teamwork
The Strangest Feedback I Ever Received
My first job after my consulting company shut down was building a consulting organization for a spinoff database company. The CEO called me the week before, then invited me to meet him in Manhattan the following week. We met for a few hours, then he handed me a piece of paper with a title and salary. I thought about it for a minute, shook his hand, and said, “Thanks, boss.” We devoted the next few days developing a vision for the team that would boost sales and drive greater customer success.
We worked closely for the next six months, but there were times I could tell that I frustrated him. For example, we once met with a top 3 credit card company. They presented their needs, and he told them we could easily handle it.
On the way back to the hotel, I explained the architectural limitations that would make the project very challenging. Then I presented multiple ideas to accomplish what they needed – just not in the way they envisioned it. My focus was on creating a deal that worked, and not just closing a deal that could ultimately hurt our reputation.
A year or so later, I was on a multi-city road trip to visit customers and prospects with each member of the sales team. It was a Thursday afternoon; I had just arrived at a hotel in San Diego where I’d stayed dozens of times over eight years, and I was relaxed and feeling great.
The CEO called, telling me that one of the architects he hired had just given his notice, and asked me if I thought we should try to get him to stay. I explained that this person was extremely talented and worked well with everyone, but he wasn’t working on the things he was hired to do and had been noticeably unhappy for the past several months. I asked if we planned to revive the project this person helped develop, and the answer was ‘no’.
I went on to explain that while this guy was a great person and technical asset, he wasn’t a good fit for the company now or where it was heading, which is why I recommended letting him go. I said we could use his salary to hire one or two people interested in our current direction and get a better return on that investment.
To me, this was a logical decision, and not an emotional one. Most companies have limited resources, and to win, you need to find the greatest leverage for every dollar spent.
His response was, “The thing I love about you is also the thing that I sometimes hate about you.”
There was a brief pause of silence, then I replied, “OK, I’ll bite. What is that?” He said that, unlike everyone else who reported to him, I told him what he needed to hear instead of what he wanted to hear. He told me that he valued my perspective, which was why he called, but it was often frustrating for him to be told something contrary to his beliefs.
This candid conversation didn’t damage our relationship, and it reinforced a core truth about leadership: loyalty demands clarity first, then compliance.
Safe leaders surround themselves with “yes-men” to protect their egos. Exceptional leaders seek out individuals who care enough about the mission and its success to risk temporary friction. This is about doing the right thing, versus who is right.
Leaders should create an environment where all opinions and data are welcomed during the planning phase. Disagreement isn’t disrespect; it is a risk-mitigation strategy. This is where clearly articulating your concerns persuasively helps. True alignment sometimes requires strong debate behind closed doors to find the right path, and then executing the final decision as a unified team.
So, do you have the courage to provide the truth – even if it is unpopular? Can you do so in a convincing and professional manner? They might hate it in the moment, but they will value your integrity in the end, especially if you are seen as someone focused on improvement and success, and not just a contrarian.
The Value Created by a Strong Team
I participated in an amazing team-building exercise as a Board Member for the Children’s Hospital Foundation of Wisconsin. We were heading down a path that would lead to a decision on whether to invest $150M in a new addition. The CEO at the time, Jon Vice, wisely determined that each committee needed strong teams to thoroughly vet the idea from every possible perspective.
The process started with being given a book to read (“Now, Discover Your Strengths” by Marcus Buckingham & Donald O. Clifton, Ph.D.) and then completing the “StrengthsFinder” assessment using a code provided in the book. The goal was to understand gaps in perception (how you view yourself vs. how others view you) so you could better understand your strengths and weaknesses. Then, teams were created with people having complementary skills to help eliminate weaknesses from the overall team perspective. The results were impressive.
Over my career, I have been involved in many team-building exercises and events – some of which provided useful insights. However, most failed to combine the findings meaningfully, provide useful context, or offer actionable recommendations. Key areas that were consistently omitted were Organizational Culture, Organizational Politics, and Leadership. Those three areas significantly impact value creation vis-à-vis team effectiveness and commitment.
When I ran my consulting company, we had a small core team of business and technology consultants and leveraged subcontractors and an outsourcing company to take on more concurrent projects, as well as larger, more complex ones. This approach worked for three reasons:
- We had developed a High-Performance Culture that was based on:
- Purpose: A common vision of success, understanding why that mattered, and understanding how that was defined and measured.
- Ownership: Taking responsibility for something and being accountable for the outcome. This included responsibility for the extended team of contractors. Standardized procedures helped ensure consistency and make it easier for each person to accept responsibility for “their team.”
- Trust: Everyone understood that to be effective and responsive, they needed to trust and support each other and trust each other’s judgment. If there was a concern, we focused on context and process improvements to understand what happened and implement changes based on lessons learned. We avoided personal attacks for the good of the entire team.
- Empowerment: Everyone understood that decision-making involves risk, while also recognizing that delaying an important decision could be costly and create more risk. Therefore, each member was responsible for making good decisions as needed and communicating changes to the rest of the team.
- Clear and Open Communication: The team was very transparent and honest. When an issue came up, they tried to resolve it with that person first, then escalated if they couldn’t reach an agreement and decided to seek the team’s consensus. Everything was out in the open and done in a constructive, collaborative spirit.
People who were not a good fit would quickly wash out, so our core team consisted of trusted experts. A friendly competition helped raise the bar for the entire team, but when needed, the other team members became a safety net for each other.
We were all focused on the same goal, and everyone realized the only way to succeed was to work together. Win or lose, we did it together. The strength of our team created tremendous value – internally and for our customers that we sustained for several years. That value included innovation, higher levels of productivity and profitability, and an extremely high success rate.
This approach can work at any level but is most effective when it starts at the top. When employees see their company leaders behaving this way, it provides a model and sets expectations for everyone under them. If there is dysfunction within an organization, it often starts at the top – by promoting or accepting behaviors that do not benefit the whole of the organization. With a strong and positive organizational culture, the value of strong teams is multiplied and becomes an incredible competitive advantage.
It’s not Rocket Science – What you Measure Defines how People Behave
I previously wrote a post titled “To Measure is to Know.”
The other side of the coin is that what you measure defines how people behave. This is an often forgotten aspect of Business Intelligence, Compensation Plans, Performance reviews, and other key areas in business. While many people view this topic as “common sense,” based on the numerous incentive plans you run across as a consultant and compensation plans you submit as a Manager, that is not the case.
Is it wrong to have people respond by focusing on specific aspects of their job that they are being measured on? That is a tricky question. This simple answer is “sometimes.” This is ultimately the desired outcome of implementing specific KPIs (key performance indicators), OKRs (objectives and key results), MBOs (Management by Objectives), and CSAT (Customer Satisfaction), but it doesn’t always work. Let’s dig into this a bit deeper.
One prime example is something seemingly easy, yet often anything but: compensation plans. When properly implemented, these plans drive organic business growth through increased sales, revenue, and profits (three related items that should be measured). This can also drive steady cash flow by closing deals faster and within specific periods (usually months or quarters) and focusing on models that create the desired revenue stream (e.g., perpetual license sales versus subscription license sales versus SaaS subscription sales). What could be better than that?
Successful salespeople focus on the areas of their comp plan where they have the greatest opportunity to make money. Presumably, they are selling the products or services that you want them to based on that plan. MBO and OKR goals can be incorporated into plans to drive positive outcomes that matter to the business, such as bringing on new reference accounts. Those are forward-looking goals that increase future (as opposed to immediate) revenue. In a perfect world, with perfect comp plans, these business goals are codified and supported by motivational financial incentives.
Some of the most successful salespeople are the ones who primarily care only about themselves (although not at the expense of their company or customers). They are in the game for one reason—to make money. Give them a well-constructed plan that lets them win, and they will do so predictably. Paying large commission checks should be a goal for every business because properly constructed compensation plans mean their own business is prospering. It needs to be a win-win design.
However, suppose a salesperson has a poorly constructed plan. In that case, they will likely find ways to personally win with deals that don’t align with company growth goals (e.g., paying a commission based on deal size but not factoring in profitability and discounts). Even worse, give them a plan that doesn’t provide a chance to win, and the results will be uncertain at best.
Just as most tasks tend to expand to use all the time available, salespeople tend to book most of their deals at the end of whatever period is used. With quarterly payment cycles, most of the business tends to book in the final week or two of the quarter, which is not ideal for cash flow. Using shorter monthly periods may increase business overhead. Still, the potential to level out the flow of booked deals (and associated cash flow) from salespeople working harder for that immediate benefit will likely be a worthwhile tradeoff. I pushed for this change while running a business unit, and we began seeing positive results within the first two months.
What about motivating Services teams? What I did with my company was to provide quarterly bonuses based on overall company profitability and each individual’s contribution to our success that quarter. Most of our projects used task-oriented billing, where we billed 50% up-front and 50% at the time of the final deliverables. You needed to both start and complete a task within a quarter to maximize your personal financial contribution, so there was plenty of incentive to deliver and quickly move to the next task. As long as quality remains high, this is a good thing.
We also factored in salary costs (i.e., if you make more than you should, you’re bringing more value to the company), the cost of rework, and non-financial items that benefited the company. For example, writing a white paper, giving a presentation, helping others, or even providing formal documentation on lessons learned added business value and would be rewarded. Everyone was motivated to deliver quality work products on time, help each other, and do things that promoted the company’s growth. My company prospered, and my team made good money to make that happen. Another win-win scenario.
This approach worked very well for me and was continually validated over several years. It also fostered innovation because the team was always looking for ways to increase their value and earn more money. Many tools, processes, and procedures emerged from what would otherwise be routine engagements. Those tools and procedures increased efficiency, consistency, and quality. They also made it easier to onboard new employees and incorporate an outsourced team for larger projects.
Mistakes with comp plans can be costly – due to excessive payouts and/or because they are not generating the expected results. Backtesting is one form of validation as you build a plan. Short-term incentive programs are another. Remember, without some risk, there is usually little reward, so accept that some risk must be taken to find the point where optimal behavior is fostered, and then adjust the plan accordingly.
It can be challenging and time-consuming to identify the right things to measure, the right number of things (measuring too many or too few will likely fall short of goals), and the incentives that motivate people to do what you want and need. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Hopefully this post provided ideas on how to make that happen.
Where Ideas, Experiences, and Lessons Learned Intersect 