more important in this situation, profits now or long-term business relations. And if both are important which is more important or what percentage of each? Ken made structural calculations.

 

3) Now Ken did not just accept the givens, he questioned the givens. That’s the basic Shifting the Question aspect of those who have high shift IQ’s. This can be tricky because we live in an assumptive world. It’s like water to a fish; it only realizes when it is out of water. We can be better than fish on most days. Most of our solutions are too small, we can play bigger by penetrating questions that lift us out of the existing sea of expectation. We can frame the issue in a new light. By noticing the patterns we also can begin to question the recalcitrant patterns as Ken did.

 

4) Having questioned the givens he began to think about the options, not a laundry list. He knew what the variables were and could be both creative and practical. For example, if the variables were price, quality, technology and time to market he would move those around in terms of where the big win was for them. As a result he could determine the tendencies for movement and more significantly the momentum tactic. Ken thought both inside the box and out of the box. That’s tactical shifting.

 

5) And finally, knowing the patterns of interactions, the hierarchy of importance he shifted perceptions to influence the outcome. Ken penetrated into the decision triggers of his ‘target audience’ and delivered a non-arguable case. Ken was not just a good sales guy, he was someone who really put on his thinking cap while others were making noise, thinking they were thinking. And he delivered the message just at the right time. 

 

So quick review, Ken set a strategic framework; spotted the patterns, established a hierarchy of importance, questioned the givens, generated options, influenced perception and at the right time.

 

Are you similar to Ken Kec? I hope. If not, you can learn to think, perceive and influence like Ken Kec by improving your shift IQ. Ken wasn’t born with these habits; he acquired them and refined them. Ken studied how to shift the odds in his favor. If you want to shift the odds in your favor you can too.

 

There is no time like the present to create the future.

Next time, you might be the person in the room to whom everyone listens.

Social Network:Facebook

By Steven Feinberg on October 2, 2010 1:54 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
I live a few blocks from Facebook. I play a bit on Facebook. Tonight we went to see the Social Network movie all about the inception, the originality of the social network medium and growth of Facebook, and mostly the founding genius Mark Zuckerberg. The reports of fiction or non-fiction and type of personality are intriguing as a separate storyline. 

As we sat and watched the movie - great acting by the way -  I wondered about the audience. Everyone there has been touched by Facebook. There were executives of Silicon Valley companies, VC's, current employees of Facebook, former employees of Facebook, techies, geeks, psychologists, grad and undergrad students, entrepreneurs and probably a technical genius or two who could be creating the next great device the way Zuckerberg created Facebook. That's Silicon Valley and the Social Network.

Whatever the truth, Zuckerberg's genius was paramount even as his own introverted behavior reveals the usefulness of a technology that creates a social network. To be clear, Facebook is a tool of the 21st century for all people across the planet for personal, professional and business relations. It is transformative.

Today Social Network took an even bigger step forward for not only the local audience within a mile or so of Facebook but for the audience of people who only hear about and play a bit with social media. 

I think the movie, Zuckerberg's prototype of the socially awkward, technical genius, and his demonstrable advantage-making talent will inspire entrepreneurs and advantage-makers to act on their generative talents and aspirations

1-800 Contacts: a great example of advantage-making that pays off instantly

By Steven Feinberg on August 10, 2010 4:45 PM | | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)
This is not an ad. It is a note to say thank you to both 1-800-Contacts, the business, and to Jennifer, the service representative, in particular. And the thank you is specifically an appreciation of their individual and business Advantage-Making culture and skill.

I was calling to re-order my contacts. A small chore, but I had been putting it off. Getting put on hold, fumbling for eye Doc information is not my idea of something I look forward to, so I procrastinate.

One of the easiest ways to spot advantage-making is how the front line service people interact with their customers. Most of us have encountered doing business with people who are overworked, tired, frustrated, under 'attack' like at the airline counter. This seldom ends well.

Advantage-making goes beyond just finding a nice person - that is always a good start. And Jennifer certainly is that. When I recently re-ordered my contacts I was reminded and really appreciated what it was like to be in good hands. People who are solving your problems rather than putting up road blocks and obstacles, and when its done well it almost seems invisible. 

That is exactly the service and solution that Jennifer from 1-800-Contacts provided for me. And the kicker is i ordered a years supply instead of the usual month or two supply. So they benefitted by helping me. And it wasn't just the price, which added to my appreciation. This wasn't life changing, but it was life enhancing. It really was the oft used phrase but seldom believed, 'it's a pleasure doing business with you."

The owners, leaders and company obviously gave her ways to solve problems in advance, anticipating people's concerns and providing a solution that I would want without adding to my burden. If you want to know how to set up a customer facing business that keeps customers coming back for more, and ordering higher amounts then i would suggest you check out 1-800-Contacts.

And again, thank you Jennifer.


Obama's State of the Union - Rate the President's Shift IQ (SQ)

By Steven Feinberg on January 27, 2010 11:35 AM | | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)
During President Obama's State of the Union (SOTU), I suggest you pay attention with a different lens. Evaluate his message through the vantage point of an Advantage-Maker. This is not a political partisan rating but an independent view of the state of his advantage-making. Rate President Obama's Shift IQ.

Advantage-Makers are strategic shifters. They interact with the world differently. In the face of constraints they consistently create superior outcomes. Their task is to shift the odds in our favor. This capacity to strategically shift is the hallmark of Advantage-Makers and advantage-making. To deal with constraints advantage-makers have high Shift IQ's (SQ).

This ability to shift is what amounts to a secret or hidden code of advantage-making, and is made from 5 dimensions. These dimensions are the levers to shift the odds in our favor.  

Shift IQ (SQ)

As you listen to the Presidents speech, start with the constraints: the hand he was dealt with the Great Recession and the International crisis and Wars. Rate him along these five dimensions:

1) Shifting Questions - does he accept the givens or question the givens? Does he see what others don't see? Shifting options provide us with options often overlooked rather than just following the known procedures. Does Obama illustrate what we tend to miss or overlook and suggest practical solutions? Does he frame the argument differently from the same old same old to make us feel once again, Yes We Can and Yes We Will? 

2) Shifting Time - does he establish the right time frame for urgency and patience? Shifting time create possibilities where most people only repeat what they've done in the past. Does he make the case how past decisions have limited our options? Does he ask us for patience on ridding ourselves of the old systems that have failed us while he urges us to take specific action now to make a better today and tomorrow?  Does he show us how to make the most of the forces at play? There is no time like to present to create the future.

3) Shifting Interaction - does he change the game we are playing. Both over the past year and his interactions with the Republicans. Is he demonstrating his ability to rapidly adapt to the political and economic forces at play? Shifting interactions changes the game. Does Obama shift from an attempt at a bipartisan approach to one that demonstrates there is a new game in town that will make a difference in the midst of the worst recession America has ever experienced? Does some of what he suggests question convention, proposing a different game, that is neither right or left? Does he stand tall and demonstrate command presence in the face of his enemies? 

4) Shifting Perception - Does he influence us that we are going in the right direction with the proper course corrections that are involved in any change effort? Shifting perception influences outcomes. Does he admit mistakes and learn from it and engage us to learn? How do we feel about ourselves, our futures in the presence of our chosen President after his first year in office? Does he inspire our behavior to achieve the agenda for America's recovery?

5) Shifting Structure - Structure shapes behavior. Is the President establishing a winning game, is he positioning us to win? Have we fallen prey to a failing structure in Congress and what does the President have to say about it? Does he make the hard decision?  Has the President set the stage for a structural solution that will gain momentum and move us forward? Do you hear how we will advance rather than go back to old ways that haven't and don't work?

We need Advantage-Makers in the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives to shift the economic and political playing field. It is their job to get it right. We looked to them, with our input as a democracy to do the right thing.

Listen for the Shift IQ of our President in his State of the Union and rate 
On a scale of 1-----10 how effective at shifting the question
On a scale of 1-----10 how effective at shifting time
On a scale of 1-----10 how effective at shifting interactions
On a scale of 1-----10 how effective at shifting perceptions
On a scale of 1-----10 how effective at shifting structures

Advantage-makers use the 5 strategic shifts as levers to achieve higher results. Difficulties become easier, complex things become simpler, things that seem too slow get done quicker, and we can enjoy the fruits of our labor - we have more fun doing it. 

The state of Obama's ability to shift America 
The State of the Union will be revealed. The state of Obama's ability to shift America will also be on the line. In past blogs I have indicated that Obama is an Advantage-Maker. From my studies we can see that Advantage-makers are not perfect. They make mistakes, but they learn faster, use failure as feedback to course correct, make new connections, and get more out of the information and experiences they engage in. We want America and our President to succeed. We will be at a great disadvantage if he and we don't create superior outcomes in the face of the constraints we face. Just as I believe we are stronger today than we were one year ago, it will take President Obama's advantage-making skills and together we will make our nation better and stronger.

Obama and the Olympics: How Power, Persuasion and Structural Forces at Play really determined RIO's Win

By Steven Feinberg on October 5, 2009 10:45 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
What are the daily influences on our lives? 
The three main influences are a) people in power, b) persuasive communicators and c) structural forces at play. 

Let's identify the three:
People in power is pretty clear - those in authority in both private and public arena. CEO's and executives, President Obama and Congress, and non-profit leaders.
Persuasive communicators - can be the same as people in power but can also be those without any formal power at all. Persuasion is a great equalizer to power.
However, structural forces at play - the hidden drivers of behavior, like a riverbed shaping the direction of the river's movement, can shift the outcome whether you are in power or are a master of persuasion.

Take for example, the recent Olympics decision, involving Chicago vs. Rio de Janeiro's bid to hold the 2016 Olympic Games.
Rio won. Part of RIO's presentation was to vividly and persuasively paint the picture that South America contrasted with other parts of the world because they were one of a few continents that hadn't hosted an Olympics. The Rio presenters repeatedly pointed out on a map all the places that had hosted the Games and how South America was not represented at all. A compelling persuasive presentation. Rio had a persuasive message, and structural forces at play (most countries wanted the continent that hadn't had the Olympic Games) in its favor. Neither country had any actual decision power.

President Obama went to Copenhagen to make the final appeal. His position, a strong economic bid and persuasive abilities could not overcome the structural forces at play - specifically, South America has never had an Olympics, 90% of the Olympic voters are from outside the U.S.A., and Africa has never had an Olympics either. The tendency for action within the International Olympic Committee was clearly leaning for the continent that hadn't had an Olympics and RIO was perfectly situated, and I venture a guess that the African nations wanted to see a continent that hadn't hosted the Olympics as well. Strategically they would be the natural next place and likely voted accordingly. 

The Chicago bid had a strong economic package and venue, and persuasive abilities of the Chicago committee which included Oprah Winfrey and high profile Chicago executives. Unfortunately, this was not equal to the the structural forces that were against them - they were going upstream in effect, and they had no decision power - most of the voters were from outside the USA. They had one of the three influence factors on their side.

President Obama took a chance, the country leaders of the other four finalists appeared at the Olympic committee vote. He would have been blamed by the political opposition if he hadn't gone, and we have the unprecedented demonstration by conservatives cheering when the USA lost the bid. They were actually rooting for America to lose! The neoconservative groups were shown cheering upon hearing that Chicago loss. The Olympics are a source of pride, and never before have we seen a political group actually root against America. 

In terms of power, persuasion and structural forces at play I think the conservative strategy will backfire during the next election cycle. This will be a revealing and vivid image Democrats will use showing Republicans rooting against America. You just have to wonder what conservatives would have said if liberals had booed America in the same way. 

Pay attention to the three daily influences and begin to arrange them to support your best efforts. If you have all three you increase your chances of success dramatically, but you can win with two of the three, as long as influence can align with the structural forces at play.

Let's root for America and Congratulations to Rio!



« Coaching | Main Index | Archives | Leadership »

Search

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries in the Influence category.

Coaching is the previous category.

Leadership is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Influence: Monthly Archives