Carp, addictive bait, and just showing up

We have all heard the old chestnut about the connection between 'showing up' and success - there are a few variations of the idea, but the one that is most often repeated, and that we probably cringe in horror when we see it randomly shoot past on a Twitter feed or a Facebook page is attributed to Woody Allen, and reads something like:

'Eighty percent of success is showing up.'

The idea being, I suppose, that often we short-circuit our own chances for success by not doing theI prefer Romanian bait simple, basic, and often kind of easy parts of the work, making true success even more unlikely. It is a kind of comforting notion as well - one begins to think that merely 'showing up' - i.e. getting to work on time, doing the pre-reading, passing on eating the extra donut - will put you 80% of the way towards wherever you'd like to go. And maybe that is true. But often just showing up won't get it done in a truly competitive situation, unless of course you call 'showing up' arriving five months before it is actually required, and creating a set of conditions from which, during the actual competition, you will be certain to win. 

Submitted for your review, from a piece on the sports blog Deadspin, the story of the recent World Carp Fishing Championship, (yes, such a thing exists), and how 'showing up' five months early paid off for the Romanian team.  

Winners Romania had spent the five months preceding the tournament feeding the fish of Lake Corbu with a secret bait recipe. Unfortunately for the 10-man England side, who finished 18th, they turned up at last month's tournament with £10,000 worth of traditional "boilies".

The mash-up of flour, egg and flavorer such as blended dried dog food is popular with British fish but failed to spark a flicker of interest in the Romanian carp which were happy to gorge on the feed offered on the hooks of their hosts which they had grown obligingly fat on throughout the summer.

The debacle has prompted fury in the highly-competitive world of carp fishing, a discipline where technical know-how and secret techniques can make the team tactics of cycle road racing appear as complex and cut throat as a round of tiddlywinks.

I don't know why, but I dig this story. Maybe it's the underdog angle, except I have no idea if the Romanian team were truly underdogs. Or maybe it's the appreciation for the way they figured out there was more than one way to win at this contest, and if they were willing to do the lengthy preparation and pre-work that was needed, that they would win in the end, with the extra bonus of it seeming like cheating or at least unsporting behavior making it even more compelling.

But in the end, I guess I like the story because it pokes a little bit at the Woody Allen quote that I am sick of hearing. The other teams all 'showed up' at the Carp fishing contest, but were crushed by the Romanians who just 'showed up' as well.  The difference was only how they interpreted 'showing up', something that no pithy quote from a celebrity can teach.

So here's my (non-celebrity) advice on when you should show up - earlier than you planned.

Have a great week!

Playing a different game than the rest of the league

A few weeks ago I had the good fortune to attend the Human Capital Institute, (HCI), Talent Acquisition Strategies event in New York City. One of the highlights of the event was the closing presentation given by New York Mets executive, Paul DePodesta, who you may remember from the Moneyball book and movie. DePodesta was an assistant to Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane during the years profiled in the book and film, (in the film, the Jonah Hill character was based on DePodesta).

With the success Moneyball, both book and film, plenty of opportunity and time has been spent on analyzing the process that Beane and DePodesta undertook to determine some less well understood keys to winning baseball games, and then to find and recruit undervalued (by the rest of the teams), talent to help them execute their competitive strategy. As I am sure you know by now, the A's were very successful for a period of years, though they fell short of winning the ultimate championship, despite a relative lack of resources compared to the traditional league powers like the Yankees or Red Sox. If you have somehow been under a rock for the last few years and are not familiar with Moneyball, I highly recommend the book, and sort of recommend the movie, (the book was better).

I don't dredge this all up again to try and re-tell the Moneyball story, or try to wax philosophical about how some of the ideas from Moneyball can be applied in the workplace, or to talent management, (lord knows we have had plenty of that), but rather to share a comment made by Mr. DePodesta during the question and answer portion following his presentation at HCI. An audience member asked, essentially, since Moneyball, and the concepts, process, methods utilized by Beane and himself were now widely understood and copied, thus diminishing (or eliminating), the competitive advantage that the Moneyball approach provided, what did DePodesta think would be next, i.e. the logical successor to the Moneyball method, that perhaps would also offer significant and important advantage to the team that could figure it out, (and exploit it).

DePodesta paused just for a moment, then replied, (I am paraphrasing here), that the successor to Moneyball, which was at its core a different way of analyzing prior outcomes, or what has already happened in prior baseball games, and applying the analysis of that data to evaluate players and to form a team, would be a new and better way to predict which players would eventually grow into high performers. Baseball players are typically drafted and signed as young as 17 or 18 in the USA, and even earlier in many of the foreign countries where baseball teams recruit talent. Many of these players require 3, 4, or ever 5 years of seasoning before they are even ready to start playing in the Major League. Making more correct talent assessments of 17 year-old high school players than the next team is often the difference in building and sustaining a successful franchise, (and saving your job).

DePodesta would not really get into what specific traits or attributes he was thinking about that would be a better predictor of performance some years out into the future, but suffice to say that he and the Mets are spending time and effort in working out new, more, and better predictive models.

What if anything does this have to do with you, Mr. or Ms. Talent Professional?

Just a reminder that like Moneyball, most corporate secrets don't last for long, and the advantage that comes from being better than the competition at analyzing what already happened eventually whittles away to nothing. Every team, (or most anyway), eventually get in on that game. And a Brad Pitt movie makes sure of that.

Knowing what is going to happen next, or at least what is likely to happen next - that's when you are playing a different game than the rest of the league.

Acknowledging the Competition

This past couple of weeks the sports world has been chock-full of big time, high stakes contests ranging from the recent Super Bowl to what was in my little sports bubble, an incredibly entertaining and interesting NBA game last Friday night between the Los Angeles Lakers and the New York Knicks.

While in different sports, and certainly having wildly different levels of significance, these contests possessed some interesting back stories, both around how teams and players perceive and communicate about their competition. 

Two data points to submit -

Point One - shortly after the New York Giants victory in the Super Bowl, a full-page congratulatory advertisement in the New York Daily News was taken out in acknowledgement of the Giants fantastic victory, and commending the Giants organization for the 'passion' and 'toughness' they exhibited in winning the championship.

The organization that placed the ad? Not the New England Patriots, the team that the Giants actually defeated in the Super Bowl, but the New York Jets. The Jets, as the 'other' professional football team in the greater New York City area have had a long history of futility, and after some recent better play in the last few seasons, saw themselves as a serious title contender. Sadly for the Jets, their season ended in disappointing fashion, failing to even qualify for the league playoffs, in no small part to a loss to the eventual Super Bowl Champion Giants in a late-season game.

Point Two - Shortly before last Friday's Lakers-Knicks game at Madison Square Garden in New York, reporters asked Lakers' star Kobe Bryant, an all-time great player, and 5-time NBA title winner what he thought about the recent and surprising play of the Knicks young point guard Jeremy Lin.  Remember, Kobe is a pantheon-type player, one of the greatest ever, and Lin, while a sensation at the moment, has played only a handful of games of note in the NBA.

From the transcript of the exchange between Kobe and the press:

"I know who he (Lin) is, but I don't really know what's going on too much with him. I don't even know what he's done. Like, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I'll take a look at it tonight though."

[Asked again about Lin] "I don't even know what the [fudge] is going on. What the [fudge] is going on? Who is this kid? I've heard about him and stuff like that, but what's he been doing? Is he getting like triple doubles or some [stuff]? He's averaging 28 and eight? No [stuff]. If he's playing well, I'll just have to deal with him."

[Would he consider guarding Lin?] "Jesus Christ. Let's not get ahead of ourselves."

It's hard to say how much Kobe really knew about the Knicks' Lin, and how much of his remarks were meant to make sure that the rest of the league, the reporters, and the fans know that he remains one of the top players in the league, on what is still a good team, and what the [fudge] are you guys doing asking me about some rookie no one's ever heard of before three days ago.

The difference in the two approaches? 

The Jets are the second-class citizens in the New York football scene. And their local rivals the Giants have just won their second Super Bowl in 4 years, (and 4th overall). The Jets have been looking up at the Giants for the better part of their history.  Kobe, on the other hand, has been one of the very best players in the NBA for over a decade, winning 5 titles in the process, and Lin, well despite this past week of excitement, has achieved about 1/1,000,000th of what Kobe has done in his career.

For the Jets management, taking out the ad congratulating the Giants sends a pretty strong message to the players, coaches, and fans that their job is not nearly done, and to see what success looks like well, they don't have to look far.  It is about making sure the Jets understand that and hopefully to keep them motivated to do something about that.

And for Kobe, the best player on the Lakers and the team leader? His comments are clearly meant to make sure his teammates realize that they are still the Lakers, and he is still Kobe Bryant, and that they, and the rest of the league should not forget that.  A leader on a traditionally great team probably has to take that tack, and to keep up the team's swagger and confidence. 

What do you think - does your position on the pecking order influence and factor in to what you say about your competition? 

Does what you say about the competition have any effect on the morale of your staff?

Postscript - The Knicks, led by Jeremy Lin's 38 points did beat the Lakers last Friday. Kobe played pretty well (34 points 10 boards), but the Knicks had too much #LinSanity going for them.

From Evil to Good, One Download at a Time

Remember just a couple of years ago when it was timely and hip to lament the loss of hundreds if not thousands of small, independent bookstores that were being crushed by the big box mega-purveyors like Barnes & Noble and Borders? Similar to the ire that Walmart tends to engender in some communities, the loss of long-established and local businesses that simply cannot compete with the purchasing power, time-proven strategies, and ruthless execution of many of the big chains, makes most of us want to root for the little guys. Well, at least we like to say we are rooting for the little guys, but once we got a taste of the massive in-store book selection, lower prices, on-premise cafes, and free wifi, well, like I said, we like to say we are rooting for the little guy.It's a niche

Heck, there was even a big Hollywood feature film made not that long ago that starred Tom Hanks and his very B&N like giant forcing poor Meg Ryan's cuddly little bookstore on the corner out of business.

Fast forward only a few years and the retail book industry looks almost nothing at all like it did when Meg and Tom were flirting by email at night and trying to destroy each other's business by day. Borders is bankrupt, and Barnes & Noble too is likely in the early stages in a battle for its own survival, under increasing pressure primarily from Amazon.com and its Kindle ecosystem. B&N has been able to survive and compete this long where Borders could not, mainly due to its Nook e-reader, and its commitment and willingness to take at least some of the fight to Amazon.

But today for many book lovers, Barnes & Noble represents in some ways the last stand for not just a retail model, but for the idea of the printed book at all. If you think about the town where you live, if the closest B&N were to close ip shop, just exactly where would you shop for real, actual printed books? Forgetting for a moment that walking into a large B&N it might be actually hard to locate any books, as they are often obscured by the Nook demonstration area, the kids' toy section, the coffee shop, and the thousands of other things in a B&N that are not books. Where I live, there are two B&N's within about 10 miles, and I can't think of another place anywhere that sells real live printed books.

So for those that cling to the almost prosaic notion of browsing through the shelves, picking up and touching the books, paging through the images of a $125 coffee-table art book that no one ever would buy, if the B&N goes, well, all of that likely goes with it. Maybe something else would come to fill in that void, in the larger cities something probably would, but for many other places book buying would almost certainly become an 100% virtual proposition.

And that might not be a big issue at all, who knows. But for me the interesting thing is how through all this change and technological progress in e-commerce and e-readers that the massive, powerful, and formerly evil megastore like B&N has come full circle to represent all that used to be good and nostalgic about the book buying experience.  B&N has gone from being the malicious, heartless competitor to the underdog that many people who love physical books are rooting for. 

It's really hard to pull off that kind of corporate reputation transformation, even if you wanted to. Once evil, always evil is more typical. Although I suspect B&N would have been happy to continue laying waste to little shops all over the world, evil or not.

What do you think - would you care if there were no more physical bookstores?

Have a Great Weekend!

How much does differentiation matter?

When your job is designing and delivering a product or service to the market it is altogether fitting and expected that you'll take an initial and then periodic view of the competitive landscape for said product or service to see how your offering stacks up in the marketplace, and to attempt to find and exploit perceived weaknesses and differences that (hopefully), present your solutions and services in the most positive light.

It just makes sense, and is typically a fundamental piece of any company's 'go to market' strategy. What is the other guy doing? What features does their product have? Should we build those features too? What does our solution provide that the other guy can't match? And how do we best communicate and reinforce those differences that we 'win' on in the market so that there is no confusion about why our products and services are better?

But sometimes, perhaps more often that we like to think, we focus too much on what our competitors are doing, saying, building, etc.; and not enough on what our current and potential customers are saying and doing with our products. 

Last week I caught a really interesting piece on the Fast Company CoDesign site titled 'Think You're An Industry Leader? Not So Fast', that makes an interesting point - that often as product and service designers and implementers, (and that for the most part is everyone working in Human Resources, recruiting, HR Technology, and so on), that this primary focus on competitors detracts from what should really be our true goals - to understand the customers, to empathize with their problems and challenges, and to build systems and solutions to address their needs primarily.

From the CoDesign piece:

This is the first mistake organizations make when thinking about digital interactions with their customers. They measure themselves against the competition instead of really understanding what their customers actually need.

How can you improve your understanding of customer needs? By connecting with customers more deeply and in ways that move the dialog beyond simple check the box RFP exercises.

Again from CoDesign:

In short, you gain empathy for them, (customers). Great applications are created by those who fully empathize with the user’s needs. Our team must walk a day in the life of the person they are designing for and act as a proxy for the user in the design and integrations processes. I was once asked, “Is there such a thing as a stupid user?” The answer is no; there are only ignorant designers. Any good designer will tell you there’s no such thing as user error -- anything the user can’t figure out is just bad design.

It is not easy, I think, to try and lower your sights against your competition. After all, in most purchase decision processes the customers pick one 'winner', while leaving the also-rans to contemplate the reasons why they did not win the contract and secure the customer's business. Perhaps the first step into really thinking more from the customer's point of view is to frame these kinds of post-mortem discussions less in terms of 'Why Did Company 'X' beat us?' and more in terms of 'What customer problem were we unable to solve?'.

What do you think - would more time being spent on understanding and truly empathizing with your customers and less time worrying about Brand 'X' help your business?