Hi folks,
Finally, after months and months of endless awards admin, I am overjoyed to announce the start of one of my favorite TOA traditions – The TOA Book of the Year award, or as I like to call it, ‘The Most Irrelevant Prize in World Literature’. For those requiring a refresher, I announced (‘announced’) my shortlist in this recent post (1).
I liked last year’s process so we’ll repeat it for this year’s edition. We’ll start with a series of preliminary posts where I’ll slowly eliminate the books I will not include among my finalists. These posts will include a brief blurb about what I liked in the book as well as a ‘parting thought’ – the big idea that has stayed with me since my reading.
Unlike with last year, I looked for common links among my eliminations and paired books together whenever possible. This didn’t apply to every book but I think it will add some extra perspective to these preliminary posts. We’ll assess how this new process goes before making any decisions about whether to make it a permanent feature of these awards.
OK – without further ado, let’s begin the elimination rounds from the 2018 TOA Book of the Year awards with a pair of books I read as part of my ‘Business Bro Book Club’. This bizarre idea was simultaneously short-lived (in that I stopped rereading business books) yet remains ongoing (in that I’m still working on posts for these books). I decided the best approach was to pause this project until I could find an actual job where I could apply the insights and lessons from these books.
High Output Management by Andy Grove (February 2018)
Grove’s book defines the standard for the managerial role. I read it in February in preparation for a new managerial job I had just accepted (at the time, I didn’t know I would be prevented from actually taking on the managerial responsibilities discussed during the recruitment process). Still, rereading wasn’t a total waste as I enjoyed the process while also reminding myself of the book’s enduring wisdom.
Parting thought: the manager’s job is to train or motivate
This was an easy one and a concept I’ve highlighted many times on TOA. Grove’s entire book is built around his insight that an employee performs poorly for one of two reasons – either the employee cannot do the job or the employee does not feel like doing the job. Thus, the manager’s job is to train or motivate. I argue that every other line in the book is related to this thought (clear communication is essential for good training, a poorly organized work process suffocates motivation, a thoughtful performance review motivates the employee, etc).
Plain Talk by Ken Iverson (June 2018)
Iverson’s book examines leadership at the executive level and the scope is therefore a little different from Grove’s focus on middle management. However, the two authors share a reliance on common sense and people skills that influenced my own leadership philosophy. Being about executive leadership, Plain Talk’s common sense approach is a little more eye opening because these days common sense is not associated with the C-level. Iverson shows that this does not need to be the case, especially when he describes how top executive pay should be based almost entirely on the organization’s performance. Given what I know about CEO pay, my best guess is that most CEOs did not read this book prior to taking the job.
Parting thought: an organization should have no more than four levels of hierarchy
Iverson describes the four levels as follows: front-line employees, supervisors, managers (who organize the efforts of multiple teams), and the executive level. When I eventually run an organization, this will be one of my core principles because it is a simple way to understand and explain roles. The framework will help me recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the team while allowing each person to understand how a specific set of responsibilities fits into the organizational structure.
Footnotes / endnotes / admin rants
0. The 2018? The 2019? The 1975? Who knows, who cares...
Yes, I am aware that last year's award was also called 'The 2018 TOA Book Award', or something like that. No, I don't care.
1. More admin...
I hinted in this post that I might cover other 'awards' first before digging into these books. Well, maybe I will, but I think it's about high time I talked about these books, no?
Showing posts with label books - plain talk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books - plain talk. Show all posts
Friday, June 7, 2019
Saturday, February 23, 2019
reading review - plain talk (riff offs about reporting)
Hi all,
The last part of Plain Talk I wanted to cover was about reporting. As I’ve done for a number of books recently, I’ll take a few of Ken Iverson’s ideas and try to riff off of them whenever I see the opportunity to add a note or two of my own.
Good luck, reader.
Gather information that is as easy as possible for others to put together.
Try to gather information that tells you what you must know during ordinary times while also giving advance warning of upcoming ‘extraordinary’ times.
Information overload tends to come with unneeded explanation.
These three thoughts, though basic, strike me as just the sort of thing that anyone can lose sight of if a reporting process is put together without taking a moment to consider basic principles. Reporting is an ever-present threat to an organization because it can quickly expand to use up time and energy without leading to any improvement in performance. Good reports should be easy to put together, completed well enough in advance to give the organization time to prevent disasters, and delivered with minimum interpretation lest the reporter’s point of view influence or bias the conclusions reached by those reading the report.
Try to distinguish between subjective and objective information gathering.
Like with the prior point, this is a distinction that could easily get lost if the reporting method isn’t carefully defined. In many poorly organized reports, information is accompanied by a number rating or letter grade to give a sense of objectivity to what would otherwise be an obviously subjective measurement.
Simply demanding that all objective figures must be displayed in table or chart form is a great first step. If the reporter has any other information that can’t be quantified in this way, it would obviously be subjective (and perhaps reported in writing).
Objective – some key metrics a manager should ask for from the team include bids, orders, production, backlog, inventory, and shipments.
Subjective – establishing a pattern of regular and informal conversation with the team is an important way to gather data about hard to measure variables like confidence.
As the first point outlined, a good report is easy to put together. This applies both to the manager and the subordinate. The objective part of any report should come as directly as possible from the work being measured – for example, if the inventory level is being reported, the worker in charge of the inventory should provide the figures.
The manager should take responsibility for the subjective part of the report. The manager should leverage all methods of information gathering to accomplish this task. If the report turns out to be erroneous or misleading, the manager should be the one held accountable.
Although hounding subordinates for information is not advised, delegation without information is not a very effective way to run an operation.
A manager who makes the team responsible for reporting accomplishes two things. First, the team gets a better understanding of how their performance is being measured and knows what information to pay the most attention to during the workday. Second, it makes it easier to gather information quickly in the event of a sudden emergency because the team is used to helping the boss gather information.
A good report should fit on one regular piece of printer paper.
Reports should create context by making comparisons against week, month, quarter, and prior year’s corresponding quarter (in this example, a quarter is equivalent to a thirteen week period).
A good way to implement these thoughts is to limit each page of a report to answering one question. If a manager adopted the reporting standard described above, the result would actually mean a five-page report – the first page would account for present conditions while the next four pages would make the contextual comparisons against the time periods described in the note.
Good reporting tracks cause and effect. A monthly or quarterly report should track the results generated from the operations that were tracked in the weekly reporting – costs against budget, return on assets, and sales revenue.
Cause and effect here means tracking how operational measurements impacts performance and output. If the operational reporting tracked a steady 10% rise in purchases of raw materials over a three-month period, the performance reporting should include some kind of anticipated increase in output that corresponded to how raw materials correlated to output in the past.
The lag time of any operational change on output is also a critical consideration. If a change in the level of raw material makes no impact on output for the first half year after the purchase, it would mean anticipating an output change in any of the six subsequent monthly reports would be premature.
Irish wolfhounds, French baguettes wrapped loose around, and next I think I’m hungry…
Finally, good reporting recognizes the immense responsibility of the task. When someone reads a report, they are asked to focus on one specific part of the organization while simultaneously ignoring everything else. This puts the reader prone to the sudden mental jumps and casual associations everyone makes from time to time. The reporter recognizes this and ensures the report is as informative as possible while remaining entirely impartial.
Right?
What…?
Fine – that note isn’t from Plain Talk, it’s a lyric from Courtney Barnett’s ‘An Illustration of Loneliness’. But hey, it’s a riff off, and who better to have the last word?
Thanks for reading, folks.
Tim
The last part of Plain Talk I wanted to cover was about reporting. As I’ve done for a number of books recently, I’ll take a few of Ken Iverson’s ideas and try to riff off of them whenever I see the opportunity to add a note or two of my own.
Good luck, reader.
Gather information that is as easy as possible for others to put together.
Try to gather information that tells you what you must know during ordinary times while also giving advance warning of upcoming ‘extraordinary’ times.
Information overload tends to come with unneeded explanation.
These three thoughts, though basic, strike me as just the sort of thing that anyone can lose sight of if a reporting process is put together without taking a moment to consider basic principles. Reporting is an ever-present threat to an organization because it can quickly expand to use up time and energy without leading to any improvement in performance. Good reports should be easy to put together, completed well enough in advance to give the organization time to prevent disasters, and delivered with minimum interpretation lest the reporter’s point of view influence or bias the conclusions reached by those reading the report.
Try to distinguish between subjective and objective information gathering.
Like with the prior point, this is a distinction that could easily get lost if the reporting method isn’t carefully defined. In many poorly organized reports, information is accompanied by a number rating or letter grade to give a sense of objectivity to what would otherwise be an obviously subjective measurement.
Simply demanding that all objective figures must be displayed in table or chart form is a great first step. If the reporter has any other information that can’t be quantified in this way, it would obviously be subjective (and perhaps reported in writing).
Objective – some key metrics a manager should ask for from the team include bids, orders, production, backlog, inventory, and shipments.
Subjective – establishing a pattern of regular and informal conversation with the team is an important way to gather data about hard to measure variables like confidence.
As the first point outlined, a good report is easy to put together. This applies both to the manager and the subordinate. The objective part of any report should come as directly as possible from the work being measured – for example, if the inventory level is being reported, the worker in charge of the inventory should provide the figures.
The manager should take responsibility for the subjective part of the report. The manager should leverage all methods of information gathering to accomplish this task. If the report turns out to be erroneous or misleading, the manager should be the one held accountable.
Although hounding subordinates for information is not advised, delegation without information is not a very effective way to run an operation.
A manager who makes the team responsible for reporting accomplishes two things. First, the team gets a better understanding of how their performance is being measured and knows what information to pay the most attention to during the workday. Second, it makes it easier to gather information quickly in the event of a sudden emergency because the team is used to helping the boss gather information.
A good report should fit on one regular piece of printer paper.
Reports should create context by making comparisons against week, month, quarter, and prior year’s corresponding quarter (in this example, a quarter is equivalent to a thirteen week period).
A good way to implement these thoughts is to limit each page of a report to answering one question. If a manager adopted the reporting standard described above, the result would actually mean a five-page report – the first page would account for present conditions while the next four pages would make the contextual comparisons against the time periods described in the note.
Good reporting tracks cause and effect. A monthly or quarterly report should track the results generated from the operations that were tracked in the weekly reporting – costs against budget, return on assets, and sales revenue.
Cause and effect here means tracking how operational measurements impacts performance and output. If the operational reporting tracked a steady 10% rise in purchases of raw materials over a three-month period, the performance reporting should include some kind of anticipated increase in output that corresponded to how raw materials correlated to output in the past.
The lag time of any operational change on output is also a critical consideration. If a change in the level of raw material makes no impact on output for the first half year after the purchase, it would mean anticipating an output change in any of the six subsequent monthly reports would be premature.
Irish wolfhounds, French baguettes wrapped loose around, and next I think I’m hungry…
Finally, good reporting recognizes the immense responsibility of the task. When someone reads a report, they are asked to focus on one specific part of the organization while simultaneously ignoring everything else. This puts the reader prone to the sudden mental jumps and casual associations everyone makes from time to time. The reporter recognizes this and ensures the report is as informative as possible while remaining entirely impartial.
Right?
What…?
Fine – that note isn’t from Plain Talk, it’s a lyric from Courtney Barnett’s ‘An Illustration of Loneliness’. But hey, it’s a riff off, and who better to have the last word?
Thanks for reading, folks.
Tim
Thursday, February 21, 2019
leftovers – plain talk (compensation and reward)
Today, let’s examine a couple of lingering ideas from this post in a little more detail. First, I noted that Iverson felt people always worked hard for above-average pay. This was actually one of three such motivators – the other two were job security and opportunities for advancement.
Nucor’s compensation structure probably helped the former while minimizing the lack of the latter. By paying production bonuses immediately, Nucor was ensuring that a higher wage bill correlated very strongly to revenue. It also meant the reverse – a lower wage bill during down periods. This mechanism played a major role in allowing the company to minimize layoffs and positioned them to offer better job security to prospective employees.
However, the flat structure of the organization suggested to me that opportunities to advance were likely minimal (or at least less outwardly obvious) than they would be when compared with a competitor. An employee who could continue to earn higher pay by ever-improving performance in such an environment would probably not find a lack of advancement very concerning.
A final lingering thought from this post was about the way Nucor measured productivity. In most organizations, an employee’s productivity is their production. This looks OK on paper but assumes that employees are fixed costs from which the most possible output must be squeezed. Nucor’s compensation structure suggested they measured employees by labor cost per product.
On paper, these concepts look basically identical, but the advantage of the latter is that the method allows for greater flexibility in spending decisions. An employee who wants to buy a new piece of technology is going to have a much easier time making the case if production is measured by cost per product – if a 50% spending increase leads to a 100% increase in production, it’s a no-brainer. But if the employee who is regarded as a fixed-cost proposed the same, it seems more likely to me that the idea would get rejected due to the cost implications. In the very worst organizations, management might come back to the employee and ask – why don’t you try to double output without increasing cost?
Nucor’s compensation structure probably helped the former while minimizing the lack of the latter. By paying production bonuses immediately, Nucor was ensuring that a higher wage bill correlated very strongly to revenue. It also meant the reverse – a lower wage bill during down periods. This mechanism played a major role in allowing the company to minimize layoffs and positioned them to offer better job security to prospective employees.
However, the flat structure of the organization suggested to me that opportunities to advance were likely minimal (or at least less outwardly obvious) than they would be when compared with a competitor. An employee who could continue to earn higher pay by ever-improving performance in such an environment would probably not find a lack of advancement very concerning.
A final lingering thought from this post was about the way Nucor measured productivity. In most organizations, an employee’s productivity is their production. This looks OK on paper but assumes that employees are fixed costs from which the most possible output must be squeezed. Nucor’s compensation structure suggested they measured employees by labor cost per product.
On paper, these concepts look basically identical, but the advantage of the latter is that the method allows for greater flexibility in spending decisions. An employee who wants to buy a new piece of technology is going to have a much easier time making the case if production is measured by cost per product – if a 50% spending increase leads to a 100% increase in production, it’s a no-brainer. But if the employee who is regarded as a fixed-cost proposed the same, it seems more likely to me that the idea would get rejected due to the cost implications. In the very worst organizations, management might come back to the employee and ask – why don’t you try to double output without increasing cost?
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
reading review - plain talk (compensation and reward)
A fascinating aspect of Ken Iverson’s Plain Talk was the way he described Nucor’s philosophy for paying employees. The approach was based on a number of principles he believed were essential foundations for a company that wanted to remain successful over the long term.
The first principle was that a good pay system must encourage specific behaviors that are known to make the business more competitive. Iverson felt that the most important behavior Nucor needed to encourage was a strong team ethos and therefore his organization paid team bonuses instead of individual bonuses. As Iverson put it, organizations that reward exceptional individuals get exceptional individuals while those that reward exceptional teams get exceptional teams.
The second principle was that companies remain competitive in the long term if they retain loyal and motivated employees. One way Iverson applied this principle was by compensating executives mostly through bonuses and equity. This structure helped Nucor control wages during down periods and prevented the organization from undermining its employees’ trust through layoffs (or even worse, layoffs happening simultaneously to increases in executive compensation).
The third and final principle was that people tend to work hard for above-average pay (1). This isn’t breaking news, of course, but most organizations use financial incentives over time periods as long as half a decade. Iverson didn’t think this was a fast enough turnaround to interest most people and found ways to use money as a daily motivator instead. As many psychologists have ‘discovered’ through carefully crafted studies, people behave very differently when the prospect of a reward is immediate. By harnessing the power of this basic reality, I’m sure Nucor returned far more value for their dollar than did their competitors.
The first principle was that a good pay system must encourage specific behaviors that are known to make the business more competitive. Iverson felt that the most important behavior Nucor needed to encourage was a strong team ethos and therefore his organization paid team bonuses instead of individual bonuses. As Iverson put it, organizations that reward exceptional individuals get exceptional individuals while those that reward exceptional teams get exceptional teams.
The second principle was that companies remain competitive in the long term if they retain loyal and motivated employees. One way Iverson applied this principle was by compensating executives mostly through bonuses and equity. This structure helped Nucor control wages during down periods and prevented the organization from undermining its employees’ trust through layoffs (or even worse, layoffs happening simultaneously to increases in executive compensation).
The third and final principle was that people tend to work hard for above-average pay (1). This isn’t breaking news, of course, but most organizations use financial incentives over time periods as long as half a decade. Iverson didn’t think this was a fast enough turnaround to interest most people and found ways to use money as a daily motivator instead. As many psychologists have ‘discovered’ through carefully crafted studies, people behave very differently when the prospect of a reward is immediate. By harnessing the power of this basic reality, I’m sure Nucor returned far more value for their dollar than did their competitors.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
reading review - plain talk (organizational structure)
Longtime readers will recall that back in February 2018 I took a new position. This job was with a big corporation and the environment was a significant change from the small, family-run business where I had worked since graduation. The biggest change was the hierarchy – in my new role, there were almost as many layers of management as I had colleagues on the first day at my former job!
I gave real thought to the organizational structure just a few months ago when I responded to an anonymous workplace survey. Although my new company had many layers of management, the questionnaire asked me to identify myself as a member of one of just four layers – worker, team supervisor, manager of multiple teams, or executive. The question made me understand that although our organization officially recognized many more layers of management, the reality of the structure was much like any other company - four layers of management, no more and no less.
The idea that even the biggest companies require only four levels of management is one of Ken Iverson’s most interesting observations in Plain Talk. It forms part of a larger theme that many of the ‘necessary evils’ in corporate life are simply results of an unnecessary emphasis on rank and hierarchy. A manager might not always have the ability to change this emphasis but a good manager can always find ways to attack or circumvent the problems caused by an overemphasis on hierarchy.
A good place to start in this regard is sharing information. In a flat structure, sharing information is vital because everyone recognizes the importance of getting the right information to the relevant colleague. When a hierarchy emerges, information becomes a currency that can be used to consolidate power or leverage influence within an organization. The managers who gather and distribute information in these organizations undermine those who hoard information. These managers also indirectly contribute to the health of the team by reinforcing the value of ensuring the right people get the information they need with only a minimum of fuss.
A hierarchy can also limit the potential of those in the organization with unusual abilities. A supervisor might be capable of managing forty or fifty people, for example, but this ability is wasted if the organizational structure limits teams at some arbitrarily determined number. Again, a good manager in these environments seeks ways to get around this problem by forming roles and responsibilities outside those defined by the hierarchy.
How can someone figure out if their organization’s emphasis on hierarchy is detrimental? I suggest looking for instances where the organization’s stated principles or values are sacrificed for the sake of emphasizing the hierarchy. For example, if your organization’s stated aim is to be ‘data driven’, look for interactions where the opinion of a superior is given more weight than the data presented by a subordinate. An overemphasis on hierarchy is, like any cultural value, a reflection of what consistently happens every day and the organizations that place hierarchy ahead of their listed core values reveal themselves in the way employees work, behave, and interact with each other on a daily basis.
I gave real thought to the organizational structure just a few months ago when I responded to an anonymous workplace survey. Although my new company had many layers of management, the questionnaire asked me to identify myself as a member of one of just four layers – worker, team supervisor, manager of multiple teams, or executive. The question made me understand that although our organization officially recognized many more layers of management, the reality of the structure was much like any other company - four layers of management, no more and no less.
The idea that even the biggest companies require only four levels of management is one of Ken Iverson’s most interesting observations in Plain Talk. It forms part of a larger theme that many of the ‘necessary evils’ in corporate life are simply results of an unnecessary emphasis on rank and hierarchy. A manager might not always have the ability to change this emphasis but a good manager can always find ways to attack or circumvent the problems caused by an overemphasis on hierarchy.
A good place to start in this regard is sharing information. In a flat structure, sharing information is vital because everyone recognizes the importance of getting the right information to the relevant colleague. When a hierarchy emerges, information becomes a currency that can be used to consolidate power or leverage influence within an organization. The managers who gather and distribute information in these organizations undermine those who hoard information. These managers also indirectly contribute to the health of the team by reinforcing the value of ensuring the right people get the information they need with only a minimum of fuss.
A hierarchy can also limit the potential of those in the organization with unusual abilities. A supervisor might be capable of managing forty or fifty people, for example, but this ability is wasted if the organizational structure limits teams at some arbitrarily determined number. Again, a good manager in these environments seeks ways to get around this problem by forming roles and responsibilities outside those defined by the hierarchy.
How can someone figure out if their organization’s emphasis on hierarchy is detrimental? I suggest looking for instances where the organization’s stated principles or values are sacrificed for the sake of emphasizing the hierarchy. For example, if your organization’s stated aim is to be ‘data driven’, look for interactions where the opinion of a superior is given more weight than the data presented by a subordinate. An overemphasis on hierarchy is, like any cultural value, a reflection of what consistently happens every day and the organizations that place hierarchy ahead of their listed core values reveal themselves in the way employees work, behave, and interact with each other on a daily basis.
Friday, February 15, 2019
reading review - plain talk (managing errors)
Towards the end of my last post about Plain Talk, I made a comment about how Ken Iverson wanted to encourage an environment of regular experimentation within his organization. Today, let’s look a little closer at some of the strategies he recommends for managers who wish to replicate this environment in their own workplaces.
The most important step is for managers to continually bring ever-increasing responsibilities to their employees. Managers who fail to do this will end up running stagnant teams where they feel overburdened while their teams feel unchallenged. A manager should find some time every day to look at his or her own work and identify tasks or responsibilities that can be safely delegated or reassigned within the team.
Of course, the process of increasing an employee’s responsibilities will likely lead to errors (1). This creates an interesting opportunity for a manager – should the response be immediate and direct? In some cases there is no question that the manager must step in. However, if the manager is able to let the employee figure out the resolution then it is probably best in terms of the team’s growth and development to allow the employee to do so. A manager in these situations should simply direct attention to the error but hold back from offering solutions unless asked directly by the responsible employee.
The final and most important consideration comes in the aftermath of an error. A manager who criticizes or questions employees after things turn out badly is reinforcing a subtle but significant message – don’t try anything new in the future. To avoid sending this message, the best approach is to study the failure with the team and learn from the mistakes so that the errors do not occur again.
Footnotes / most people fall off the bike while learning to ride it…
1. The fine line…
In fact, a good manager who wants to challenge employees should expect errors because if there are no errors then it is a sure sign that the new task or responsibility was not challenging enough for the employee.
The most important step is for managers to continually bring ever-increasing responsibilities to their employees. Managers who fail to do this will end up running stagnant teams where they feel overburdened while their teams feel unchallenged. A manager should find some time every day to look at his or her own work and identify tasks or responsibilities that can be safely delegated or reassigned within the team.
Of course, the process of increasing an employee’s responsibilities will likely lead to errors (1). This creates an interesting opportunity for a manager – should the response be immediate and direct? In some cases there is no question that the manager must step in. However, if the manager is able to let the employee figure out the resolution then it is probably best in terms of the team’s growth and development to allow the employee to do so. A manager in these situations should simply direct attention to the error but hold back from offering solutions unless asked directly by the responsible employee.
The final and most important consideration comes in the aftermath of an error. A manager who criticizes or questions employees after things turn out badly is reinforcing a subtle but significant message – don’t try anything new in the future. To avoid sending this message, the best approach is to study the failure with the team and learn from the mistakes so that the errors do not occur again.
Footnotes / most people fall off the bike while learning to ride it…
1. The fine line…
In fact, a good manager who wants to challenge employees should expect errors because if there are no errors then it is a sure sign that the new task or responsibility was not challenging enough for the employee.
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
the bb book club - plain talk
Plain Talk by Ken Iverson (June 2018)
Ken Iverson collects and distributes the wisdom he accumulated over decades as an executive with Nucor in this aptly named book. The title really does describe it all – everything Iverson shares with us budding Business Bros is written in clear and straightforward terms (1). There is no nonsense in Plain Talk, a welcome relief for those of us whose BS filters are breaking down from overuse in this day and age of constant business nonspeak.
In fact, the aspect of the book I enjoyed most was the way Iverson dismissed a lot of the business world’s accepted truisms with the air of a grade schooler saying ‘well, duh!’ For example, Iverson has no time for teaching business ethics – for him, most people would do just fine trusting their own intuition. He also rejects the concept of a rating scale being ‘objective’, pointing out that in most cases it only reflects the scorer’s subjective rating assessment of poorly defined skills such as ‘takes initiative’ or ‘works well with others’.
Not all of his commentary is immediately accessible to those with no experience in business. His insight into debt is a good example. He notes that many businesses fail to properly align their debt burden with the cyclical nature of their business. This sounds complex at first but is immediately relatable to anyone who has seen wild revenue variations from one accounting period to another. His comment that managers should keep their promises is also a good example of an observation that will instantly resonate with anyone who has worked for an inept manager.
The most significant truism Iverson rejects is that a business must plan for its successes. He adopts an experimental approach instead, suggesting that ideas worth doing must be worth doing poorly in order to encourage continuous trial and error. A culture of regular experimentation is sure to innovate in ways that planning committees or brainstorming meetings are likely to overlook. He also reminds managers that it is natural for them to become more risk averse as they age and to therefore be more mindful of their own increasing resistance to risk-taking as they progress in their careers.
Of course, succeeding in a career these days isn’t just a matter of stating it like it is and Iverson is no exception. In a few upcoming posts, we’ll take a look at some of the other skills and principles he used to become one of his industry’s most respected leaders.
Until then,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / origins of famous expressions
1. Don’t judge…
I had to wonder if Plain Talk was responsible for the expression “don’t judge a book by its cover.” Who in the world thought this cover would get readers excited for Ken Iverson’s work wisdom?!?
Ken Iverson collects and distributes the wisdom he accumulated over decades as an executive with Nucor in this aptly named book. The title really does describe it all – everything Iverson shares with us budding Business Bros is written in clear and straightforward terms (1). There is no nonsense in Plain Talk, a welcome relief for those of us whose BS filters are breaking down from overuse in this day and age of constant business nonspeak.
In fact, the aspect of the book I enjoyed most was the way Iverson dismissed a lot of the business world’s accepted truisms with the air of a grade schooler saying ‘well, duh!’ For example, Iverson has no time for teaching business ethics – for him, most people would do just fine trusting their own intuition. He also rejects the concept of a rating scale being ‘objective’, pointing out that in most cases it only reflects the scorer’s subjective rating assessment of poorly defined skills such as ‘takes initiative’ or ‘works well with others’.
Not all of his commentary is immediately accessible to those with no experience in business. His insight into debt is a good example. He notes that many businesses fail to properly align their debt burden with the cyclical nature of their business. This sounds complex at first but is immediately relatable to anyone who has seen wild revenue variations from one accounting period to another. His comment that managers should keep their promises is also a good example of an observation that will instantly resonate with anyone who has worked for an inept manager.
The most significant truism Iverson rejects is that a business must plan for its successes. He adopts an experimental approach instead, suggesting that ideas worth doing must be worth doing poorly in order to encourage continuous trial and error. A culture of regular experimentation is sure to innovate in ways that planning committees or brainstorming meetings are likely to overlook. He also reminds managers that it is natural for them to become more risk averse as they age and to therefore be more mindful of their own increasing resistance to risk-taking as they progress in their careers.
Of course, succeeding in a career these days isn’t just a matter of stating it like it is and Iverson is no exception. In a few upcoming posts, we’ll take a look at some of the other skills and principles he used to become one of his industry’s most respected leaders.
Until then,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / origins of famous expressions
1. Don’t judge…
I had to wonder if Plain Talk was responsible for the expression “don’t judge a book by its cover.” Who in the world thought this cover would get readers excited for Ken Iverson’s work wisdom?!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)