CEO Bloggers' Club

Team building

I remember the following definition of management:
1) make people dream
2) master the figures
3) be prepared to say thank you.

Let’s talk about dreams.

Over the last 15 years, I managed teams ranging in size from 3 to 50 people.
For me the ideal size is around 20 people.
I agree with Richard Branson when he suggested to create a new company every time you exceed 50 people.

Blogs and recruitment

Via BL Ochman, I see that this past Sunday's New York Times featured an article on how blogs are used in recruitment (annoyingly, a subscription is required to read the NYT's content). As well as job seekers using a company's blog(s) to get a feel for the corporate culture and whether or not it would be a good place to work, and writing their own blogs as "living résumés," employers are increasingly scouring blogs for leads on candidates. Heather Hamilton, senior marketing recruiter at Microsoft, says that she has found great candidates through blogging, and that she thinks blogs will change how companies recruit. That echoes what Thomas Nelson Publishers' COO Michael Hyatt told me recently:

I think it's a way to contribute back to our industry and recruit new talent to our company. I have had several people write to say, "Gee, I'd like to work for a company that is this forward-thinking."

But the recruitment and HR uses for blogs go much further than the NYT piece explores.

One-to-One Marketing a False Trail

Last night, during a meeting with a bunch of interactive marketing and blogging types, we were discussing the power of blogs, brands and crisis. During this conversation, I was struck by the fact that blogging is of the traditional marcom school of one-to-many, not from the newer fad of one-to-one marketing. So, what about one-to-one? Read on....

One-to-one marketing is a false trail for marketing. It is, in fact, built on a base of lies, and the consumer knows it. Therefore, it cannot work (explanation for this claim in a minute). Blogging, on the other hand, is one-to-many. It uses the blog as a lever, an amplifier, enabling one voice to reach many, yet in a personal manner. Done well, blogs create credibility, trust. One-to-one marketing is never personal, and it never creates trust.

Here's why one-to-one doesn't work (I have been influenced by others in this thinking, e.g., Cluetrain):

To compromise or not to compromise

Here's something that has been on my mind for a while: If you are an innovator in your field, or in a field you are pioneering, how much can you afford to compromise? And if you can afford to compromise even a little, does it necessarily follow that you should compromise at all?

To some degree, the members of this club are innovators - we are each trying to use a new form of communication to enhance our businesses. Some of us are trying to introduce entire industries to blogging and other technologies. And some of us are attempting to shift global business operations from an outdated, tired, inefficient and unsatisfying mode to something more effective, honest, real, exciting and more conducive to prosperity.

Sooner or later, we will all be asked to compromise on our principles - if we have not been asked already to do so. It can be tempting to give in to what may seem like insignificant requests ("I know you say it is impossible to put a dollar amount on the effectiveness of blogging, but we really need some numbers before we can be sure that blogging is worthwhile..."), or equally it can drive one absolutely bonkers to be asked to go along with business as usual for the sake of it ("Hey, that's just how it's done, so it's how you have to do it too...").

So where do you draw the line? What compromises have you been asked to make? Have you ever done so and lived to regret it - or not done so and wished later that you had? Better yet, have you ever refused to compromise and then had the satisfaction of later seeing the rest of your peers catch up to your innovation?

Restoring leadership to the leaders

Robert Paterson has a link to a review of a book called Hope is Not a Method written by Gordon Sullivan and Michael Harper. It is considered to be one of the most important books in military and business management.

The book is an illuminating account of what it actually takes to build a learning organization in practice. Contrary to most conventional thinking, which says results come from good plans of planners executed by trained and compliant managers, it suggests that a learning organization is one designed to be successful in spite of plans which are imperfect, even though they are the best possible in an atmosphere of rapidly changing missions and resources. Good plans in a changing environment are those evolved during their accomplishment by those mandated to fulfill them, who must be willing to examine and learn from what worked and didn't work at each stage of the way.

2 + 2 = 8 (or 1)?... : The challenging world of "blog-iquity"

What is the magic, if any, behind 2 + 2 = 8? Well, the story is that if you try make it happen it usually won't work. To put it in John Kay's words "goals are most likely to be achieved when pursued indirectly." Obliquity is the name for this. What does it tell us about businesses and the goals they shoud be pursuing?

The current fad is for businesses to concentrate on maximizing shareholders value. Metrics have been crafted that supposedly measure the failure of success in achieving this target. They are called EVA, CFROI etc... The theory behind it is that, other things being equal, focussing exclusively on shareholders captures every dimension of the corporation anyhow. But is it that simple?

Is it carved in stone that a rational managerial framework is a sure winner? Or, should we call for a more holistic managerial (adaptative) approach (which blogs are made of)?