Change the players, or change the game

Yesterday on Forrester CEO George Colony's blog, in a piece titled CEO's Want Better Sales Forces, Colony shared some observations from tech company CEO's about the relative effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of their sales forces.

Some of the complaints that these CEO's cited were speed, sales reps were lagging business strategy; selling too low, i.e. reps not connecting high enough in the buyer's organization to reach the decision makers; and inability to articulate the product/service value proposition effectively, and therefore selling mainly on price.

I suspect these CEO gripes about their sales forces, while real, are not that much different than what CEO's 10, 20, or even 50 years ago may have expressed. A sales rep having trouble making contact with the buy side person with authority to sign off on the purchase has been an issue in B2B sales pretty much forever.

The post continues to share some of the remedies that the CEO's Colony talked with are planning to attempt to improve the performance of their sales forces.  Strategies like improving the technology available to sales reps, hiring 'smarter' people in sales, and urging the sales teams to get 'more customer focused'. Again, these seem like the same kinds of sales improvement strategies CEO's would have pursued any time in the last few decades.

But the reason I wanted to mention this piece was not the content of the post really, since it is kind of obvious, but rather a bit of wisdom shared by one of the commenters, Walter.  From his comment:

The biggest new wave is that salespeople are simply not needed in the same way as before, and not at the same points in the cycle, as they were due to the social web and the information available. The buyer's cycle has changed faster than the seller's cycle.

The idea is that the 'game', the process if you will, has changed so much on the buy side that simply tweaking and fine tuning your existing sales processes, (and really your entire marketing, communications, and support as well), will not be sufficient to meet the challenges and the demands presented by buyers that are moving much, much faster than most selling organizations have been able to move.

The key question is - can you survive by simply getting incrementally better at playing the game you have been playing forever, or will you have to more radically alter the way you educate, qualify, and sell; with the full realization that the game you are playing is likely an entirely new one.

You can change or improve the players, or you can change the game. Knowing how to make that call is the tricky part.

Resigning in protest

The story of the Jet Blue Flight Attendant that resigned from his position as the great Marv Albert would describe - In dramatic fashion, has been all over the news the last two days.  Cursing out a plane full of passengers, activating the emergency slides, grabbing a couple of beers, and making a run for it makes for a fantastic story.

Lots of folks have fantasized about marching in to the boss' office and firing off a pointed screed or diatribe and proudly walking out into a glorious future of happiness and success (or in the case of our friend from Jet Blue, possible jail time).

Sure, the flight attendant was fed up, had to deal with what sounds like an incredibly annoying and entitled passenger, took a shot to the head from said passenger's luggage, and seemingly just snapped. It happens.  Usually not as cool and newsworthy as this episode, but it happens.  People get fed up and quit their jobs every day.

But I wonder about  other scenarios that might make employees resign in protest.  These could be sub-standard working conditions, a hostile work environment, or even inept management.  

I mean really inept.  

The kind of management that would welcome back to the organization a notorious ex-employee.  A person in whose tenure as a high ranking and highly paid member of upper management left a history of failure, poor leadership, shattered public relations, and just for good measure was sued by another former employee for sexual harassment, dragging the organization through a public and embarrassing court case.

This just in - The New York Knicks to bring Isiah Thomas back to the organization as a consultant.

Yes, the Isiah Thomas that in four plus years as Knicks GM and Coach led the team to exactly one playoff appearance and made a series of colossally bad personnel decisions resulting in the team being burdened with a slew of bad contracts for under performing and below average talent.

And did I mention the sexual harassment lawsuit?  Ok, just checking.

If you were an employee of the Knicks, and your leadership openly welcomed Thomas back into the fold after his legacy of failure and embarrassing behavior what would you think?  Could you take it any longer? Would you feel compelled to head for the emergency exit, grab a beer, pull the slide, and make a run for it?

Could your management make such a colossally bad hire that it would make you resign in protest?

Footnote - apparently there is no truth to the rumor that Knicks owner Jim Dolan is looking to bring in Mark Hurd to get the back office operations in shape.

The Free-Agent Machine

The teams in the National Basketball Association, (NBA), operate under the constraint of a 'salary cap'. Essentially, each team has the same maximum dollar amount that they are permitted to spend on player salaries (with a few exceptions/caveats).  The idea behind the salary cap is two-fold: it gives the team owners some predictability and control over the largest piece of their cost structure (player salaries), while also (at least theoretically), contributing towards increased competitive balance across the league since no team can simply load up on all the best, highest-paid players.

But recent NBA history, with teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and a few years ago, the Bulls all enjoying extended periods of high performance while operating under the same salary cap constraints suggests that management, coaching, talent evaluation, and support staffs (all not subject to a salary cap by the way), all have a significant impact on overall success.  Said differently, each team can only acquire about $55 million of 'talent', but the resources, support, development, and motivation of that talent may matter just as much to winning games and championships.

The NBA, in addition to the team salary cap, also has an official start to 'free agent' season, the date from which players that have completed their contracts are free to change teams. This period started on July 1.   On televised analysis and commentary of where the most highly sought after free agents would sign (LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, etc), much of the discussion centers around salary cap considerations, as each team only has so much available budget to spend (which varies based on the amount the team already has committed to other players). ESPN on its SportsCenter shows has NBA experts manipulate giant touchscreen displays with the ability to 'slide' free agents to potential destination teams, while calculating the salary cap implications dynamically.  It is a pretty cool technology, especially when you see middle-aged former NBA coaches and executives occasionally struggle to master its nuances.

But what the free-agent machine can't do of course, is evaluate any of the scores of other things that go a long way to determining team success.  A player's 'fit' into the system of play, the relationship they may have with the coach, how the 'left-over' players will adjust to the new big name signee, and whether or not a player's past success on his former team will be transferable to the new team. And perhaps most importantly whether or not the relationship the player developed with his former teammates was a much larger contributor to his individual success than anyone realized - let's see how Amare Stoudemire fares without Steve Nash to work with.

I think some of the same considerations have to be taken into account in the 'real' world of organizations where most of us operate. When a 'free-agent' joins the team, often for a better opportunity manifested in more pay, more prestigious title, or a chance to play on a winning team, the simple fact that they scored the big contract, landed the big title, etc. are no guarantee that the 'fit' will be right and that past demonstrated success will continue in the future in the new environment. 

When free-agents jump to a new team, everything changes for them, the route they take to the office, the people they talk with every day, the basic systems and processes to find information, and hundreds of other things that you or they probably never thought about. The organization may look at bringing in new talent from the perspective of budget, filling in key skills, or enhancing the organization's reputation, but in the short-term the new team member does not care about any of that.  

They have to first get through the mundane details that matter - where can I get coffee in the morning, who do I speak to when I am confused, and just why do I have to request permission to do some of the things that at my old place I did all by myself for the last 5 years?  

It is easy to move players around on a cool touchscreen LCD display to make sure the numbers add up.

It is not easy to make sure everything else adds up. 

Tactics and Technology

The climax of the American Civil War Battle of Gettysburg that took place in July 1863 was a Confederate Army attack that has come to be well-known as 'Pickett's Charge', named after General George Pickett,General George Pickett one of the Confederate leaders on the field that day.

Pickett's Charge was essentially a direct frontal assault by the Confederates, across an open field, uphill, against an entrenched Union Army enemy force that was supported by artillery on even higher ground.

Part of The Conference Board's Leadership Experience program at Gettysburg has the participants walk the same path across the field and up the hill that Pickett's (and many others) men traversed that day. The well-documented history of the battle tells us that the Confederates suffered horrific casualties, were unsuccessful in breaking the Union Army lines, and were forced to withdraw and retreat.  Twenty-one months later the war ended, with the Union Army victorious.

As the leadership experience attendees traced the path of Pickett's Charge, it was seemingly obvious that attempting such an attack, covering almost a mile of open terrain, with the enemy dug in and holding the superior position, was absolute insanity. As we marched up the path towards the high ridge where the Union Army was aligned, one of the class questioned the 'march in a straight line in the open and approach the enemy' attack formation, that in 1863 was still the most common attacking tactic. This was troubling, since advances in technology and weaponry had improved the range, accuracy, and deadly force of the various artillery pieces, rifles, pistols, and ammunition.

The technology of war had dramatically improved to such an extent that it began to render the traditional tactics, if not essentially ineffective, certainly more costly in terms of casualties.  And the crazy part is that one of the event facilitators indicated that the basic attack strategies continued all the way until World War I.  But even then it required another technological breakthrough, (the tank), to significantly alter the accepted tactics.

I know the corporate world is not the same as the 'real' battlefield, and getting too comfortable with military metaphors risks oversimplification of what are usually complex issues. But in this case I think the comparison is appropriate. 

New and better technologies are being created, improved, and being brought to bear with increasing frequency in a wide range of traditional human capital functions.  Whether it is in recruiting, performance management, learning and development, or internal collaboration, the rate of advancement in capability and potential is accelerating.

But advances in technology, without an appropriate and complementary shift in the strategy and tactics to better leverage the new and more powerful technologies will only result in partial victory at best, and a significant loss at worst. Your competitors are likely to have the same access to these technologies as you go, simply 'owning' them will not be enough, being smarter and even bolder in their deployment will be the difference.

If you deploy fantastic new tools and technologies, but continue to execute in a 'march in a straight line across the field' manner, then history may be as unkind to you as it has been to General Pickett.

Total Football and why it is so hard to play

The World Cup is in full swing and many of the top HR bloggers like Kris Dunn and Paul Hebert have shared some insights on how aspects of the World Cup experience relate back to HR and workplace issues.  Heck, even the HR Happy Hour show this week is doing a special 'World Cup' themed episode.

When the World Cup comes around I usually look for a few teams to support, aside from the USA (who usually crash out relatively early), and one of the sides that has always been a favorite is Holland (or the Netherlands).  Getting past the relatively minor annoyance of never actually knowing what to call them - is there a difference between 'Holland' and 'The Netherlands' - they are almost always a competitive side, that plays interesting and attacking soccer/football.Johan Cruyff

The Netherlands have a rich legacy of football success, mainly stemming from the concept of 'Total Football', a style or rather a philosophy of football popularized by the legendary Ajax Amsterdam teams of the early 1970's that was then revolutionary.

From Wikipedia:

In Total Football, a player who moves out of his position is replaced by another from his team, thus retaining the team's intended organizational structure. In this fluid system, no player is fixed in his nominal role; anyone can be successively an attacker, a midfielder and a defender. The only player fixed in his nominal position is the goalkeeper.

Total Football's tactical success depends largely on the adaptability of each footballer within the team, in particular his ability to quickly switch positions depending on the on-field situation. The theory requires players to be comfortable in multiple positions; hence, it places high technical and physical demands on them.

Total Football produced some remarkable results for the Ajax club, as well as spurring a the national side to the World Cup final in 1974 where they were ultimately defeated by West Germany, 2-1.

The requirements and the philosophical attributes necessary for success at 'Total Football' have resonance today, reflected in the demands that the modern business environment that places on organizations and individuals. 

Creativity

Developing such an innovative style of play required a level of creativity from the manager as well as the players.  Devising such a system meant forgetting the traditional methods and the 'that is the way we have always played' mentality that is common, particularly in leaders and organizations that have had success in the past.  To succeed the system required looking forward not backward.  Organizations and leaders often fail to adequately break free from these restraints, and more openly embrace entirely new ways of working and leading.  

Adaptability

Total Football required not only skilled and capable players, but ones that had adaptable skills. Since at any time in the match a player could move forward into an offensive role, control play in the midfield, or retreat to a defensive position, the system hinged on a set of players with adequate skills in what are traditionally discrete and differentiated roles.  From relatively early in a player's career they are labeled a 'defender' or 'striker'.  The label does focus them for sure, but it also limits them on the field, and for a certain kind of innovative and creative player may also limit their potential.  I think organizations often do the same with employees, (and too many employees allow it), getting labeled into one particular role, and not being afforded the opportunity to adapt, to extend or stretch themselves into new areas or disciplines.  

Trust

In Total Football the manager has to let go of the ideas of traditional control and strict direction to the players of how to play and where on the field to position themselves.  The system developed organically and collaboratively,  it was not down to manager to make every decision.  The manager has to trust that the players have the right set of skills, capability, and understanding of the mission, but after that he must trust that they will perform on the fields.  And the players must trust each other as well.  In the scheme if one player vacates a defensive position to move forward in attack, another player will need to adjust and make sure the overall team defensive responsibilities are met.  Each player is not just responsible for their small set of tasks or ground to cover, they each individually and collectively are accountable for the overall success of the team, winning becomes the shared and only important objective.

Conclusion

Total Football enjoyed a successful spell in the 1970s in the Netherlands and in the Ajax club, but has largely faded from modern football in the ensuing years.  Why?  It is a hard system to master, requires looking at problems in new ways, demands the most talented players, with leaders that are not afraid to change the status quo, and a level of trust and commitment between management and players, and among players that is very hard to develop.

The same reasons that hardly anyone plays Total Football anymore are seen in organizations as well.  It is hard to forget the 'way we have always done it' mindset.  It is easy to slot talent in roles, coach them to high performance in those roles, and leave them there for ages.  It is hard for leaders to set a general philosophy and broad parameters of strategy, and them step back to allow employees to exercise their own creativity and judgment.

I wish someone still played Total Football on a high level.  Trust me, it would drown out the sounds of the Vuvuzelas.