Do we need the title “Business Partner” to be a partner?
Let me start by giving credit to a peer of mine who reminded me of this blog post long since drafted and patiently waiting for its day to be made public. It began with a conversation around teaming and leadership. What resonated with me was the tactical use of the word partner in titles.
It’s seen all over the corporate world in titles such as IT business partner and HR business partner. Pretty much everyone that isn’t directly aligned to the business unit as a leader is called a business partner. Yet it is perhaps in the name of the function and the expectations that it drives where we find most problems arise. In short, we don’t need partners. We need players.
Sports
My sports analogies tend to be pretty bad since I’m not exactly a super athlete nor do I spend much time following sports. That said, I do recognize that on a sports team there are various roles and responsibilities. Many parts that work together as a cohesive unit.
There are the leaders on the sideline that strategized from afar. There are the leaders on the field that drive play by play execution of those strategies. And there are players that both follow the lead and make ad hoc critical decisions when there is a need to deviate from the strategy.
Each player and every leader is important. They’re all part of an ecosystem and the most effective teams master putting each of those players together in the most efficient and optimized manner such as to drive towards a shared goal.
Avengers
Anyone who knows me knows that I’m a massive Marvel fan and I’ve watched every movie in the franchise multiple times. So forgive me for this one.
The Avengers came together over the years as a result of a series of problems. Each member of The Avengers was highly equipped to solve some of those problems. There were several episodes, or comic books, where there was one superhero and one specific problem to solve but The Avengers came to light when the problem became too big for any one of the superheroes to solve alone.
Once The Avengers came together, it was no longer relevant what their history was as much as it was relevant how they worked together to solve the problem. They all brought something to the table, and for the most part they all recognized Captain America and Tony Stark as leaders of the Avengers. But each of these people brought their unique skills to the table AND contributed to strategic planning for the issue they were trying to solve.
Corporate World
The corporate environment is not at all like either of these two scenarios. Hierarchies in structures have created in so many ways inefficient teaming. Individual behaviors are driven so much by the title on their business card, their level within the organization, or the particular background they bring to their role.
As a result, we have the proliferation of titles such as business partner. Have you ever thought about the significance of that title? In what world must you add the word partner to someone’s title to encourage the right behavior? And are you trying to encourage the business with which the individual is partnering or are you trying to encourage the individual?
If the title was something that did not include the word partner, would you only let the person in the room for a few minutes instead of the entire meeting? Is there an alternative to a partner mentality that is so negative that you use the word partner to excise that mentality? And if I do not include the word partner in my title, do you assume I am not partner-like? Perhaps I’m being a bit dramatic but I think you get the point.
Whether we are partners, players, or leaders there are more effective ways to nurture a successful team beyond the addition of an arbitrary word to a title. Consider the strength, skills, and perspective of individuals. How can we coax out the value of those unique attributes for the benefit of the team?
Tips for moving from being an invited “partner” to a needed player
1. When you have that thought or opinion, say it.
How often have you been in a meeting but left without sharing a thought that came to mind which you felt was brilliant, or at least relevant? Perhaps it was a meeting with peers or superiors in which a topic came up that was outside of your expertise. Maybe it felt safer to stay in your lane and not speak up.
So often, fear of embarrassment or perhaps the fact that the topic was outside of our expertise keeps us from sharing. Even more likely, the culture of the company was such that no one even acknowledged our presence during such a topic. Too often we are known solely for our role as stated on our business cards.
Playing it safe and not sharing our thoughts doesn’t benefit anyone. As the saying goes, no guts no glory, so throw caution to the wind and say what’s on your mind. You’ll never know what can come of your idea unless you send it out into the world.
2. Ask a question in every meeting
In every meeting, regardless of the topic, ask a question. Someone I respect is very good at doing this effectively. To be perfectly honest at first I found it a bit strange, but I can’t argue with the fact that it works.
Initially it reminded me of some of my classmates in business school that simply wanted to be heard. Frankly some of those classmates barely listened to the conversation at all. They certainly didn’t acknowledge what had been said by fellow classmates.
This colleague however makes it clear that they listen to the conversation. They absorb the content and they craft the question in a way that both demonstrates their understanding of the topic and also pushes the conversation forward. This is a skill that I think every leader needs to learn.
You are in the room because you bring a unique point of view. You can make us better. Have you asked the right questions with a fresh perspective?
3) DON’T leave your hat or jacket at the door
I get kind of annoyed when I hear the term “leave your jacket at the door”. It is usually used when people want you to come into the room as part of a team to solve a problem. It’s not that the intention isn’t just but perhaps short sighted.
The fact is, I actually want my leaders to bring their expertise into the room. I want them to come in and represent their particular towers or functions. I just don’t want that expertise or the views of their particular towers to prevent them from thinking about the problem more comprehensively. I don’t want them so focused on their tower that they can’t see the problem from a bigger point of view.
When they enter the room, I want their number one team to be the team in the room and not the team that they represent. I want them to bring that hat or jacket in the room with them, but set it on the back of their chair. Your hat or jacket is NOT you. Your title is not you. You matter because you bring a different perspective individually AND you represent your team.
We are not defined by the titles on our business cards. The words printed there do not empower us nor should they stifle our ability to contribute to the team. Regardless of the labels attached to us, each of us brings ideas, questions, experiences, and a unique perspective which allows us to contribute to a conversation beyond the scope of our title.
Remember, being a better leader and creating a more consciously inclusive environment is good for your people and good for the company.
The Big-D hit list: Disrupting the word disruption
Purging overused buzzwords is a big step we can take to open our minds to the realities and challenges of succeeding in business today.
The problem with business jargon, which most of us use ad nauseam, is that it’s not merely annoying, it carries the real potential to block progress. Those nifty little words and phrases may make us sound ingenious within our respective tribes (and own minds), but they can also narrow our thinking to the point where we start cramming our strategies and plans into the same universally-defined small boxes. So, just when we believe we’re thinking “outside of the box,” we’re not!
OK, in the name of creative thinking and staying focused on what matters, like our clients and growing our businesses, the time has come to retire some long-hacked-to-death words. In my first blog, I summarily purged the word “digital.” This time, it’s my pleasure to join a growing mob that can’t wait to see “disruption” in the rear-view mirror. Please, by all means, agree, disagree and/or share your own hit-list words.
“Disruptive innovation,” a term coined by Harvard Business School’s Clayton Christensen in 1997, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.
Don’t we love talking about disruption! Very rarely does a day go by when the word doesn’t pop up, and it’s applied to everything, from cool new apps to getting a new dog. There are copious books on the subject that everyone, including me, reference a lot. Christensen and his theories on how disruptive innovation are upending large incumbent companies is a favorite.
Here’s the rub: Disruption makes sense when you’re talking about revolutionary change that takes place over months and years. Christensen defined the difference between sustaining innovation and disruptive innovation. The sustaining side is what established market leaders do by listening to their customers and creating products that satisfy their “predicted” needs in new and exciting ways.
Disruptive innovators create markets that initially appear too small to attract the interest of established firms, which are more focused on delivering steady returns and growth to their shareholders. It isn’t easy for larger firms to justify the risk and investment needed to launch a new concept, which ironically gives smaller firms and start-ups a head start at cornering a market.
Major disruption occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s when new players suddenly burst on the scene with products and services that revolutionized traditional industries. BlackBerry disrupted the mobile telephony market, iPhone disrupted Blackberry and Kodak in digital photography, and so on. The big companies didn’t see it coming.
You could say that Moore’s Law, introduced way back in 1965, gave us the first idea on what disruption would look like. Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel, nailed the speed of change we were about to experience when he observed that it would take a year (later revised to 18 months) for costs to be cut in half and productivity to double, and that this rate of growth would continue for decades. Welcome to the early days of the information age! Today, such changes can double in months instead of years. And, as I discussed in a prior blog, just wait until quantum computing hits the scene. It will be like comparing texting to snail mail. Point being, we’ve been in this “disruptive” bubble since the ‘60s!
So, let’s get over “disruption.” Let’s see it as a constant and rise to the challenge of operating in a world where change will only escalate. It’s business-as-usual in the high-tech fast lane and we need a firm grip. Our jobs as business leaders is to know our customers across the spectrum better than ever before; scan emerging markets; watch for new competition; react, not over-react; proactively search for new opportunities; and invest wisely in systems and strategies that are agile enough to withstand the change bombardment. For that, it always comes down to having the best and brightest people on your team.
Disruption is the second word on by Big D Hit List, following Digital. For my next blog, I’ll dig into another longer word that’s been choking conversation particularly in the business world for too long: Disintermediation.
Be well. Lead on.
Adam
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
Let me start out this post by saying it’s NOT about politics. In fact, let me repeat that one more time right up top: it’s not about politics. It’s about how a figure in the 2016 political landscape — nope, not Trump — can teach you something about business and culture within organizations.
I was watching a few nights of the Democratic National Convention last week and when I saw Bernie Sanders speaking to the crowd, I sent a one-word text to a good friend of mine: Brilliant.
Why did I think it was brilliant?
Bernie Sanders took his followers through three major stages of any process:
Celebration
Application
Dedication
This is insanely hard to do. In fact, just the other week — after seeing Bernie at the convention — I was having lunch with a colleague and we were talking about merger integration. As I think most people know or realize, most mergers fail. (83% is a conventional number thrown around.) And yet, we see them every week — in this summer alone, we’ve seen Microsoft grab LinkedIn (for a lot) and Verizon grab Yahoo (for not nearly as much). That part makes sense: mergers are one of the fastest paths to growth.
Here’s what is harder: in every merger or acquisition, there’s a company and set of leaders who “won” or will “win” in terms of their ideas, processes, and culture coming through stronger. This happens in politics, obviously: Clinton beat Sanders, and Trump beat Cruz and Rubio and others. It’s the nature of competition that certain people, and ideas, win out over others.
Every company and leader that gets into these positions, though, has a Bernie Moment. It’s where you can choose to move from application to dedication on behalf of another set of leaders, or another company.
You can’t miss the Bernie Moment. When you miss it, your merger/acquisition is headed for that 83% failure rate stat above.
So what’s the method for arriving at the Bernie Moment? I’d say it breaks down into five parts:
Celebrate the previous victories
If you watched Bernie’s speech at the DNC, he spent the first couple of minutes on himself. He talked about all the votes he received. He mentioned that donations averaged $27 (the crowd loved that part). He mentioned all the voters who had never participated before. He defined it as a movement, essentially.
This was a crucial step because you had 5-10 minutes of yelling and hollering in a happy way. The crowd was chanting “Bernie!” almost the entire time. This needed to happen first, because if he had gone right into supporting Hillary, his supporters would have booed the hell out of that. A TV moment like that isn’t good for Hillary, and it isn’t good for what Bernie accomplished in this campaign cycle.
For a leader, then, it needs to begin with celebrating the wins that came before. That gets everyone aligned around the greatness of the cause and the work.
Be honest about change
After the crowd was fired up, Bernie admitted defeat. He lost. It wasn’t useful to sugarcoat it. He came right out and said it:
I understand that many people here in this convention hall and around the country are disappointed about the final results of the nominating process. I think it’s fair to say that no one is more disappointed than I am.
If you’re familiar with the standard stages of grief, it looks something like this:
As a leader or when building out a culture/movement, though, it doesn’t move in this exact way. Bernie almost began on the far right side — affirmation, hope — then moved down to depression. It’s almost the reverse of the standard grief curve, which usually happens when a loved one dies or something else terrible happens.
By now, though, Bernie had fired up the crowd then reset them in reality. Now it was time for the transition point.
Transition
Here’s what he did here:
Let me be as clear as I can be. This election is not about and has never been about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or any of the other candidates who sought the presidency. This election is not about political gossip, it’s not about polls, it’s not about campaign strategy, it is not about all the things that the media spends so much time discussing.
This election is about and must be about the needs of the American people and the kind of future we create for our children and our grandchildren.
In short, this is what he was saying: the mission is the mission, and the mission is important. It’s not about the people. It’s about the purpose.
This has TONS of implications in mergers/acquisitions, because usually what happens in those contexts is that one culture is totally absorbed by the other — so the “losing” culture is chucked out the window, essentially. If you have one culture based on financial metrics only and one culture based on collaboration/sharing, and the latter culture loses, well, those people who liked collaboration feel they now have to adapt or get a new job ASAP.
Leaders often try to skirt this issue by appealing to mission, purpose, and core values. That’s the “transition” moment in mergers. That’s when you move from “We were two companies” to “Now we’re one company, and let’s be honest, stuff will be different around here.” But you can make people focus less on what’s going to be different by appealing to a purpose. That’s what Bernie did and what a good leader can do.
Moving On
In standard grief cycles, this is “acceptance.” Bernie transitioned to supporting Clinton and encouraging others to support her as well. Days earlier, when he even remotely suggested this, he was booed. But here, he had to move on. Now, it’s easier to move on when you can …
Find a common enemy
In an article from The New Yorker about how the gun industry markets itself (and please remember, again, that this post is not meant to be political), there was a reference to the acknowledged technique of generating revenue by emphasizing the boundaries of a community. “We all have the need to belong,” he wrote in a presentation entitled “How to Turn One of Mankind’s Deepest Needs Into Cold, Hard Cash.” In a section called “How Do You Create Belief & Belonging?” he explained, “You can’t have a yin without a yang. Must have an enemy.”
Bernie made Trump, and his implied lack of focus on mission/purpose, the common enemy. In this way, he wasn’t necessarily “siding” with Hillary so much as he was working alongside her against a common foe.
This is really important in business. You wouldn’t do the merger or acquisition unless there was some value-add on both sides, right? So the value-add was there, the financials and legal repercussions were vetted, and it proceeded. Now you’re together. It’s going to be hard but you’re together against a common enemy — your competition, or the idea you’re trying to take down. When Google buys a company, for example, hopefully it’s fitting into the matrix of “organizing the world’s information.” The acquired company has common enemies with Google now — other tech rivals, but also processes that are making it hard for people to acquire and organize information.
That’s the five-step path to your Bernie Moment, then:
Celebrate
Accept fate and be honest
Transition
Move on
Find a common enemy
It worked for Bernie — he’s continuing his movement — and it can work for your business, whether you’re Satya Nadella and Jeff Weiner or two guys merging local ice cream stores. Just think about the process and try not to miss your Bernie moment!
“If you read the papers, you’ll see that people are hired for what they know, and they’re fired for who they are. Hiring for knowledge is a mistake management makes all the time.” — Unattributed, World 50 Member
So, I heard it again the other day. What, you ask? I heard the famous “he just wasn’t a good fit” for the team. The problem is, I get it. But that word has always driven me crazy because it was often used to deny people of different racial, religious, and gender backgrounds from roles. “Not a good fit” meant not part of the same country club or socioeconomic circles. But, as much as I hate the word, “fit” does matter. But in my case, I choose to define fit as having similar character and values. Character and values transcend race, gender, religion, etc. — and they are very important in hiring decisions. The fact is, outcomes are greater when you hire employees with values in sync with the values you hold as a manager, and more importantly, with the general values of the company. You are adding valuable people and you want them to be happy, engaged, and aligned.
Why this matters
Lots of really smart and really successful people talk about this yet some of the lowly C-suite mortals like me often neglect it.
Sir Richard Branson, billionaire mogul of Virgin Group: “If you can find people who are fun, friendly, caring and love helping others you are on to a winner. …. Personality is the key.” Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and the increasingly ubiquitous Tesla car: “[My biggest mistake is] weighing too much on someone’s talent and not someone’s personality…it matters whether someone has a good heart.”
These men are incredibly professionally and financially successful, as are their organizations. They recognize that values tie to performance. In fact, character and values oftentimes tie back to a new hire’s attitude. Mark Murphy, the author of Hiring for Attitude, conducted a study based on 20,000 new hires. He found that roughly half failed within the first 18 months on the job, and 89% of those failures came from problems related to attitude.
Character and values set the culture of an organization. Character and values drive the attitude of an employee.
See how this is crucially important?
Of course, hiring for character and values is tough, and it’s understandable why so many people do not intentionally do so. The way most companies set up headcount protocols means that when a role is open, a crucial metric becomes “time to hire.” When you combine the regular daily responsibilities of HR and hiring managers, you can have rushed processes based on video screens, 30-minute interviews with mostly generic questions (“What’s your biggest weakness?”). Furthermore, applicant tracking systems weed out potentially good candidates based on keywords and character does not always come through in print or catch phrases. Hiring for character and values takes time, and time is our most precious asset.
So, is it achievable?
How can you hire for Character and Values
Here are some quick tips:
Use LinkedIn recommendations.
I look closely to see what people have said about a key recruit. How does he or she lead, make decisions, and team with others? Is there a high level of energy and passion in her effort? I look for works like “trust”, “integrity”, and “fun.” If they do not have any, ask for references from a broad group and ensure you get detailed feedback on character and values. References are hard because they’re very curated — obviously if a past manager didn’t like an employee, he/she probably won’t post that on LinkedIn because of professionalism. (And if he/she does, the employee has the option not to show it publicly.) But looking at crucial words is valuable.
It’s ok to have a social component of the interview process.
Doesn’t have to be drinks, but if you are going to be in the trenches with someone, you must spend time with them outside of the office. Over coffee. A breakfast. Drinks. Plan, within HR rules of course, an interaction outside of the office where the plan in not to talk specifically about the company for which you are hiring. Talk about what matters to the potential employee. What makes him or her happy?
Ask probing questions about the “how”.
Resumes and bios often highlight the “what” and I find it surprising when interviewers spend half or more of an interview asking for a restatement of what is clearly written. I want to know how you delivered something as much as I want to know what you deliver. John Wooden is one of the most successful coaches of all-time in any sport — nine NCAA titles, 88 straight wins at one point — and a major psychological research study done around his processes showed that he overwhelmingly focused on the “how” as opposed to the “what.” Again, model success — it can work in hiring.
Always ask what they disliked.
It’s tough, and yes you will get canned answers sometimes. The famous “I just hated that guy that did not work to my level of expectations. It is hard for me to deal with people who have less of a work ethic”. BS. We all read that same book. I REALLY want to know who or what you didn’t like. If a lot of what you DO NOT like exists in my company, we would both be miserable if you join me. You would not be happy and therefore your performance would be subpar and thus I would not be happy. Work is a two-way street: you get money in exchange for performance, but the performance is within a context of co-workers, clarity of information, job description, skill set, and more. If you know you’re not a good fit for certain types of offices or organizations, be honest about that. You hurt everyone — from yourself to future co-workers — when you try to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Have them meet their peers.
For some reason, early in my career I came to expect to meet several peers during the interview process. They were interviewing me as much as I was interviewing them. As I advanced, I noted that these kind of interactions became more sporadic. If you are hiring, make sure to add a couple of peers to the interview schedule. If you are contemplating joining a company, demand to speak with your peers. Quick story about this from a collaborator of mine: after business school, he interviewed for a job based in Texas. He met a few (2-3) of the Texas-based team. Within a week or two of starting the gig, though, he realized he pretty much only worked with the Seattle-based team of the same company. They had barely met him and had no context for him, and he was sitting 1,200 miles away from them. That creates reduced productivity and bad teams, which shouldn’t be a goal for anyone. So meeting peers is important, but make sure they’re meeting the right peers.
Obtain senior buy-in
This comes up in any business article, of course — you have to make sure there’s senior buy-in on any major decisions in an organization. Hiring is maybe the most major decision; it’s half your money going out, and your people are your greatest strategic advantage. Hiring can sometimes be ignored by the top executives — they view it as the domain of HR or specific hiring managers, and because it’s harder to measure, they don’t focus on it as much. Hiring needs to be a focus of your executives. They need to be regularly telling people around the org what culture, values, and character traits they want to see. It needs to be commonplace for a C-suite leader to tell a middle manager what values should be in the company. Otherwise it becomes the domain of specific silos, and finance has a certain type of employee vs. marketing with another vs. Ops with another. Then when those teams need to collaborate, it can be a mess. You’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. And you can avoid it by aligning around character and values.
I’ve spoken about the perfect team traits and the importance of thinking of every employee as allies on a tour of duty. If you are going to make a significant hiring decision, bringing on another comrade on the tour, why not spend the extra time to make it the right decision. Hire for “fit” for character and values. You will be happier. they will be happier. And, the company will benefit for the extra time you took.
Let’s face it, for most people work is a means to an end. You work so that you can eat, keep your brain active, connect with other people, learn, or reach some apex in your ambitious plan to take over the world…. Whatever the reason, for very few people work is about finding intense joy and personal satisfaction every hour of every day. That is simply not reality. But, like any other required part of our lives, we can choose how we want to handle work. We can come in every day, do what is required, talk to nobody, and leave. Or we can bring a smile into the office, do our jobs and encourage others to do theirs, and try to bring fun into what can be otherwise mundane or stressful.
I worked with someone for years that was by far the very best at a particular function. This individual was 1)Both talented and hard working, and 2)showed a true pride in the products he created…..good so far, right? If you’ve read my two preceding “Top Traits” blogs, you’d say he is a perfect employee. But wait! This person was so depressing, so negative, and so, well, just not fun! There were days where despite the value I could get out of a conversation, I could simply not do it. It would drag me down into a depression instead of inspiring me to be better. Like the Dementor guards of the Azkaban prison in the Harry Potter movies, this kind of person can simply suck the soul out of a team, an office, or a company. Which brings me to my third top trait ….
Trait # 3: Fun to Work With
If you’ve done interviews, you’ve perhaps been asked to assess “fit” with the culture of your particular company. When I started my career, I thought those interviews were inappropriate. Fit translated into Golf Club network, family connections, and politics. But as I advanced, I realised more and more that fit can make or break a leader. A leader whose style is perfect at one place will bomb elsewhere. So, to be clear, being fun isn’t always going to make you successful. You still must deliver. This is my personal opinion and what I personally look for. I want employees that are fun to work with. Period.
What I like
There are some people that simply bring joy to the office. They bring smiles, jokes, the occasional cupcake or brownie …. They bring personality and just enough of themselves to break down barriers and create a culture of openness that makes work more rewarding.
I’m not talking about class clown, chronic joking, or distraction. I’m talking about balancing the “what” with the “how”. Say you have a complex team challenge that must get done in 24 hours. You have to work pretty hard to get it done and, especially as a leader, you can be a humourless tyrant and slave driver. Or you can be an inspirational and personable motivator. I’m choosing to be the latter.
I recently spent time with some of our colleagues managing technology in Europe. During the evening, we had a team dinner and drinks and I had the opportunity to get to know the Poland, Spain and Italy leaders. We laughed, joked, and had a really great time but occasionally someone would bring up a problem facing our firm and I would ask for a recommended solution. What amazed me is how smart the team was at coming up with ideas but at the same time they were having fun and enjoying being together. That’s the kind of team I want!
In short:
Don’t be a dud.
What I need to do as a manager to enable
Smile.
When I’m having a funk of a day, I either stay home or avoid meetings. Smiles are contagious, I truly believe that. So if I can’t bring a genuine smile to the office, I try desperately to avoid contact with people! We can’t expect everyone to be happy all the time, but as a manager I need to both set an example and reward those that also bring fun to the office.
Last week, I woke to yet another rainy London day and, frankly, I was disgusted. I was so sick of rainy weather that I knew I would be in a bad mood. I went back into my kitchen, made a huge breakfast with a large strong cup of java and read a low intelligence required novel. Then, I went to the office. I was later than intended but by the time I got to the office I was refreshed and able to deal with another grey day.
Solicit feedback from team.
Talk to your teams on a regular basis to determine what makes them happy. What motivates them and when they smile, ask them why they are happy. Find something that brings them joy and do that.
Support and understand that some people just have bad days.
Recognise that some people will have bad days. Support them. Make sure they feel comfortable detaching if necessary. Make them leave if you must. If they need help, try to get it for them. And reward those that bring joy to the office and perform with a positive attitude.
In short:
Don’t be a dud.
Let me know what you think. What do you view as top employee traits? How do you build the best teams around different types of team members? Are you working hard on something worth doing?
Let me start out this post by saying it’s NOT about politics. In fact, let me repeat that one more time right up top: it’s not about politics. It’s about how a figure in the 2016 political landscape — nope, not Trump — can teach you something about business and culture within organizations.
