---

---

Don't Get So Caught Up in What You're Doing That You Forget What You're Doing

2 April 2008

Listening to Tom Peters talk about public speaking, he mentioned 'backing into' things; that so often, we didn't head into something intentionally. It sparked an indirectly related thought: the thing we're doing is rarely the thing we're doing.

Almost always, what we're engaged in physically is not the outcome, it's the process. I was listening to Tom while I was walking. I don't walk every day in order to get somewhere, just to be walking. I walk to get fit and lose weight. I walk to force myself to get out of the house into the sunshine and fresh air. I walk because it gets me away from the endless communication of the phone and computer.

Measuring how far I've walked isn't precisely productive. Measuring how I feel, physically and emotionally; now that means something.

Stop and think about what you're doing, physically; the project you're on, the task you're doing. Now, stop thinking about it, and think about its intended outcome. Why are you doing it? What's the goal? Is what you're doing (physically) really moving you in the most efficient or effective manner toward what you're doing (outcome) ? Hopefully it is. But if you don't stop and think about it, it's easy to think you're walking because you need to walk, and not because you need to be healthy.

---

My Book 49 Commonsense Business Observations Reviewed

25 March 2008

(Otherwise known as "Mutual Admiration Society Continues")

While you're visiting Trevor's Simplicty blog you can now take a minute and read his thoughts on my first book. (Not included in Trevor's review is his comment to me offline that it makes a good read in the tub.)

---

New Column on Simplicity

20 March 2008

Trevor is at it again, writing a column for TrainingZone.co.uk, a large training organization in the UK. An excellent introduction to how Trevor thinks and his message of how simplicity is, well, simple.

I especially like the practical tips at the end of the article. I'm almost afraid to try them for fear I'll have something to learn . . .

---

Playing Good Boss, Bad Boss with Trevor Gay

10 January 2008

I 'met' Trevor at Tom Peters' website. When it reached the point that I knew a comment I was reading was posted by Trevor even before I saw the signature, I knew it was time to introduce myself and express my appreciation.

Looks like Trevor is getting some much-deserved appreciation from the New York Times.

The Times links to Trevor's post Good Boss, Bad Boss and quotes from it. Hopefully visitors will stay to read more; Trevor's experience shows in everything he writes—along with his ever-so-British sense of humor and obvious devotion to his wife; both qualities I can identify with.

Go catch up with Simplicity. Genuinely useful stuff for entrepreneurs of any ilk.

---

Regrouping

7 January 2008

While I invest some mind-power in writing (business plan, book, manifesto for ChangeThis.com) please feel free to investigate the Napoleonic link above, various videos featured below and with Napoleon, and my special risk-free offer.

Stay tuned for two more case studies and the results of all that writing.

---

Marketing in Thirds

14 November 2007

A link at Scott Andrew's site (see 'Walkingbirds') led to an article about Radiohead's new album and those who did (or did not) choose to pay for the digital version of the album.

First, the good stuff. This is an extremely underrated marketing concept:

            When choosing between a pricey option and (potentially)
            free digital album, most people are going to pick the
            cheaper of the two. What if there was a middle option,
            something far cheaper than the deluxe package but of more
            value than the digital album? Many consumers would opt for
            the second-cheapest option. More revenue for the band, more
            satisfaction for consumers.

It's easy to make the mistake of offering two choices, one absolutely tip-top, with a price to match, and one dirt cheap, that's, shall we say, lesser in quality? But when you're marketing a 'want', that's dead wrong.

Most people, when faced with a decision like that, have a 'default' setting; the easy choice. And, as you might guess, humans tend to be economical creatures.

Offer a third choice: better quality than the least expensive, less expensive than the tippy-top model. Now, people can reward themselves, showing their discerning taste, without being extravagant. Well, that's how they'll rationalize it; in the end, virtually all our decisions are made on emotion and rationalized afterwards, but that's another story.

It also works if only the middle choice is you; the others can be your competitors, Ms. Top O'TheLine and Mr. Economy Model.

But, farther down, this apparent misconception:

            Are people ready for the kind of lower quality recordings that
            tend to come from do-it-yourself projects?

Um, 'ready' for it? People are clamoring for cheap music, and as far as I've been able to tell in my 45 years of listening (I'm not counting the years when I couldn't speak yet) I've come to the conclusion that the average listener couldn't care less about quality recording, or, in fact, about quality performance. They care about snappy tunes that touch them emotionally, which they can hum later and sing along with after a few listens.

It's a classic mistake musicians make: garage bands playing clubs will invariably include long blazing guitar solos, at least one drum solo, some fancy bass work—hey, let's show off our musicianship.

Nobody cares.

Nobody but other musicians, and they're 1) a smaller demographic than 'everyone' and 2) usually in the lower ranges of your economic target (what's the difference between a guitar player and a medium pizza? The medium pizza can feed a family of four.)

So, if you're obsessing about quality on your recordings, unless you're recording exclusively for other musicians, you're wasting your time. No, I'm not saying you shouldn't care. Just applying some Voltaire something-or-other about good enough versus perfect.

Oh; and as a web designer, I was apalled to find non-linking text underlined twice. Underlined text is a hyperlink. Emphasize with bold, italics, color, size—but not a semblance of a broken link. Please.

---

De-Motivator

11 November 2007

I recently heard about one of the greatest de-motivational managerial actions I can imagine. A local business, planning ahead for a special sale, told their salespeople that every customer should be introduced to a manager.

They were also told that, for every customer who left without speaking to a manager, the salesperson would be fined $150.

Not surprisingly, half the sales force quit at the end of the meeting, leaving the company scrambling to prepare for a huge sale.

Tom Peters explains a discovery they made while researching In Search of Excellence: negative reinforcement, that is, punishing employees in order to change their behaviour, creates erratic results. Applying the examples from the book, in the case we're discussing it's entirely possible that salespeople, instead of working harder to get customers connected to managers, would instead find creative ways to either keep people away from the sale, or cover up when someone chose to leave instead of being held captive.

It absolutely defies the concept that responsibility and authority must be balanced. How can you hold an employee responsible for a customer's actions? What if the customer chooses not to speak to a manager? Do you use force? If you know that 20% of this week's pay is on the line with each customer who exercises free will in a way incompatible with company policy, how long will it be before salespeople have them hog-tied in a back room?

Fine; I'm exaggerating. But it's hard to avoid hyperbole when I ponder the enormity of wrongness with this whole idea.

---

Take Our Poll!

9 November 2007

---

Why Bad Employees Should Be Fired

8 November 2007

There's an interesting article from CareerBuilder.com posted at CNN.com. It's entitled Why bad employees don't get fired. We've all received poor service, or been stuck with a co-worker who makes your life miserable. The article offers ten reasons employers don't fire the perpetrators. I thought I'd address each of these for the practical entrepreneur:

1. The employee has a relationship with someone higher up
2. The boss relies on the employee
3. The employee brings more value to the company than he or she costs
4. The boss thinks it could be worse
5. The boss is afraid of the employee
6. The boss feels sorry for the employee
7. The boss doesn't want to go through the hiring process
8. The employee knows something
9. The employee has everybody fooled
10. He or she is not really a bad employee

They're all wrong, of course. Assuming that reasonable training and disciplinary measures have failed, if an employee would be fired if it weren't for these excuses, then it's time for them to go despite them. Here's why:

1. The employee has a relationship with someone higher up—Friendship (or more) isn't a valid reason to keep an employee who isn't performing. If anything, the relationship should allow for better communication, creating a better employee, not a candidate for firing.
2. The boss relies on the employee—Cross-train. Rethink your reliance. My father used to give engineers the indispensibility test: stick your finger in a glass of water. Your level of indispensibility can be measured by the hole left when you pull it out. You may think this employee makes your life easier, but in the long run, driving away customers and other employees is doing exactly the opposite.
3. The employee brings more value to the company than he or she costs—Not likely. This, again, is short-sighted. Unless you have a bona fide genius, it doesn't take many disgruntled ex-customers or employee lausuits to overbalance the 'value' a troublemaker seems to bring.
4. The boss thinks it could be worse—Only if the hiring process is faulty. If you have trouble hiring the right people, address that problem separately.
5. The boss is afraid of the employee—Get legal help. Now.
6. The boss feels sorry for the employee—You've already tried to help with training and discipline. The next stage of 'help' is tough love. Kick the bird out of the nest. If you really want to be charitable, let them stay home and mail their paycheck. But don't bring trouble into the office to 'help' someone.
7. The boss doesn't want to go through the hiring process—If you don't hire a replacement for the problem employee, you're going to be hiring replacements for their co-workers. Or looking for a job yourself. Avoiding an unpleasant task is unprofessional and counterproductive.
8. The employee knows something—(In the sense of carrying important corporate knowledge in their head.) This can be tough. In the long run, if they won't share what they know, you're better off taking the re-training hit and replacing them with a better employee. Besides, you have to deal with this every time they take a day off, and you'll be dealing with it in a big way when they find another job and don't give you notice. It's much better to manage a bad situation on your own schedule than to have one thrust upon you.
9. The employee has everybody fooled—Here's where measurable performance makes the difference. No matter how slick a persuader they are, if you have verifiable statistics showing that they're not producing, something's wrong. Find out what it is.
10. He or she is not really a bad employee—One complaint doesn't make a pattern. But a pattern makes a 'bad' employee. Assuming once more that they've received appropriate training and discipline, if complaints continue, this one just isn't true.

The excuses above are common. Common thinking leads to common behaviour, which leads an entrepreneur to common results.

You're better than that. Stand out from the crowd with your uncommon management style.

---

FREE 45–minute presentation

5 November 2007

The NCAE invites you to a presentation that will discuss some of the challenges facing small business, and thoughts on solutions, including an open discussion of YOUR challenges. The presentation will be held at:
Pavilion Realty, 537 G Street, Suite B in Lincoln on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.

Topic: An Introduction to Commonsense Entrepreneurship

• Mentality: It's Not About Money and There is No Reality; Only Perception
• Management: Joe versus Responsibility & Authority and Is there a Gap in your GAAP?
• Marketing: Talking to Friends is Better than Talking to Strangers and People Don't Buy What They Need; They Buy What They Want

Speaker: Joel D Canfield, The Commonsense Entrepreneur

Seating is limited; please RSVP by using the NCAE contact form or calling (916) 771-9297. Coffee and scones will be provided. Enter to win a FREE half-hour consultation with The Commonsense Entrepreneur (a $50 value which you must be present to win).

 

---

[1] Each chapter in 'The Commonsense Entrepreneur' will include suggested listening, locations, and libations to enhance your reading and learning experience. I thought it would be fun. Note: although the CDs will be custom made, I respect intellectual property; any music included will be legally purchased. I thought you'd want to know.