3 Steps to Growth in 2014

At the beginning of the New Year, it feels appropriate to discuss growth. Unfortunately, the growth conversation often lacks the levity it once did with the world economies still struggling to fully recover. Rather than focus on that, we want to offer that growth can still be fun and less perplexing than it seems; however, it may require changing strategy, direction, or even primary market focus.

Most people start off the year with resolutions, and we recommend that growth finds itself at the top of the list. We understand the desire to simply sustain when the markets are tough, but we advise taking the successful stock market approach - invest when the market is down. While it can be tough to swing, it can result in nice payoffs, especially if your competition takes the sustainment route.

With that said, we suggest three steps to promote growth into 2014.

1. Have Fun with the Idea Phase - As we stated, growth does not have to be a dreaded conversation. Have fun thinking about ways to grow. Get into it, create competitions, foster creativity in this phase, and most importantly do not discourage ideas by allowing negative feedback. Your organization's best path to growth may be hiding in the idea someone was afraid or discouraged to voice.

With that said, create a flexible box for the ideas. We know, that notion might be considered blasphemous in certain circles, but we suggest this approach because certain, flexible boundaries keep the ideas focused to those that account for key company strengths - not necessarily the obvious ones though - and it prevents devolving into an Anything For Money (AFM) strategy. It is important to have fun, but not to lose all semblance of focus. For example, here at Res Rei Development, we love creative growth ideas, but would exclude things like self manufacturing our thoughts on the next greatest widget simply because it falls way out of bounds of our core strengths. Have fun, but be mindful when outside of the box causes you to chase unrealistic opportunities.

2. Set Manageable Goals - How original of us right? We know, goal setting advice by a consulting company seems about as original as a celebrity rehab stint or the lack of innuendo in music these days, but its importance and neglect never seems to fade. We find it not all that uncommon to find relatively small companies with goals like "$1 million increase in year over year sales" when their three year average annual revenues are under $5 million. Think about that logically. That is a 20% increase in a single year. Yes, for some companies and some industries, they can manage that, but that does not make it manageable for everyone.

Additionally, unattainable goals for companies, just like for people, can leave a feeling of discouragement and hamper further growth efforts. Set those manageable goals, post them for everyone to see, encourage your personnel, create incentives, and reward them when you hit them. Now, manageable goals does not equate to underachieving goals. Make sure they will require dedication and effort.

3. Don't be Afraid to Ask for Help - Whether you ask your own group of friend-advisors or bring in outside specialists, it is okay to ask for help. Okay, we'll admit, that is a little self-serving, but, we didn't say you had to ask us - although, we'd be happy if you did - and the advice still holds validity. Getting additional perspective or help in creating a growth strategy can help cut through the noise and get your company moving towards those growth goals. Sometimes solutions can elude those that are too close to the problem. Regardless of the size of your organization, it is acceptable to ask for help. The bigger mistake is hitting a wall and not considering asking for help. It is the continued growth of the organization that is the goal. As the saying goes, "if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got."

Denis Leary’s Hidden Business Lesson No One Heard?

Sixteen years ago, Denis Leary went on one of his famous, comedic rants about “coffee flavored coffee.” Rather than butcher it, watch the video below to hear him discuss the frustrations of finding a cup of coffee flavored coffee and beer flavored beer. Warning, it contains adult language, but it makes the point.

Fast forward to today. A couple of weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published an article about whether or not peanut butter Pop Tarts® classify as an innovation. This article harbors zero intent on plunging into that overly opinionated area; however, when one looks at both Denis Leary’s comments and the Pop Tart® article, it raises an interesting question. Did Denis Leary provide a business lesson clearly no one has heard?

For those that did not watch the video, excerpts of the important pieces are provided. "What happened with coffee? Did I miss a f!@#$%^ meeting with the coffee, huh? You can get every other flavor except coffee-flavored coffee! They got Mochachino, Chocachino, Frappachino, Rappachino, Al Pacino, what the f@#$?" He continues about beer. Specifically, he talks about Pete's Wicked Brew, Pete's Wicked Summer Brew, and then asks "Who the f@#$ is Pete, f#$% Pete?"

Profanity aside, he raises a couple of interesting points, especially when you consider peanut butter Pop Tarts®, the 10,000 different toothpastes, and the most recent iterations of the iPhone. Are we as marketers and product developers trying too hard to keep up with consumer trends – real or perceived - that we miss the most obvious, age-old tenet - why mess with a good thing? Let us look at Google's recent YouTube comment system change as one example. Again, this article is not wading into that beaten to death argument. Instead, let us examine it in Denis Leary's context. We have thousands of social media options. We have Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, Google+, Myspace, LinkedIn and the list goes on. Would anyone be surprised if there was a social network solely for people's goldfish? Most people use one or a couple of these.

So, YouTube comments worked just fine before, right? Why then did Google decide it necessary to cram Google+ down our throats, much the way Leary alludes non-coffee flavored coffee was crammed down his? How about Gmail? What happened to the email, email systems? With Gmail you can send emails, update your Google Circles, and wire people money now, just to name a few. Before we know it, Gmail will take food orders and control your television. In spite of numerous complaints about these changes, companies still forge ahead making it impossible for people to get the simple product and/or service that they prefer, instead being force-fed a bunch of junk they could care less about.

As seen both in Leary's rants sixteen years ago and in the Pop Tart® and Google examples, this is neither a new trend nor a past problem that has since been resolved. When are the marketers and product/service developers going to take a serious, perhaps quantitative, look at the choice to fundamentally change staples into the newest and flashiest thing around? Do the novelty sales really mitigate the lifetime customer expenditures that are lost from the unnecessary modification? One final thought, how many customers do companies actually lose when they decide to change something solely for the sake of changing it in their attempts to be edgy and innovative? Innovation provides little value when you cannibalize solid products and services and alienate those customers that preferred the simplicity.

Sorry, Mr. Leary, it appears that after sixteen years, nobody's listening.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is part of a new series of basic business lessons hidden in pop-culture

Exelis Mission Systems Retains Res Rei Development

This week Exelis Mission Systems, a division of Exelis, Inc. engaged Res Rei Development to support an international growth and development opportunity.

Exelis, Inc. is a $5B+ global aerospace, defense, information and services company created in October 2011 as a result of the spinoff of ITT Corporation's defense business into an independent, publicly traded company.

RRD personnel will be providing specialized expertise in exporting and tailoring necessary business processes to different countries as well as conducting general business and managing logistics in these locations to support the needs of Exelis' client.

Lacking Execution from your Fresh MBA Graduate Heavy Consulting Firm?

Yesterday, in his article "Strategy Without Execution is Hallucination," Forbes writer Karl Moore states that 95% of MBA strategy classes focus on the process of developing strategy and largely ignore execution. To add to this tale of academic woe, he tells us that in a survey of more than 200 CEO's, it was discovered that reality demands 90% to 95% being spent on execution not on development.

What does this say for the quality of the strategy solutions flooding the markets from the consulting firms that hire large numbers of fresh MBA grads? Are companies being given the best value for their money from the firms that base a large part of their business model on fresh MBA grads that have little to no exposure to execution?

Add this recent discovery to the fact that the most common grade given at Harvard is an 'A,', and it suggests that the top of their class Harvard consultant, with only two months of experience, may not be as good as it sounds.

The end of Micro-Management?

In this Harvard Business School article, the author discusses how increased transparency and too much employee observation leads to a decrease in productivity. Should you give your employees enough autonomy to complete tasks alone, or should you ensure they are always under a watchful eye? We wonder if both business and personal culture play a bigger role than suggested in the article.

Storyboarding the Book

With four days left on the storyboard/outline portion of my book project, I find myself surprised. It required ten days for me to come up with ten whole chapters. So, about a chapter a day, and that's just the outline and basic concept for the chapter. Ten chapters seemed paltry, and quite frankly, how would I even have enough content to finish a thesis, let alone an entire book?

So, today, while working on other projects, I glanced back and forth at my "Book Chapters" note inside my Evernote, wondering if I would get stuck this early into the project. I had absolutely no inspiration, and little faith that I would get a solid storyboard and outline completed within my window.

However, after a brief thirty minute workout, I sat down and decided to transfer my ten measly chapters from Evernote into Scrivener, a well thought out software program designed to help writers organize and write their manuscripts. Once complete, I sat staring at the outline, and before I knew it, many of the chapters found themselves getting sections and sub-sections mapped out.

Now, looking at what I accomplished in a mere matter of minutes, my concern has shifted from will I even have a workable storyboard/outline by the 28th, to will I be able to finish mapping out the sections and sub-sections by then. Should be interesting.

The lesson learned here is that sometimes all it takes is to clear your head, sit back down without reservations, and go with what pops into your head when looking at it. Also, it helps to have tools that allow you to organize information the way that you think, which then at least provides you a mean to drag and drop, or retool as needed.

Written by Richard Brion

Is the Human Resource Department Killing Corporate Innovation?

Reading the latest news and corporate blogs suggests this question fails its hypothesis almost immediately. For example, on its home page, Doherty Staffing devotes the majority of its whitespace to reasons why there is a talent shortage in the United States. Internet searches surrounding the topic of talent shortages lead one to believe that the job candidates or an aging population, not the HR Department, created the innovation gap and talent shortfalls within corporations.

On August 22, 2013, Deloitte's, Jeff Schwartz, summarized the findings of a Deloitte survey, where 37% of surveyed executives stated their HR Department required significant, dare they say, radical improvements to Human Resources. A breath of fresh air for those seeking employment, or a statement that will result in nothing new? Only time will tell. Either way, could not agree more with the statement; HR Departments hold a large key to corporate innovation, and many kill that innovation using a few choice policies and standard operating procedures. Four of these innovation-killing measures include:

- Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) - These are also known as Human Resources Software, like Taleo, Kenexa, and other systems

- "Because of the Volume of Applications, if you do not hear from us in XX days, assume you do not fit the position" statements

- Maintaining the recruiting process inside of the staff management division

- Perpetuating the myth of "The Perfect Candidate"

The Applicant Tracking System - Arguably, the worst offender, the ATS touts itself as the way to save so much time and effort in the recruiting process. Human Resource and recruiter salaries, for the top 10%, exceed $100,000 a year, yet automated screening systems are required to ensure candidates meet the qualifications. In spite of industry-recognized reports stating that, approximately 75% of well-qualified candidates are screened out by the systems, HR managers and recruiters still hype the systems' usefulness and essentiality to the job.

According to the job search services provider Preptel, seventy-five percent (75%), let that sink in, of all qualified candidates get screened out by the system as soon as they submit their resumes. No wonder 'Innovationicide' occurs daily in companies like Microsoft, RIM, and others, and it occurs from inside the HR Department. Only twenty-five percent of (25%) candidates make it beyond this screening, and this 25% is not always the most or best qualified. This is the result of how the systems work. Without digressing into the technicalities, one major way this paltry performance occurs results from how the job description is loaded into the ATS. In many scenarios, the hiring manager drafts the job description because they know what they need in the new candidate. From here, the HR personnel or recruiter loads the job description into the ATS and assigns keywords. The problem resides in these keywords. Many qualified candidates select keywords based on industry knowledge and their extensive experiences, while the HR personnel may not know the industry or job well enough and select keywords that poorly represent the needs of the position.

The sheer gravity of only 25% of qualified candidates making it through this automated system compounds the corporate dilemma surrounding innovation, and it provides a different lens with which to view the belief that the United States suffers from a talent shortage.

Automated Responses - Perhaps one of the most disingenuous things that a company can do, and yet, it permeates a multitude of corporations. Even IDEO, one of the mostly highly regarded innovators that filmed videos devoted to their unusual personnel mix, uses one of these high volume do not expect a response messages. The argument heard most often in support of this rude tactic is that they are so busy that it takes too much time to respond to every candidate. To postulate here, what happens when a very qualified candidate, who never hears from a company that they wanted to work for, sees another position from the same company? What likelihood does the HR department believe exists for these candidates to apply again? Sure, candidates will always exist that continue to reapply regardless, but what percentage of these are the top candidates? Advice presented from LinkedIn Influencers and others across the web, advise candidates to know when to turn down a company, and a commonly repeated reason persists - companies that cannot even provide a courteous response.

In the end, how many qualified candidates have ceased caring about your business' needs because of a lack of courtesy in thanking applicants for applying that were not selected for further consideration? The ATS systems provide tools to help with this, but instead the common practice of ignoring candidates in the interest of saving time dominates the standard practices of the same companies that believe the myth of a talent shortage.

Single Roof HR Departments - For all of the ways presented that HR departments kill innovation, they do not equate to uselessness. HR departments ensure payroll and other essential employee support receives the attention it requires. Governmental and pro-litigation regulation compliance demands full-time attention. People wonder why corporations resorted to tactics, like those mentioned here, that kill innovation. The answer jumps out at us - the inclusion of recruitment into the personnel management hierarchy. Sure, during the design of an offer, include the HR department.

After all, this group works diligently to manage personnel and ensure that certain tasks fall within the corporate and regulatory guidelines; however, why should that equate to these people managing the recruitment pipeline. It hamstrings efforts to find the best-qualified candidates through rules that include one found at one of the United States' largest corporations: "all candidates' resumes, regardless of how the candidates came into the pipeline, must pass the ATS automated screening." In effect, recruiters and other employees find exciting candidates, but if they do not pass screening by a computer with a 75% failure rate, the candidate cannot be considered. At some point equal opportunity became synonymous with mindless screenings without a specific requirement to do so. Again, this raises questions about the reality of talent shortages and why innovation is disappearing.

The Perfect Candidate - Peter Capelli recently wrote in the Harvard Business Review of this very phenomenon. He also challenges the notion of candidate incompatibility with the available jobs, and goes so far as to suggest the push to reduce the cost per candidate in the hiring process is one of the major problems. Of even more importance in the article is his research that concludes hiring managers have implemented large delays in the hiring process through second interviews or simply going months without contact to candidates in consideration. The implication is that hiring managers believe that by delaying a decision the perfect candidate may emerge based solely on the number of people searching for the jobs.

HR departments perpetuate the myth by not challenging some of the ridiculous requirements hiring managers state they need, many of which are innovation killers in and of themselves. Take a perusal of the job boards and look at some of the job descriptions. Outrageous specificity that did not exist before the financial mess abounds. In some fields, the number of candidates that qualify based on some listings is likely less than ten people nationwide, and the majority may not even be in the market for a new position. Are they holding out hope that the one in a million candidate simply stumbles upon them?

In this instance, basic business school precepts have been forgotten. For example, numerous innovation classes teach that one of the best methods for innovation is to hire people that have never solved the exact problem the company faces. Specifically, in his article, "The Weird Rules of Creativity," Robert Sutton of Stanford University delves into why it works to have people that are not simple imitations of every other employee, yet when looking at the ridiculous specificity in most requirements these days, imitation is exactly what companies are seeking.

A modern day example of this can be seen in IBM and Microsoft. In 1993, IBM brought in Lou Gerstner when they were on the verge of failure. At the time, Gerstner possessed little to no technology experience, yet he returned IBM to being one of the most respected technology companies in less than ten years. Contrarily, look at Microsoft's selection of Ballmer as CEO. Ballmer was an industry insider, joining Microsoft as the 30th person the company ever hired. During his tenure, he orchestrated the blunders of shutting down the tablet project that would have been first to market, shutting down the automobile software project to have a car read text messages and other items from a mobile phone, and other similar projects that would have been first to market.

In the end, the more HR departments encourage and perpetuate the myth of the perfect candidate, the more high-quality candidates corporations lose.

The next Gerstner may very well have been screened out by a highly prone to failure ATS system, been turned off by the rude "we're too busy to acknowledge you," or simply looked elsewhere because of the slow hiring process in the search for the mythological "perfect candidate."

So, the next time it comes up that the lack of qualified, innovative personnel filling critical needs is related to a talent shortage, look inside the very HR department that is perpetuating these innovation killers. The perfect candidate may already be in the pipeline, or have moved on to a company that has not turned over its recruitment to a bureaucratic nightmare that by its very design thwarts interest from qualified candidates.

Find the article on Ezine.