If you’re ready to grow your own business in a long-term, sustainable industry, it’s a particularly good time to learn about this Healthcare Franchise Investment Opportunity. Join me for a short online overview:
Remember – strong franchise brands are looking for business people who can lead a team and execute a business plan. Direct industry experience is not necessary (and often not desired).
Leslie Kuban
Franchise Consultant | Franchise Owner | Best Selling Author | SpeakerLeslie Kuban is a nationally recognized franchise industry expert, CFE (Certified Franchise Executive), and owner of FranNet in Atlanta; a locally owned and operated franchise consulting firm. Leslie and her team offer more than 60 years of combined industry expertise and her personal experience as a franchise owner provides a unique perspective to help her clients assess their real opportunities, risks, and timing to make sound decisions. Leslie and her team have helped over 400 individuals and families achieve their dreams of business ownership.
I was being recruited in 1994 by a big-name record label out of Nashville to serve as bandleader for an up-and-coming country music guy. The deal terms proposed to me were pretty good, but I did not feel good about the deal in my gut. I passed on the work for one reason: they had not heard me play a note. They knew of my education and experience credentials but did not know too much about me as a person.
I recommended last week a short film for you to watch. I hope you watched it. We were going to talk about how your viewing experience of this short film went for you during our time together this week. The part about the whole person we covered last week is key to both this week and all things going forward. We will discuss the concept of inclusion as we meet now to go through how you felt during your viewing experience of the short film.
INCLUSION
I, for lack of a better way to say it, was in the band of this up-and-coming country music guy in 1994 without accepting the offer. My customer was going to be out in a sea of lights. They would be nameless and faceless to me. I would be paid bi-weekly if two things occurred. First, the new material we were going to record into an album sold where the record company was happy with album sales. Second, concert tickets supporting music material the guy had going on before me and supporting the pending record album sold. I would be replaced in an instant if both of these conditions were not happening consistently. I was okay with this criteria combination, as it is the nature of the work. Not everyone sees it this way. The album Centerfield is the third solo studio album by John Fogerty. Fogerty played all the instruments on this album himself. I guess John did not want to have the collective risk of some people problems anymore at that point in his career.
The identified people problem suffering your ability to have strategic planning work accomplished was compacted into a few minutes during the Most film. The older main character realized the problem, considered it, and acted on it. He had to act, one way or the other. He acted under duress imposed on him from the circumstances, not any person or persons. All options presented to him hurt him. It hurt me to watch the film. It is probable resolving your people problem is going to cause you some hurt, one way or the other.
The definition of inclusion is simple: included. Included, in the form of being…in. The degree of in is another topic. The fairness of being in or out is another topic. All I am saying to you now is a person who is included in your organization is in your organization, period.
A recent discussion with David Daniels had Dave sharing more of his wisdom with me. “Inclusion as part of the D & I equation revolves around people feeling like their voice is heard while leadership supports this concept because they believe it produces better solutions, thus better results, both financially and with higher commitment levels of employees i.e. the ability to attract the best of the best in their industry.” I agreed with Dave. I see people providing their input as many rivers coming together in a pool to feed a tree. The tree, in this example, is the work the people need to accomplish. It is tough to remain distinct when mixed, but this condition is similar to a cake. Add the ingredients, mix them, bake them, and there are no more ingredients. There is cake. Altering ingredient amounts and types means a different tasting cake. A structural approach to strategic planning for the who part and when they get involved part helps to accomplish a preferred result.
HOW MUCH IN?
Remember I wrote a few paragraphs back my customer would be out in a sea of lights? Well, those people were to be a part of my organization. I needed them to be happy by spending their money for me to keep my band leader job. I was not sure I could deliver the collective satisfaction the folks in that sea of light were after, as the big-name record company out of Nashville had not heard me play a note. There had to be a stronger connection to know if we would make it to success by a probability calculation.
Your strategy work is not getting accomplished as you prefer. We pushed off the option it is not a time or skills problem causing the work delay. It would be best if you now changed who you include doing your strategy work. This change does not mean they need to leave your organization; only stop doing this work. If you realize they do not have the skills to do the work, then you have a separate set of staffing actions to accomplish. Additionally, you have to take a hard look at if they should have done the work based on the time allotted to them to do the work combined with the workspace resources where they perform their work. Again, as I said a few weeks back, you have to call it for what it is.
Thelonious Monk made a strong point without saying it. One must first be in the band before one can lead the band. Franklin Roosevelt made the same point: “You are either with us or against us.” Today, we are faced with how to best recover from the 2020 global pandemic. It is clear the definition of work for many roles has changed forever. So, who is in your band, so to speak, for your organization going forward?
Richard Florida and Adam Ozimek addressed some of the challenges with remote work going forward. “Before the pandemic, a number of communities developed strategic initiatives to attract newcomers—some aimed at high-tech workers but others open to anyone who commits to moving. Many include the lure of cash incentives, akin to the moving expenses paid by companies to new hires.” This criterion is no longer valid for many industries and companies. “To lure and support the growing ranks of remote workers, communities will need to build out more complete ecosystems for them to live, work and gather.” Meaning, the ability to do remote work effectively as a whole person has changed the workforce forever by establishing suburban life a primary regardless of distance from the office to home locations.
Nataly Kelly wrote about the complexities of having inclusiveness in a global organization. “While it might not be immediately obvious why an employee in Tokyo should learn about the history of slavery in the United States, if we want our global teams to work together, they need to understand one another’s realities.” Going deeper, the concept of data is still not managed well at the executive level. Data, in the form of understanding the facts for how we as humanity got to where we stand today.
Thomas Davenport and Randy Bean found in their survey executives are excited about implementing artificial intelligence in their organizations, but they do not have reliable data leadership skills and leaders based on “nascent and evolving” leadership roles. “The executives are usually pretty bullish about technology but quite bearish regarding whether their organizations are becoming more data-driven.” The survey shows the role of data officer at the executive level is not agreed on by a high majority of executives.
The pattern playing out is clear. The leadership’s proverbial music is not making the audience (the organization) happy enough for them to want to keep listening. The organization cannot understand how data, being facts, interrelates because the leadership does not have a strong enough grasp on the data lifecycle concept themselves. Bad data, either incorrect or insufficient, feeds into both inaccurate and ineffective data analysis. This combination destroys efforts such as the planning of strategy.
REFRAIN TO CHORUS
My work as a bandleader was to play acoustic guitar, sing harmony, arrange much of the music after songwriters derived a melody, set the performance tempo, and develop musicianship in the band members. It is not easy to hide during a live performance of music. Strumming the guitar only goes so far, as we say in the guitar business. One must play the guitar, in my case, with the other musicians to have a band. Add in the singing aspect, and the sound is either is or is not pleasant to the paying customer. Your role now as a leader is to use a refrain to help get your people either to or back to productivity.
You could swap guitars, swap guitar amplifiers, move the musicians to a different location on the stage, or any number of changes to help improve the sound of a band. Say you needed to pick out a chair for you to sit down in for whatever reason. You could pick from many different seating options to meet your need. If you need strategic planning work accomplished, you will need to keep making changes to find the mix that results in productive work output. You are looking for, as an analogy, both applause and continued funding from your audience for your strategic planning work. There is a time constraint to almost everything. The older main character in the Most film was under an explicit time constraint. Staying focused on the scope of the strategy you are trying to plan is a viable means to knowing if you are either spending too much time getting the work accomplished or if you are indeed not getting work accomplished.
I used the words of James Taylor to help me walk out most of my musical journey. “I believe musicians have a duty, a responsibility to reach out, to share your love or pain with others.” The older main character in the Most film made the same choice as Taylor: sharing love or pain with others. Both this older main character and Taylor are leaders in their respective lots of life. Leading is not easy, but I never said it was easy.
Take time this week and consider the topic of who you need and want to include in your organization. Think about the associated time constraints, the money constraints, and the pains of having people come and go either moving around or out of your organization. The world population reached 7.8 billion people as of March 2020. There is no shortage of people for anything. Clearly, you cannot pick everyone in the world because you do not have enough money to pay everyone in the world. Besides, you would get so big along the way you would be identified as violating antitrust. Selecting irrevocable choices…this is the harsh reality of accomplishing strategic planning. Perhaps playing some music you like to hear during your consideration time will help you go through this thinking easier.
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Dr. Stephen H. Dawson, DSL
Executive Strategy Consultant
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
You’ll never find a better sparring partner than adversity.” Golda Meir
Stephen Dawson, DSL
I was beaten on as a kid more than once. I was small in stature and not as smart as most kids. The worst of the beatings was the verbal abuse. It took me longer to put on substantial muscles when serving in the infantry, but I caught up and surpassed many in my unit. Later, it took me longer to get through my undergraduate degree from not having a solid academic starting point. I look back and remember those who helped me advance amid abuse. It was, always, someone who was of different skin color than I, or who came from another birthplace, or who had more strength of servant character than I do today. Adversity became livable for me. I owe each of them a debt I will never be able to repay.
I heard these words from them many times: “You need to prepare.” Often, I would get a call later from many of them asking me how things went as an outcome of my preparation efforts. Many of these wonderful people were at or below the economic poverty level, but they were wealthy beyond measure in building relationships.
I shared recently we only see if we look, and we only look by choice. I shared last week learning can continue on any topic. I see people, not combinations of demographics or psychographics. There is no…them…in my book. I made the point in past columns that a people problem is not a skills problem. People need to be nameless and faceless to be related to effectively. I hold this position for one simple reason: I was nameless and faceless for years, but people related to me in many healthy ways. No one can thrive without a name, a place, and a purpose. Resolving the people problem effectively consists of more than you looking for your desired destination using your planned strategy. It all comes together by way of the people you need to fulfill the strategy you need to be planned. So, let’s talk about some of the options you have to address your people problem.
If people are a part of your organization, then you must care for them as a whole person. If this is something you cannot do, then you would do well to either separate them from your organization or stop leading your organization. There is no one-size-fits-all for this decision point. Take the actions to communicate the separation milestone, deliver any severance, handle public relations, handle any litigation, say goodbye, and move on. This recommendation goes for both the person you are separating from your organization and yourself whenever you stop leading.
Let me be clear. I endorse, without hesitation, putting a person into a role by their skills in combination with the espoused morality of their worldview found in their ethics. There is little value in doing anything to meet the demands of anyone who has no interest in you. Yes, there are times when codified mandates exist contrary to your position. However, you are still faced with a whole person to either have or not have as a part of your organization. Let’s dig deeper into the reality of having the whole person in your organization.
MICROPROCESSORS
There is somewhat of a new obstacle in current events claiming there is a recent shortage of microprocessors. Imagine trying to run your organization without all of the resources that use microprocessors. Ford had to cut production of their F-150 recently due to semiconductor chip shortages. The F-150 is noted for sales achievements. Bindiya Vakil and Tom Linton described this situation from the global perspective. Let’s use this microprocessor topic to help address the people change problem you have in getting your strategy planned.
David Daniels, a noted diversity and inclusion (D & I) professional I work with during management consulting efforts, told me his initial approach to the people part of our collective work. “There are so many different definitions out there when it comes to D & I, and I always work with each individual organization to frame it around their vision, mission, and values.” He shared with me some of his wisdom. “The analogy that has always stuck with me to succinctly describe D & I is this: Diversity = you were invited to the dance; Inclusion means you were asked to dance all night.” His analogy makes quite a bit of sense to me. I encourage you to read David’s Reflections article to understand more of his insight.
If fame is a skill, then you are staffing a role based on a fleeting skill. How long will such fame last? This question must be answered to assign meaningful present value and calculate the probable future value of the work delivered from this skill. Fame has a bit of energy to it, but it is similar to eating sugar. Sugar is fleeting energy, not lasting energy. If you need quick energy added to your organization, then fame is a way to get it. However, fame pushes those who are not famous aside and disables some of their ability to deliver productive work output to you. Now, let’s use the communicating-preparing-pursue plan I experienced as a child to see how it can help you with your identified people problem.
COMMUNICATING
Building the understanding of what another person has going on in their head to know how they can contribute best to your organization is a constant action. These conditions change from what Chesterton shared, so they must be measured frequently. It is the intersection of demographics and psychographics for each person combined with knowing where they fit into your organization based on how the other folks in your organization are doing at the time. It is going from nameless and faceless to a name with an identity to form a purpose, to determine their place in your organization. This purpose and place combination is not static. It is likely to change, knowing people have good and bad times, as do organizations comprised of the people you serve as their leader. The needs and wants combination for everyone will change accordingly. Communicating with your people is the only way to know these answers first hand.
PREPARING
It is unlikely you will be able to resolve the identified people problem with a single decision criterion. I make this statement as people are much more complicated than either a machine or a microprocessor, though both have features and benefits. Preparing has both an exact checklist of actions for the work at hand combined with actions specific to each person. We measure by outcomes, so the preparation matching the outcomes is only varied by the preparation’s execution actions. I am talking much more than Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I am talking about measuring outcomes without bias.
PURSUE
The follow-through of planning and doing is then pursuing understanding the outcome of the doing. The phone calls I would receive from loved ones looking out for my best interests had a combination of encouragement, recommendations, and a bit of tough love correction. You as the leader must, I repeat…must…use a similar formula in fixing your people problem. Why must you do this? Because you have a whole person in your organization for now. You are trying to decide if you need to move them to other work assignments in your organization or say goodbye to them as their leader.
WIND UP
Okay, getting back to the microprocessor illustration I spoke of earlier in this writing. Think about small devices as you consider how you select people to be a part of your organization. Think about the diversities combined in the technologies to make a device you use as you think about how you value the diversity of people to do the work you need and want to be accomplished. Then, take some time to watch the following short film.
I saw the film Most about a dozen years ago. It gripped me with the reality I was not viewing people then as I do today. I was limiting my view of people to those who I knew personally. Your selection of people to be a part of your organization most likely will mean you do not know every one of them as well as you do your close friends. Take the time this next week and watch this short film without interruption. It is 32-minutes long. I recommend you prepare your schedule to watch it uninterrupted. I hope it will help you measure your willingness today to see people as a whole, especially the part about them being nameless and faceless, to decide what you need to change about your people seeing willingness going forward. We will talk about how your viewing experience of this short film went for you during our time together next week. I anticipate you will be both shocked and irritated at the realities you experience from this film. I was when I watched it. I remember to this day how I felt at the end of the film: ashamed to find my unknown willingness not to see a whole person, but enabled to change for the better.
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Dr. Stephen H. Dawson, DSL
Executive Strategy Consultant
Dr. Stephen H Dawson
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
Dr. Dawson has served in the technology, banking, and hospitality industries. He is a noted strategic planning visionary. His pursuit of music has been matched with his efforts to lead by service to followers. He holds the clear understanding a leader without followers is a person taking a long walk alone.
Stephen has lived his life in the eastern United States, visiting most of the United States and several countries. He is a graduate of the Regent University School of Business & Leadership. Contact him at service@shdawson.com.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
Inflation is not dead. It is not gone. It has not been tamed. I know it seems like it, especially after the past few decades which generated in many an “inflation-complacency” that feels justified. After all, following the 2008 Financial Panic, many predicted Quantitative Easing would cause hyper-inflation.
When the Fed boosted the Monetary Base by more than $3 trillion dollars during Quantitative Easing 1, 2 & 3, and the federal budget moved to a huge deficit, gold and silver commercials proliferated. So did predictions of a collapsing dollar. But inflation never came. Since the end of the 2008-09 financial panic, the Consumer Price Index has increased by an average of just 1.7% per year, falling short of the Fed’s 2% target.
During the 2020 COVID-induced round of Fed money printing, instead of using QE to put reserves in the banking system, the Fed financed government programs to fund loans to businesses and direct payments to individuals. As a result, the money supply as measured by M2 has grown 26.3% in the past year, the fastest annual growth I can find in US history, and roughly double the pace of M2 growth the US experienced during the 1970s.
According to those who believe in Modern Monetary Theory – (which isn’t all that modern, btw), and is just vaguely a theory – the US can increase real output enough to absorb it. In other words, they say that while inflation is “too much money chasing too few goods” – they expect the output of goods to increase enough to keep inflation low.
I find this impossible to believe. In fact, I think many are living in denial. Inflation is already on the rise. In the past six months, the Consumer Price Index is up 3.6% at an annual rate and if it rises a modest 0.2% per month between January and May, it will be up 3.4% over 12 months. Part of this is because COVID shutdowns led to weak inflation in early 2020, but I expect inflation to move higher in 2021.
But, in addition to M2 growth, incomes and savings have increased, while production has not. Demand is exceeding supply. All personal income combined – wages & salaries, employee benefits, small business income, rents, interest, dividends, and transfer payments – was up 6.3% in 2020 versus 2019. Total after-tax income was up 7.2% in 2020, the most for any year since 2000.
Combined, Americans saved about $2.9 trillion in 2020, more than doubling the previous record high of $1.2 trillion in 2018. As of the third quarter of 2020, the amount Americans held in checking accounts, savings accounts, time deposits, and money market funds was up $2.8 trillion from the year prior. Add another $1.9 trillion in federal government stimulus spending (borrowing from the future, to spend today) and the US is awash in cash.
Unfortunately, in spite of a strong recovery in output, industrial production is 3.3% below pre-COVID levels, while real GDP is 2.5% below. In other words, demand is OK, it is supply that’s still hurting – a perfect recipe for inflation.
All this money printing threatens to eventually create a sugar high in equities. We aren’t there yet, but markets are floating on a sea of new money. Inflation hedges (real estate, commodities, materials companies) will do well. Traditional fixed income (long-term bonds) is at risk. The return of inflation is a very real threat to the long-term health of the US economy, and something you will hear me talking about more in the months ahead..
Integrated Financial Group
Kevin Garrett – Integrated Financial Group
My firm specializes in working with people that experience what we call “Sudden Income.” Typically the income came from one of these events:
1) Accessing and Managing Retirement Assets
2) A Performance Contract (Typically a Sports or Entertainment Contract)
3) Divorce Settlement
4) Inheritance or Insurance Payout
5) Sale of a Business or Stock Options
6) A Personal Injury Settlement
I believe the unique nature of these events requires specialized professional experience, empathy, and communication to deal with both the financial changes and the life changes that inevitably come with them.
My clients value my ability to simplify complex strategies into an actionable plan. They also appreciate that I am open, non-judging, and easy to talk to about their dreams and fears. Each client defines financial success differently and my goal is to guide them from where they are now to where they want to be. As my client’s advisor, my goal is to provide them with a lifetime income stream, improving returns, protecting their funds, and managing taxes.
Firm Specialties:
Retirement Planning For Business Owners & Executives
Woman’s Unique Financial Planning Needs
Professional Athletes
Investment/Asset Allocation Advice
Estate Planning
Risk Management
Strategic Planning
Kevin was listed in The Wall Street Journal as “One of the Financial Advisors In The Southeast That You Need To Know”
Kevin was listed in Forbes Magazine’s Annual Financial Edition as a Five Star Financial Advisor
Kevin has been awarded the Five Star Professional Wealth Manager in Atlanta Magazine in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,2018, and 2019.
Award based on 10 objective criteria associated with providing quality services to clients such as credentials, experience, and assets under management among other factors. Wealth managers do not pay a fee to be considered or placed on the final list of Five Star Wealth Managers.
KEVIN GARRETT, AWMA, CFS
Integrated Financial Group
200 Ashford Center North, Ste. 400 | Atlanta, GA 30338
Phone | 770.353.6311
Email | kgarrett@intfingroup.com
Website | kevingarrettifg.com
As a marketing researcher for over 30 years, I would like to think that I’ve learned a few things. So, I am going to dedicate my blogs to areas where I’ve had the benefit of experience, to share some of that experience with you.
For the first blog in the series, I thought I would write about a basic conundrum of the marketing research profession: what constitutes “good” marketing research.
First, what is the purpose of Marketing Research? The purpose can be summed up as gathering data and information from the marketplace, from consumers and/or customers about a problem or an issue facing an organization that provides insights to help make better decisions.
To accomplish this, you only need to do 3 things:
Ask the “Right” Questions…
Of the “Right” People…
At the “Right” Time.
Simple, right?
Well, perhaps simple, but not easy.
As my colleagues understand, meeting each of these three criteria can be a difficult challenge. Especially, in today’s high-tech, rapidly moving, “need-an-answer-now” environment, everyone is looking for shortcuts. Many businesspeople believe marketing research is so easy that just about anyone can do it. They believe that all you need is to:
Ask Questions…
Of People…
Whenever.
The keyword missing in the above shortcut scenario is “RIGHT”; meaning correct, relevant, valid, and effective.
Additionally, all three components must be present and work together, to result in effective research. You cannot ask the “Right” questions of the “Wrong” people or ask the “Wrong” questions of the “Right” people and expect the get actionable insights to make better decisions. And if the timing isn’t “Right”, if you are not able to provide the insights when they are needed, then your research is worthless.
Let’s take a simple hypothetical case. Assume that your company provides a consumer service, and the company is experiencing a high degree of churn, i.e., customers dropping your service for the competition. The “Right” questions would include measures such as overall satisfaction, satisfaction with key attributes, likelihood to renew a subscription, reasons for switching, etc. However, if you ask these questions only of your current customers, you will only tell half of the story. The “Right” people are your current customers AND the people who have recently become ex-customers. Questioning only your current customers will provide a picture of those who are loyal and will not identify all the issues leading to churn. Recently lost customers provide the contrasting information that will generate the actionable insights needed to address the problem.
Conversely, if you select a valid sample of current and recently churned customers, but ask irrelevant or biased questions, your results will lead to invalid conclusions. For example, if all competitors require a service contract, asking questions about whether a service contract is a problem, is at least a waste of time and could lead to misinterpretations. Also, if you ask biased questions, such as “How excellent was your experience with our customer service team”, your results can be positively skewed and could conceal real problems.
Finally, the timing must be “Right”. With every day that goes by, your company’s churn problem continues. If it takes three months to complete the research, it may be too late. Though you don’t want to take shortcuts in your research, you must plan and execute as quickly and as efficiently as possible to provide the insights necessary to resolve their problems in a timely manner.
I’ll address each of these three components of “good” research in greater detail in future blogs, with examples and case studies. For now, keep in mind that there are no shortcuts to “good” research; Ask the “Right” Questions, of the “Right” People, at the “Right” Time.
Carl Fusco
Carl Fusco is a Marketing Research and Consulting Executive skilled at directing the application of research techniques and insights to solve problems and support data-based business decisions. Over his 35-year career, Carl has built a reputation for quality, integrity, and creativity by establishing trust, credibility, and acceptance with clients and associates. He has built a proven track record of success in organizational management and leadership, research design and implementation, and analytic rigor and impact.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
“A capacity, and taste, for reading gives access to whatever has already been discovered by others.” Abraham Lincoln
Dr. Stephen H Dawson
I do not know why the Steven Spielberg film skipped over the assassination event of Abraham Lincoln. I am not a huge fan of Daniel Day-Lewis’s work, nor do I have anything against him. I believe Day-Lewis portrayed Lincoln with excellence. Lincoln shared in this film he studied the work of Euclid in his Elements writings. I think, but I do not know, that both Spielberg and Day-Lewis were attempting to make the point that understanding their work required the audience to do some supporting reading on their own to grasp the magnitude of the story presented in the film. This postulate of mine brings me to the topic for our time together this week. Specifically, making good on my commitment to you to discuss how diversity, inclusion, and what Chesterton talked about with the human species will help you get out of the circumstances hindering your strategic planning work.
I shared last week about the need to look should one want to see. I looked over some of Euclid’s Elements recently, remembering how they helped structure my thoughts years ago when I first studied mathematics. Mathematics helped me learn how to read. I needed the means to get through spelling, grammar, and punctuation learning obstacles to accomplish writing assignments of the materials I read. I was able to approach the skill of outlining what I read more effectively, as I had a formula for how to accomplish the outlining. It led me to help me read more effectively. The simplicity of logic apart from rhetoric found in mathematics helped me understand better how to form my messages to convince readers my points were valid, doing so with either reduced or no conflict. I enjoy conversing, but I enjoy writing more than public speaking. Both have proven to me I need to plan what I communicate by being sure of what I have read in my life.
I also shared last week realizing strategy work is not progressing as desired means either your people do not have the time to do the work, or they do not have the skills to do the work. This condition, at its root, is an organizational design problem. No credible leader will ever find they are in this position. A successful leader knows their people, their abilities, their conditions, and operates their organization accordingly. Spielberg’s success in his film work tells me he is a successful leader in film work. I view Lincoln as a successful leader of a nation. I am convinced without reservation that reading is a critical success factor for staying out of the mess I identified as the cause of strategy work not progressing as desired.
WHAT READING?
Reading can occur in many different forms, such as letters, numbers, symbols, colors, or hand and arm signals. Effective reading involves not only considering a text in the original language but also translations of the text. Euclid’s Elements is the second most published book in history. Consider reading this text in another language to see how it reads to you. Consider also the value of a translation that is not literal but paraphrased.
Take the daily newspaper and look at any topic from different writers. The reporting on the same topic will often vary widely. Take some time and read how the Wall Street Journal article and the Financial Times article regarding the McKinsey leader’s recent dismissal differ. Think about bias and diversity as you read these articles. How did each writer look to help their reader understand what has happened with McKinsey’s performance as of late? Does either of these articles help you want to change your staffing choices? My point is you will see quickly how learning can continue on any topic and how miscommunications can occur from what seemed to be a clear and understood text.
HOW MUCH READING?
Kate Northrup wrote about the viability of planning when the future is unclear. She gets into the topic of strategy. She implied reading is required to accomplish her recommendations. I am of the position that reading should be perpetual. There is no shortage today of material to read. There is a distinct decline in the credibility, meaningfulness, and associated value in most of the material available to read today.
I did an Internet search for images of reading. All of the images I found involved only people looking at physical books. Looking at a computer screen is called viewing. So, there is a belief growing in our society that reading can only occur in books. I disagree with this claim. The definition I provided of reading did not include reading expressions on a person’s face. I can view an expression, but I do not know for certain there is a message attached to an expression. Hence, it is best to keep reading to letters, numbers, symbols, and colors that can be referenced later when you need to come back to them. I equate reading a book with viewing letters, numbers, symbols, and colors on a computer screen. The answer to how much reading you need to do is this: whenever you have enough proof to know you have the facts to do what you need to do.
I have shopped exclusively at Men’s Wearhouse for suits, shirts, and ties since 1999. They impress me with their overall experience. The people both in the stores and on their telephones who have helped me over the years sometimes have my skin color and gender; other times they do not. I care about getting the suits, shirts, and ties that I need and want more than I care about a particular skin color or gender helping me. Their industry has suffered from the cutback on social outings and workplace gatherings last year. They went into bankruptcy in 2020 and are emerging through restructuring. They have an idea to help increase their sales by doing measurements of a customer’s body dimensions by scanning, matching these measurements with inventory, and deciding how to serve their customers best. It is an impressive undertaking. Imagine how much reading they had to accomplish to come up with this system. Then, imagine how much they have invested in this system. They, as a company, are at the point of either growing much more or dying. I cannot imagine their debtors would have approved their restructuring plan to include this new system without sufficient credible belief the plan will return a suitable profit. The Men’s Wearhouse story is an example of how much reading is necessary to run your organization effectively.
AM I SURE?
I believe, based on the espoused morality of my worldview found in my ethics, there is never a valid reason to be either rude or disrespectful. Seattle Mariners chief executive Kevin Mather resigned recently due to disparaging remarks he made about player English skills. His career-ending event could also mean Mather is finished as a leader. I have two good friends, both in their thirties, who are illiterate. One is a carpenter, the other a welder. They struggle to have enough income. They are both happy, each with a small family. They both want to learn to read. You are looking to now restructure your organization with those who have the skills you need to do the work you need to accomplish. Do you want to have a literate person who you have to terminate or an illiterate person who does a great job for you? I am of the position you need literate members in your organization, and you do not need problems. How can you differentiate when a literate person will make an unpreferred choice such as Mather did, or that an illiterate person can make preferred choices?
I do not have the skills to operate heavy equipment. Do you want me to come near your house operating either a bulldozer or an excavator until I gain such skills? Do you want me to sit atop the running equipment and read the owner’s manual as I figure out how to use the heavy equipment near your house?
WIND UP
Your acting on your realization you need to alter your organization members who have neither the time nor the skill to do their assigned work is too late to accomplish this repair with discretion. You must take corrective action in public light to achieve the necessary changes. The terms diversity and inclusion, terms I have yet to define to you, are what you look to address to alter your organization effectively. The only way and I mean the o-n-l-y way, to go through this process effectively is first to understand the topic of evil. I also need to define the term evil to you from my understanding of it. Succeeding in making these people change is not about removing or adding more of skin color or gender. Do you want anyone who does evil as a part of your organization? Do you care about their skin color or gender if they have the skills you need to do the work you need to be accomplished? Do you have the means to measure the skills your people claim to possess? Are you, in the espoused morality of your worldview found in your ethics, able to prove you both need and want your people to have the skills they need to do the work you need to accomplish more than you desire for skin color or gender headcounts in your organization?
Next week, we will begin to tear apart the fabric comprising the terms diversity, inclusion, and evil as an exercise in research. This week, I encourage you to spend time contemplating how much you care about skin color and gender in comparison to relevant skills you need your people to have to do the work you need to be accomplished.
So, I ask you: where do you want to go? I hope your answer is to develop the plans necessary to accomplish the strategy you know you need to achieve to arrive at your desired destination. If this is the case, then let’s get to work. If not, then I wish you the best of everything.
I hope we will see each other here next week. Email me if you need to talk before then.
Dr. Stephen H. Dawson, DSL
Executive Strategy Consultant
Stephen Dawson, DSL
Stephen Dawson is an executive consultant of technology and business strategy, serving significant international organizations by providing leadership consulting, strategic planning, and executive communications. He has more than thirty years of service and consulting experience in delivering successful international business development and program management outcomes in the US and SE Asia. His weekly column, “Where Do You Want To Go?,” appears on Thursdays.
Dr. Dawson has served in the technology, banking, and hospitality industries. He is a noted strategic planning visionary. His pursuit of music has been matched with his efforts to lead by service to followers. He holds the clear understanding a leader without followers is a person taking a long walk alone.
Stephen has lived his life in the eastern United States, visiting most of the United States and several countries. He is a graduate of the Regent University School of Business & Leadership. Contact him at service@shdawson.com.
I hope you enjoyed our point of view and would like to receive regular posts directly to your email inbox. Toward this end, put your contact information on my mailing list.
Your feedback helps me continue to publish articles that you want to read. Your input is very important to me so; please leave a comment.
Businesses and consumers cannot be without their technology systems and devices working properly. If you are interested in having your own business in a high-demand industry then join me…
Wednesday, March 10th, at 12:00 pm EST, I’m hosting a 20-minute, online presentation about a compelling IT Services franchise opportunity – click here to save your spot.
Why is this IT Services franchise opportunity special?
The parent franchise company is one of the strongest organizations in franchising today. The marketing and lead generation department alone houses 30 professionals dedicated to driving brand recognition and customer growth.
No IT Background is necessary – franchise owners execute the marketing plan, focus on scale, and oversee the P&L – they do not work in the field.
Executive model – franchise owner oversees a small, professional staff.
You might be thinking… ”I don’t have an IT background, so how could I possibly own an IT services business?” This is often surprising…less than 25% of successful franchise owners have a background in the industry of their new business. Franchising is designed for new business owners to thrive in a new industry with less risk.
