Mike Lehr's Blog

A question posted by Expat 21 asked for examples of patience in the workplace, especially those demonstrating a contrast between American and other cultures.

While I find non-American cultures more patient, the examples I have aren’t that distinguishable by cultures except in their acceptance of patience-oriented approaches and the rules under which they might apply them. However, these rules don’t alter the basic strategies and tactics behind the employment of patience; they will only make application of patience more or less accepted.

With that said, Rahm Emanuel’s well documented quote,  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before,” summarizes the business implications of patience. However, this means partnering patience with our knowledge, experience or insight about the future that others lack; we are waiting for the “crisis” that we know is over the horizon.

For example, I worked on an IT project involving the rollout of client management software (CMS). From my experience, I pushed for certain functionality that I knew sales executives would want. However, the CMS team discounted the functionality, had other priorities and didn’t incorporate it. I could have pushed harder, irritated the team and achieved only a partial list of what was needed. Instead, I waited for the rollout because I knew sales managers would request the functionality. When they did, I had their entire support to get the team to do what I originally proposed and much more.

Another example for me was the reorganization of an 80 person call center. They had already gone through three reorganizations in four years. I had advised patience to the new executive because her people were “shell shocked” and hadn’t been able to establish sound interpersonal working relationships; they needed a period of stability. She went along with her reorganization anyway; she felt pressure to do something. However, the reorganization reinforced anxieties, undermined executive credibility and made achieving goals difficult. She left after only eighteen months.

“Management by walking around” and “teachable moments” are key general examples of techniques employing patience. People are more receptive to instruction when they approach us than when we approach them. We can encourage it by making ourselves accessible but we need patience to make this work.

Some macro-business applications of patience deal with such things as branding, investment, public relations, training and marketing. In each of these cases, patience is required to see a return. Often the urgency of the moment disrupts these initiatives before the return on our patience is realized. It’s personal discipline combined with the corporate and social culture that will determine how much patience is accepted; however, the basic strategies and tactics remain fundamentally the same across cultures. It’s similar to warfare; weapons, training and supplies might be different, but the basic principles remain the same no matter who is fighting.

Related Post: Blue Heron Instructs on Patience

We live in an activist business culture, meaning we are biased toward action to solve problems. For instance, reorganizations often occur simply to show something is being done when most of the time they achieve very little. In reality, neither action nor inaction is better; it all depends upon the situation. Intuitive approaches often involve positioning which requires patience.

One day my wife and I were having a picnic lunch along the Cuyahoga River during a hike. At the inside corner of a bend in the river stood a Blue Heron. My wife asked what I thought he was doing there just standing. I told her he was waiting for a fish.

About twenty minutes went by when my wife said, “I don’t think he’s waiting for a fish; it has been a long time. I would just go after the fish.” Within a minute of telling her she would never catch one with that approach because the fish were much quicker, the Heron stabbed his head downward and retrieved a fish.

In business, people will encourage us to take action even when it’s not the best option. In nature, many animals, like the Heron, lie and wait for their opportunities. Sometimes we need to position ourselves for opportunities to maximize our returns and minimize our costs, but it’s often discounted by the urge to act. Real estate is an excellent example. It’s about “location, location, location.” That real estate is lying and waiting until the benefits from its location are reaped.

In our everyday business lives, we are often prejudiced to force a bad position just so we can feel action oriented, sooth our egos or look good politically. Resisting such temptation is challenging; patience requires more discipline than action.

A recent BNET post by Thomas A. Stewart talked about nurturing dissent and provided some valuable links. Rationally, it makes sense that if you want to drive your business forward you have to ensure that everyone is on the same page. However, evidence suggests the opposite.

Brooke Harrington, a professor at Copenhagen Business School has studied investment clubs and found that “the more dissent there was among investors, the better the financial returns.” Charlan Nemeth of Cornell University takes this even further by stating, “in general, we find that dissent stimulates thought that is broader, that takes in more information and that, on balance, leads to better decisions and more creative solutions.”

One of my favorite movies is the The Bridge on the River Kwai. In the commentary that came with the DVD, it’s reported that the producer, Sam Spiegel, liked to see conflict between the director and the lead actors. He found that it tended to produce better movies than when they were agreeable. In this movie, there was tension and arguments between the director, David Lean, and the lead actor, Alec Guinness; it won seven academy awards.

In everyday practice, we tend to prefer people who think along the same lines as we do. Conflict and controversy is something we tend to avoid. Those who dissent are often considered negative. Our natural tendencies are toward peace and harmony especially when urgent business priorities are upon us. However, subconsciously, as these studies show, dissent improves our cognition and creativity.

In the article, “Are You Being Served?”, in the September 6, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, the author James Surowiecki cites a survey of more than three hundred big companies from a few years ago in which “eighty per cent described themselves as delivering ‘superior’ service, but consumers put that figure at just eight per cent.”

Yet, one of the assumptions implied in the article is that quality service matters to the customer, or at minimum it should. Yes, in an open-ended request, customers would say that is does. However, how much are they willing to pay for it? Furthermore, will they actually pay for it when the opportunity arises? The article did cite some companies providing good service for low cost; however, it could only offer up luxury businesses as examples of where good service could support a cost premium. Of course, in these cases we have to factor in the emotional effects of buying something that conveys status; here, branding is vital.

In the end, there might not be an objective answer to the question. It depends upon many factors such as the consumer, the market, the competition, the product, the brand and the buying experience itself. For example, the article never concerned itself with product quality. Perhaps some consumers are willing to tolerate poor service if the product is top-notch. That becomes an issue of value which is subjective and thus emotional.

The unresolved question implied by the study was, “Why do customers tolerate such a discrepancy and not move to another provider?” However, the author overwhelmingly focused on why businesses don’t provide quality service and didn’t explore this intuitive phenomenon.

We often anticipate and rationalize people’s decisions using a cost-benefit analysis. This perspective frequently leads to erroneous conclusions and restricts problem-solving capabilities. Consumer buying habits provide fertile fields for understanding this truth and the impact intuition has on people’s decisions. Pragmatically, these understandings can dramatically increase our range of low-cost solutions for our businesses.

A typical example of what grows from these fertile fields is a June 2009, Harvard Business Review (HBR) article by Dan Ariely and Michael I. Norton titled How Concepts Affect Consumption (research document). The article explores the emotional aspects of competition, expectations, goal setting and rewards in encouraging people to alter consumptive decisions without experiencing changes in their physical requirements. Of course, this does not mean that people won’t find rationales to support emotionally based decisions, but their intuitions will drive their cognition to produce these rationales.

For example, the HBR article suggests that “keeping up with the Joneses” is an emotion driving a competitively based buying decision; we have a need to buy what everyone else is buying in order to be socially accepted (i.e. peer pressure). Expectations affect people’s product experiences; price is a major setter of expectations. People will tend to like higher-priced beverages over lower-priced alternatives even though the beverages are identical. People will tend to feel better, quicker from higher-priced drugs even though they are the same as lower-priced alternatives. This effect even shows up tangibly as increased activity in the brain’s reward domains.

All of these changes and more were achieved without changing people’s objective requirements. Thus, when we grasp emotional drivers and how they impact people’s decisions via their intuition, we open up a whole new world of solutions for everyday business problems.

Here is a valuable problem-solving question:

How can a business maximize its profit every single minute of the day and still go out of business?

The answer is:

It can because it won’t be making any investments; those require expenditures and would prevent the maximization of profits every single minute.

The question has value as a problem-solving training exercise because it forces our attention on the relationship between profits and time:

If the maximization of profits every single minute causes a business to go out of business, what is the appropriate time frame to consider?

As we know, the financial markets like to scrutinize profits quarterly. However, is this really the best time frame? I once contracted for a private company that was positioning itself to be sold. The owner cut staff to the bone in order to beef up the financials and market value. He took a gamble that revenues could hold with the cutbacks at least for the near-term. If a sale did not materialize in the near term, he might have seen service quality suffer and eventually revenues. What did this bode for the acquirer? The implication here is that what we consider a “profitable company” is arguable depending upon the criteria we want to use. In other words, a profitable company could be as subjective as a work of art. Moreover, a costly investment in the near-term might be beneficial in the long term depending upon how we define the long term. Thus, the final question that all of this begs is this:

Over what time period should a business strive to maximize profits?

The mere fact we can debate the question suggests its arbitrariness and why a single business purchase could work for one person and not for the other.

Many things are obvious to us consciously but our actions often betray us. Initiating change among employees is one of those things. We might consciously know that people aren’t light switches but we often expect change as though they were. How often do we say to our bosses, “Yes, I told them about the new way,” in response to pressure as to why employees didn’t adopt a change? Such a response indicates we are expecting people to be light switches.

Switch (FIG #1)

Tomato Plants (FIG #2)

—–

Look at Figures 1 and 2. Which is more analogous to employees, the light switch or the tomato plants? If we select the plants, can we fully expect them to grow with only one watering or feeding? If we view them as light switches, then yes, we could. Flipping them to “on” has them adopt the changes we want and flip them to “off” has them stop the old habits.

As you can see, my wife is growing these tomato plants by having them grow within a circular, vertical wire frame. This allows them to grow taller so more vines can bear tomatoes. Yes, sometimes the vines extend out of the frame, so she works them back in to encourage them upward. She just didn’t plop down the frame and then expect them to follow it.

The same holds true for people. They require follow up and regularly observation. It usually takes at least five enforcements of the change over a couple months before the change becomes the new habit. Even then, depending upon the change, a periodic refreshing of it is needed. That is why as managers our follow up is more important than what we’ve said.

I recently read in the Schumpeter column, “In Search of Serendipity,” of the July 24, 2010 edition of The Economist about the book, The Power of Pull: How Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things In Motion, by John Hagel, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison. Automatically, the vision of bell bottoms returning to vogue arose. The concept is very similar to Carl Jung’s 1920’s introduction of synchronicity.

As stated in Schumpeter, the basic premise of the book is that “success in business increasingly depends on chance encounters.” It’s these chance encounters that seem spontaneous in the present but more purposeful with future’s hindsight. This is synchronicity repackaged.

About ten years ago, a good colleague was asking about the connections I’ve made to see if I could support this conclusion about his connections: the most profitable ones tended to come outside of his traditional, planned sales efforts. They originated from “out of the blue” encounters at non-business events when he didn’t expect them. I could relate.

It’s a basic premise of my blog that technological advancements are allowing us to see better and better the powerful impact our emotional-related processes such as intuition have in our everyday lives. As Schumpeter supports, advances in the internet – with the social media that it delivers – increases our ability to connect. This is giving us a larger sample population in which to observe that chance encounters really might not be that coincidental. It’s easy to discard one or two coincidences, but a dozen? But, make no mistake that is a concept that has been around for thousands of years in many American Indian and Eastern philosophies.

Recently, as I’ve heard on many occasions, someone said “This isn’t personal, it’s business.” A critical assumption underlying an intuitive approach is that everything we do, think or say says something about us. In short, everything is personal. Business is no different; it can tell you much about a person.

The advantage business gives us in assessing personalities is the financial tradeoff it encourages. The stress this often creates allows us to see deeper into people than otherwise possible. When someone says, “This isn’t personal, it’s business,” he is saying the decision is very personal to him. It’s a form of protesting too much. The statement is just the rationale he chose to emotionally justify his decision.

However, we can’t assume that such a statement automatically implies any particular emotions. For example, they could have a miserly orientation or they could be rooted in strong feelings for providing for his family. Many other types of emotions could be at work. Without context, it’s impossible to tell.

Nevertheless, the key point is to realize that this person has one or more emotions that are strongly connected to money. To him, money is very personal. Once you know what these emotions are, money becomes an excellent vehicle by which to influence him.

In his landmark book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia) ponders why two Arabs can hold off a dozen Turks but a thousand Arabs cannot defeat a thousand Turks. He arrives at the realization that large scale armies need to be organized around the weakest link to tap the advantages that size and technology can offer. In other words, you can’t organize your army around a set of requirements that are impossible for a soldier to perform.

With this in mind, what might happen to a Special Forces combatant who is compelled to fight in the regular army? As the article, Imperial Grunts, conveys in the October 2005 issue of the The Atlantic, many of these combatants might not “fit” well in the regular army. This is what caused the Arabs to not fight well in large groups; they could not bridle their talents. This is very much like a talented athlete who is forced to sit on the bench or compelled to perform within a structure that does not allow him to express his talents.

In the workplace, the same can occur with an employee who feels the employer is not using his talent wisely. Since a large corporation is like a large army, it will tend to organize around the weakest link. Thus, he might not have the freedom to show what he really could do because he is being forced to work like everyone else does. When we combine this with managers and co-workers who feel threatened by his talent, you could easily see his talents suppressed, his influence marginalized or his actions disruptive. All could mean his departure.