How many times have we said or heard “I’ve had a great idea, but my manager is too dumb/lazy/busy to make it happen”? Heaps?
The challenge is that having the great idea is always the easy bit; convincing others of your genius is rather more difficult. So here are 3 things to consider when selling your big idea. It’s a matter of perspective. Success will be viewed differently by different stakeholders. The Sales Manager wants something they are excited about selling, the Finance Manager wants good cash-flow, the GM wants to hit budgets and show their initiative. If you are going to pitch a great idea, consider who will influence the decision to pursue it, what their perspectives are and you can then make sure you hit their hot buttons. But it’s style too. What makes a pitch interesting will different for different people. Detail and figures will bore many sales leads who may find diagrams and pictures more engaging, though a lack of them will frustrate finance managers and engineers. The GM or VP may need to understand the vision and the practical steps needed to execute the great idea. So, it’s not just identifying the perspectives of different stakeholders, it’s deciding how to communicate with them to engage and excite each person. Timing is key. If your idea needs funding or has an impact on sales or any other part of the budget, the chance of it being adopted shortly after budgets have been set is diminished. In many large organisations, reallocating funds and resources mid-year can be complex and a distraction. Influence the right people in the right way as the budgets and resources are being allocated makes it easier for everyone to say yes. So remember, the boss is unlikely to be an ass, but they and their leadership team will have a bunch of styles and perspectives that must be considered. If you understand the audience and get the timing right, your great idea is far more likely to be the businesses next great idea ere to edit.
1 Comment
A couple of weeks ago I heard an interview with the Godfather of the footballers’ dodgy haircut, the great Kevin Keegan. He talked about the incredible improvement he made in scoring goals after he left Scunthorpe United in the relatively smaller talent pool of Division 3 and joined Liverpool in the extremely competitive Division 1.
His view was that his ability had not changed significantly in the month or so between leaving one team and getting on the field with the next, instead he attributed this marked improvement to the ability of those around him. At Scunthorpe he was surrounded by reasonably talented people who could place the ball roughly where it needed to be. At Liverpool he was surrounded by people who could place the ball exactly where it needed to be. No more having to sprint a bit further to get to the ball, having to manoeuvre the ball away from the side line, or having to recover the ball from the opposition. All Keegan had to do was be in the right place and concentrate on his primary role; to strike at goal. He was remarkably effective at his job. When I heard this, it struck a chord with me. How much energy do people in business expend metaphorically chasing balls that others haven’t quite put in the right place? How much better would we collectively be if the ball landed perfectly at our feet every time? Not every business can attract or afford ‘Premier League’ team members, but can this metaphor help us think differently about how we manage our people? Notwithstanding the challenges of creating business resilience and helping the team to grow, should more time be spent training the team to excel in their primary role and to understand the importance of getting their ball in the right spot every time? What are your thoughts? Is Kevin Keegan sharing an insight that can help us in business, or does this only have relevance on the football field. In a military context, the fog of war and the confusion of the battlefield has necessitated a ‘Mission Command’ approach; leaders and managers agree a required outcome and a rough plan to achieve it, allocate resources and confirm boundaries, then broadly leave their direct reports alone to execute the plan, allowing teams to adapt as risks and opportunities are realised, applying initiative and pushing limits. Trust, flexibility and good communication underpin this way of operating, which can achieve remarkable results. In this dynamic and dislocated scenario, the opposite end of the management spectrum – directed or micro-management – would stifle initiative, decrease agility and undermine all-important trust.
In the current Covid-19 effected business environment, with many working from home and businesses dealing with uncertainty and disruption, it may feel like we are on the metaphoric battlefield and we need to adapt our style. So which managers are thriving which are merely surviving? Those that normally do ok but are struggling with the new normal may need help: Perhaps they find it hard to trust their team once out of sight? Perhaps the team are used to being told exactly how to do something and are not enabled to use their initiative. Perhaps they are conditioned to associate the presence of the boss with full engagement on a task? All these behaviours are barriers to real employee engagement and commitment under normal circumstances and may make the difference between success and failure in these exceptional times. This a great opportunity for businesses and organisations to identify the managers that need more help and set standards of leadership and management that encourages individual initiative, improves engagement and increases agility. Removing the stifling, driving micromanagement style will set bare long-term fruit and allow organisations to emerge from this trying period stronger than ever. How are your managers doing? Do you need to adapt? What have you found effective? |
What?Our thoughts about helping your people Archives
October 2022
Categories |