I’m often asked by friends and mentees whether they should make a career change, or be “afraid” due to an organizational change or another major corporate event. Often frustrating to them, my answer is almost always “It depends.”
The truth is the answer to that question is most often not a binary yes or no.
First, changes at the top rarely have a significant impact on the day to day work and job satisfaction of individual employees. Being in the c-suite, we sometimes overinflated our impact or the impact of org org chart shuffling. Yes, we drive strategic direction and significant changes have a knock-on impact throughout the company. But the reality is the top layer in most large companies at most directly touch 5-10% of employees. Ask the best CEO to handwrite the names of employees he or she talked to personally last quarter.
According to an in-depth time study by Harvard Business School professors Michael Porter and Nitin Nohria, CEOs spend, on average, just 6% of their time with frontline teams, only 3% with customers, and 72% in meetings. I would imagine this to be close to the same for many others in the c-suite. I personally began to miss team interaction the higher up in the organization I climbed.
The sad, or not so sad, reality is that hundreds of decisions are made everyday at the top that have little or nothing to do with you as an individual employee amongst thousands of other employees. And some decisions were influenced by executives outside of your chain of command.
Second, unless it is specifically relating to an individual’s power, position, AND perspective (3 Ps), simply moving a function from one individual to another does not necessarily change organizational dynamics overall. Power influences how much air cover your team will have. Position influences budget and ability to spend money on things important to your function. But perspective of the new leader ultimately determines how much of their power and/or position they are willing to leverage on behalf of the new function they inherited. Some CIOs found this out the hard way when their dream of reporting directly to the CEO was fulfilled. They found the move hurt rather than helped their tech strategy objectives when the CEO had little time or interest to focus on technology and their voice was heard less.
Finally, and most importantly, one should never make decisions based solely on any one factor. Be it an org change or a budget cut, an acquisition or spinoff, the impact on your career depends on your specific circumstances across a spectrum of experiences and events. What have you already learned and how much more can you learn within the new environment? Is your job bringing you joy or satisfaction for the most part and, if so, how likely is it that the change would impact that?
The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual. – Vince Lombardi
Having a successful and rewarding career is a key part of your life journey. But it is only a part. Remember that finding life balance requires at least a modicum of joy at work. But it’s also enjoying time with family and friends, taking care of one’s health, and aiming to truly figure out what you as an individual want out of life. Don’t fall for the trap of overreacting to changes that might make for a great press release but ultimately not impact your individual journey.
The answer to all of life’s questions is to some extent, “it depends”, because ultimately it depends on YOU.
I’ve recently had several conversations about change and resistance to change. Someone I greatly respect continued to say that certain people were resistant to change. I disagreed vehemently, saying they were BEGGING for change. So why were things not moving fast given these new demands? Turns out they really were “resistant to change” but it wasn’t what we typically think of when we hear that term. Or at least not for the entire group.
There are countless reasons why people fail to accept change and this impacts all parts of life. These barriers, or blocks, can show up in the workplace or in one’s personal life. They can harm your psyche and your career. The key is to identify why an individual is opposed to change since the refusal to change often has negative effects.
Change is all around us. Since change is inevitable, how do we accept it?
1. Conquer fear by embracing the unknown.
Dinner with my nieces at a sushi restaurant years ago had me thinking about one aspect of change reticence. Shortly after we sat down at our table and ordered, the sushi arrived. I travel a lot and eat food from all over the world. I’m also a foodie and even blogged a lot about favorite restaurants when I lived in Chicago and London. I will try almost anything once. So clearly I am comfortable with sushi. For my nieces, they were not as exposed by that age to a huge variety of foods. They were faced with what they consider unusual cuisine.
This leads to my first answer as to why people resist change: fear. The food made both of my nieces feel uncertain and afraid. It required them to try something different. Something potentially uncomfortable. What if it had a negative impact when they tried it?
My youngest niece started examining the food and even smelled it. She poked at the sushi as if she were a world-famous chef or food critic examining a meal. After a few moments, her older sister spoke up.
“If Uncle Adam likes this, I will try it,” she declared. She did. And while I don’t suspect she became a regular after that, she kind of liked it.
She conquered her fear by focusing on the fact that someone she trusted was not afraid. All that I had to do was make a show of enjoying my food. These kids were afraid of something unknown showing up in their world. With positive reinforcement and example, I was able to convince them (at least the older one) that sushi was nothing to fear.
When reluctance to change is rooted in fear, then the solution is to show people the opposite. The unknown is not always positive, but many times it can be beneficial to them! It doesn’t always have to be a negative, repulsive experience.
2. Eradicate ignorance by encouraging education.
People who are resistant to change are often unfamiliar with the type of material to which they are being exposed. It can differ from their educational background. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is perhaps the best example of an area where this element of change reticence has impact. In some areas in the United States, the people who decide the curriculum might not touch on what they consider sensitive topics based upon their personal beliefs. When their students become adults and have been raised in such an environment, then they have no experience with diversity.
If all you’ve seen your entire life are green crayons, seeing a purple crayon at age 55 might just freak you out.
Whether they were sheltered by their parents, their community, or an educational system, it leaves them intellectually ignorant when it comes to diversity and inclusion issues. Before I get the negative reactions, let me add that this isn’t to say that this is the case for everyone from that background or that diverse communities don’t have their own prejudices and biases! Rather, this means that issues like discomfort with race or sexuality become an issue for many people for reasons other than hate. For some, they might see the outside world and retreat to a system that is more comfortable for them and doesn’t challenge their beliefs. Many others embrace differences and are enamored with them.
Regardless of where we originate, all humans have genes that wire them with intellectual curiosity. We can leverage this more. If we can get people excited about learning, then this element of change resistance diminishing. When confronted with something new and shown support for learning about it, the majority of people will be more open to changing their thinking patterns.
3. Inspire change by defeating apathy.
Some people really just don’t care. And that makes change even harder.
You know these people. They are often sarcastic, lethargic, and comfortable with the benefits they receive without changing. Even if they don’t include others in the workplace, or embrace new solutions or ideas, they tend to think it’s fine since they have been successful just the way they are. They get change. They even understand why it may be relevant to others, unlike those that are afraid of change or ignorant of the opportunity.
Many apathetic people use their sentiment as a crutch because at one point they did care or wanted changes. Their life experiences taught them change wouldn’t happen or that they had to fight with sticks because stronger weapons were not available. They develop shells and don’t engage. When faced with this “I don’t have time for change” crowd, it’s easy to become frustrated (and sarcastic in return). But alas, there is hope. This groups simply needs to have an opportunity to incorporate change into their lives and see results. You’ve got to make the dream seem real, the benefits tangible.
I used to joke that every important email needed a subject “You will make more money if you do this”. That was until all the hackers and spammers started using it!
4. Be aware of argumentative entertainment.
Lastly, there are people who aren’t like the apathetic types who resist change due to their own defense mechanisms or historic lethargy. In social settings, there are often those who simply enjoy criticizing. These people enjoy feeling powerful and find that shutting other people down makes them feel better about themselves. When introducing change or new ideas to a workplace or any setting, beware of those that detract from the meetings for attention or to otherwise derail it.
When it comes to the detractors who ruin positive and important messages about change, the key here is to not let them change you. They might be dedicated to rejecting ideas as some form of entertainment in what they consider a droll office meeting or other situation. When faced with that type of attitude, it’s important to nurture the people who are listening.
The odd benefit of dealing with a heckler or extremely disruptive person is that they will often lend support to your cause. If you’re giving a seminar on change and someone is completely obnoxious, people who would otherwise be on the fence about the content might change their minds. They are seeing someone willing to stand up for their beliefs and attempt to live these values, despite the criticism.
Change matters and it will never stop happening. Blanketing everyone that has an issue with change as “resistant” is oversimplified. Instead focus on what is the cause of the reticence. Understanding that might help you find a means to get them on board after all. There are no easy answers but change leaders must be able to preach to the choir and reach the apostates.
As always, I would love to hear what you think.
Be well. Lead on.
Adam
Be good to people.
Adam L. Stanley
Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
Business has always been plagued by jargon and buzzwords. They’re everywhere.
Utility compute morphed into the “cloud” today. We ask people if they have “bandwidth” as if they’re a network device. Consultants want us to “think outside the box” so that we “push the envelope” to create “cutting-edge” solutions. I mean, who wants to hire someone when they can “leverage” an existing employee instead? Why not open a “window of opportunity” to capture “low-hanging fruit”? Before we spend too much time trying to “boil the ocean”, we “take it offline” and “synthesize”. Then there’s all those texting abbreviations – SMH!
The problem is that buzzwords can be more than annoying – they can be real impediments to progress. Such words and phrases can narrow our thinking, forcing people to cram corporate strategies into neat little universally defined boxes. So it’s time to blow a few up that have been clinging on for too long! We all have a hit list of words we’d like to kill, and I thought I’d share mine in this series, so you’ll hopefully share yours. Hint: They all start with a “d”.
Part 1: DIGITAL: The Mother of All D Words
For me, the first Big D word on my hit list is digital. Gasp! How can that be so? Off the top, it brings to mind another phrase that went the way of the dodo bird. When I was an undergrad, my primary major was finance. My secondary major was international business. Now, I won’t say exactly when I graduated, but suffice it to say, it was when the idea of doing business outside of America was still hatching.
Back then, before the world was found to be “flat” and modern planes, trains, and automobiles had made far-flung places accessible, international business was taking off and subsequently became a popular major at colleges. We were taught how to think about the complexities of doing business when your clients were located in different countries with different customs, languages, and economies.
Today, given the tangled web of global supply chains, every business is international in scope. The phrase is no longer needed because it’s just understood. The world is flat and it’s hard to find a scalable business that doesn’t transcend borders.
There’s a parallel with the word digital. Almost 20 years ago, people first started talking about digital transformation and moving to digital business platforms. Back then, it seemed like science fiction and we madly studied the topic and posited on what it meant and how it would radically change business models.
In 1999, I wrote a paper with fellow Wharton students about the battle between online and brick-and-mortar grocery stores. We laid out a fairly robust case that it was unlikely that people would buy their groceries online anytime soon and, if they did, it would only be in limited quantities. We argued it was more likely that grocery stores and online stores would begin to merge. Customers would make choices based on relationships with a particular brand or company, and companies would evolve to provide services where customers needed them.
Now, I’d love to say that we were predicting that startups like Amazon would become behemoths and one day buy traditional grocery stores like Whole Foods. Alas, that wasn’t so, but we did hit on the idea that every business would eventually become digital. Today, saying a business should go digital is a lot like saying the Pope should be Catholic. As you can’t build a house without some form of concrete, you can’t build a business without being digital. Duh. Every business is digital.
The ability to truly differentiate your business in an era where brand and company loyalty are waning as consumer and business choice are increasing is an even greater imperative. As differentiation becomes ever more critical, the ability to leverage and manage information as an asset is a non-negotiable requirement. Don’t talk about digital. Just do it.
What does that mean?
Be you. Whether a sole proprietor, small business, or major corporation, your journey must be yours. Not everyone can be Uber or Airbnb. Your strategy for handling business in the era where all things are digital will be different.
Don’t forget your customers. If you realize that digital business is a redundant term and that really it’s just business, you must also remember that customers come first. Learn from them. Predict changes in their behaviors based on other industries, but never forget why they buy your product or service.
Realize that today’s trend will be different than yesterday’s. Yeah, duh. But it’s amazing how many people jump from fad to fad playing an interminable game of whack-a-mole. Don’t hire a data scientist or invest millions in Hadoop because everyone else is doing so.
Talent still matters. I have blogged on this multiple times. There still isn’t any special sauce behind hiring for business today, whether you call it digital business or just Business. You need intellectual curiosity, agility, and tenacity. The fundamentals of talent still apply.
Saying digital business is like saying international business- it’s silly; it’s redundant. Don’t be silly. Be smart.
Digital is the first word on by Big-D Hit List. Stay tuned for the next word I think should be purged.
Be well. Lead On. Adam
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
Being an early adopter has its perils, but sitting on the sidelines thinking no major action is needed can be the kiss of death for any company navigating disruptive waters
In my last blog, I reviewed the magnitude of change swamping commercial real estate and how our firm has established four goals to keep our teams focused on delivering the most practical systems and tools for our buck, while also embracing the best cutting-edge innovations.
We touched on the speed of change (in case you haven’t noticed) and I raised the specter of quantum computing, which will make even millennials feel like dinosaurs in the digital age.
Search quantum computing and you’ll find out what I’m talking about. For the purpose of this blog, think of it as computers teaching each other to analyze problems more like humans. Quantum computing is to today’s computing what the IPhone 10 is to a pocket watch from 1920. All of the big players in tech, including IBM, Google and Microsoft, are in the global race to build the world’s first practical quantum computer, and the prestigious journal Science said Google expected to have a 50-qubit quantum computer by the end of this year.
Once quantum computing is made widely available, it will spark the next industrial-super revolution, which will be many times bigger than that caused by the birth of personal-computing in 1984, or the rise of the searchable internet in 1995.
Meanwhile, while we wait for this seismic shift to occur, the digital revolution is quickly gaining momentum. Take data for a moment (bear with me; it really is interesting): In 2010, you might have produced a gigabyte (1,000 megabytes) of data in a week or two – or even a month. That’s the equivalent to about 200 songs, 10 episodes of the Game of Thrones, or roughly 34,000 emails.
Today, an enterprise user produces 60 gigabytes per hour! So, before lunch, the average employee produces about 400 gigabytes. Multiply that by the hundreds of millions of people creating data every day and you can see how 90% of the world’s data was created in the last two years.
With such mind-blowing speed of change in mind, think of companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon. They only got started in the mid-90s, not long ago considering their ginormous size and power. And, just as these new giants rose up, other iconic brands were taken out by disruptive change, including:
– Kodak, which had more digital photography patents than any other company;
– US Steel Mills, with the highest quality and tremendous customer loyalty;
– Many national hotel brands that had consultants hooked on their points and rewards, and;
– Blockbuster, which is perhaps everyone’s favorite story of a giant that was killed by a fledgling startup.
As we move deeper in to the information age, the forces of change will continue to broadside unlikely companies. No matter what period in modern history we’re talking about, what’s always separated winners from losers is what leaders do at critical inflection points that demand change.
Will we be Blockbuster or Netflix? That’s top-of-mind question for leadership at my current company, which refuses to fall into any complacency traps (not in our DNA!). Should we be worried? Not if we focus on value, which to our firm means: a strong bias for action and results; value created by insights not transactions; and giving our people the right platform to drive growth. That, and always keeping an eye out for the next big thing!
Be well. Lead On. Adam
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
This blog was coauthored with Leif Maiorini, a tremendous leader within my team at Cushman & Wakefield. These are our views and not necessarily those of the company.
Your “citizens” do not need another arms race
You’re probably familiar with terms like “arms race” and “mutually assured destruction.” This refers to the Cold War period (1947 – 1991) between the U.S. and then-Soviet Union, who stockpiled nuclear arsenals to keep each other at bay. Now, it is true that none were ever deployed. Thus, we have two countries with lots of dead/decaying warheads, which is a costly mess to unwind economically and ecologically.
The net result is a great deal of value destruction (trillions of dollars). Driven by differences in social, economic and political points of view, their mutual desire to suppress the expansion of the other’s ideology is likely one of the greatest wastes of economic, political and social capital ever enacted.
The result was driven by fear, fear that the other would have a strategic advantage or a capability that would be used to tip the scale, changing the balance of power and resulting in global expansion of their opponent’s interests. The panic that one party would have an advantage over the other led to a considerable amount of irrational investment that would only be apparent in hindsight, long after the capital was spent, the leaders gone, and the stakeholder value destroyed.
You’ll hear the same term — “arms race” — applied to corporate America a lot right now. Nuclear war is far more serious than a concept like acqui-hiring, yes. But the arms race in corporate America, mostly seen through M&A, has the same root: irrational fear that the competition is getting ahead and need to take bold action to ensure that they have a defensive position. Far too often, ego-driven, growth-seeking leaders allow their personality get in the way of strong decision-making and experience (which presumably got them to that perch).
Many corporations are in their own version of a “cold war.” Afraid that their competitors might have an advantage, they rush into risky investments that usually result in a destruction of value for their stakeholders. Few companies get the synergy promised in their business case when they acquire another entity. More often than not, the acquiring company overpays and the culture clash results in a type of organ rejection that jettisons the best minds from the combined entity leaving the shareholders with a fraction of the anticipated value.
When you make decisions from a place of fear, power and ego, it can cloud your decision-making massively. The decisions that result are sub-optimal at best and essentially destroy companies at worst.
A good example here would be Hewlett Packard. They bought a company called Autonomy for $11.7 billion in 2011; because of accounting issues around that deal, they had to take a $8.8 billion write-down, which knocked out all their profits for an entire quarter. Some people have called HP and Compaq the worst merger in tech history. Meg Whitman has engineered an incredible turnaround there, but the company today is a much smaller version of what it was at peak.
Arms races rarely serve the best interests of “citizens”, in the case of corporations, our clients and customers. Thus, we believe we must seek first to understand unmet client demand and then invest in technologies and solutions that address those needs. We will not make technology investments from a position of fear, ego, or irrational impulse.
We continue to find partnering the most advantageous strategy for this rapidly changing space. With hundreds of start-ups entering the commercial real estate ecosystem each year, the ability to pivot and exploit the best solution is greater if you are able to partner. Few solutions offer true, differentiated capabilities and our clients dictate that we leverage and support a wide variety of solutions, often solutions that are seen as competing. This is difficult to do without an open, partnership approach.
We are a global real estate services company that leverages technology to increase the value we deliver to our citizenry. Acquiring a technology company does not make us a technology company, nor does it justify trading at multiples of revenue rather than EBITDA; thus it is possible that value is destroyed by most technology acquisitions. We look to strategic partnerships with aggregators like DMGI and Accruent as ways to support continued growth and investment in CRETech.
We continue to partner with innovative accelerators like MetaPropNYC, 1871 in Chicago, and Moderne Ventures to identify new players that could help us meet the needs of our clients as we work toward a POC as a Service model across our markets.
Our focus is on making our service lines more productive, creating a level of interconnectedness between them and our client, and providing the analytics that enable more effective decision making. Given that for most companies, real estate is their top (or second) largest expense, helping our customers get the greatest value from this investment is our top priority. .
So here’s the soapbox – Stop the arms race. The arms race described above — the Cold War version — certainly didn’t benefit any citizens. Companies have “citizens” too, those being clients and customers. So before you go out and make an irrational decision, ask a few questions:
What are the unmet client demands?
How should this demand be addressed? What are the solutions that create the greatest value?
Has this problem been solved? Is there something in the market (or a derivative market) that could help solve them?
What is the option that results in the greatest benefit to all parties and the greatest value for our customers?
What is the value of an acquisition, investment, or partnership? Who benefits? Are there competing solutions and will our strategy result in a transient, strategic, or little/no advantage for our stakeholders?
Would we be positioned to buy this market player? Is that the right decision?
What would that look like financially and culturally?
Are we buying this tech just to buy it, or is this serving a need and researched?
We believe that answering these questions, playing out the scenarios, and looking at the outcome with a high level of scrutiny will result in less acquisition activity, greater partnerships, and higher overall value for all involved.
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
With such mind-blowing speed of change in mind, think of companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon. They only got started in the mid-90s, not long ago considering their ginormous size and power. And, just as these new giants rose up, other iconic brands were taken out by disruptive change, including:
