Thank God Steve Jobs Never Wrote Code



Copyright: avisdemiranda / 123RF Stock Photo

I was asked to speak at a company meeting this past week, and I am always interested in what the CEOs, CFOs, and COOs are trying to convey to their people.  What is their message? First of all, there are a lot of clichés and war room messages.  "Circle The Wagons", "Stand And Deliver", "Take Ownership", and "Be The Best" are just a few of the many themes I've heard from these meetings.  It seems odd to me that many of these themes are based on movies or phrases from the current lexicon or business jargon.  It's never something visionary or different, just an old term rephrased or changed to suit the needs of the company executive.  I never feel like the company officers are really invested in the term or the theme, because they're not.  The terms are stale, the executives are stale, and they create no motivation for the people in the room. Basically, a lot of these meetings are down right BORING.

Unfortunately, a lot of companies are led by "bean counters", or "numbers guys", who care only about the company financials and not the company vision.  They are simply trying to survive but not create something great.  In this particular meeting the company message was "Grow It And Own It", which meant the sales people needed to expand the business which would give them an opportunity to acquire more ownership in the company with stock options or grants.  The CEOs vision was to grow the company 30% in the next year.  30%! Granted the company was the smallest in its market but it still had revenues near $100 million.  Moreover, the overall market was only growing at a rate of 4%! WTF?  I was listening to the CEO speak and I remembered him telling me about his history with the company. He had started as an engineer in the company and worked his way up through the ranks.  However in this instant, he was still thinking like an engineer!  He had no idea how he was going to grow 30%, he just knew that in order to reach his goal, the company had to grow 30%, even with a market growth of just 4%.  I'm not an engineer, but I was curious as to how he was planning on making this plan work, because statistically it didn't add up.

The room was filled with about 10 sales managers and 50 reps all trying to figure out how they were going to grow at a rate of 30%, and they were looking to him for the answers.  There was palpable tension in the air when he revealed they were going to bring a new product to the market.  People were stirring in their seats and getting excited about the big reveal, and I thought back to when Steve Jobs first introduced the iPhone to the world.

The year was 2007, and the cell phone market was booming.  Ericcson, Motorola, and Nokia all were big players in that space and it appeared no one was going to overtake them any time soon.  Cell phones were clunky and cumbersome and people wore them with clips on their belts.  You had to flip them open and pull up the antennae in order to get a good signal and none of them allowed you access to the Internet, or if they did it was limited access. You couldn't access an app because there was no such thing as an app! It's hard to believe this was just 8 years ago.

So what did Steve Jobs and Apple do?  They took a market that was closed and opened up a whole new market space.  It was new and exciting and people told him that he was crazy for entering into the cell phone business.  Apple was a computer company not a cell phone company.  Yet he had been successful with the iPod, why not change the cell phone industry.  Steve Jobs was not a coder, he was visionary.  He wasn't an engineer he was a conductor, orchestrating changes on a global scale.

So when this CEO was about to show this revolutionary new product, even I got excited.  As he went through his presentation he talked about how it would change the industry. All the reps were on the edge of their seats.  I could see the anticipation building as the CEO talked about all the qualities this product would bring and the benefit it would provide to customers. Some of the sales reps seemed to actually be salivating, like dogs waiting to be fed.  And when a picture of the product finally flashed on the giant screen, I thought they would all leap out of their seats and shout "hurray", but instead they slumped.  It turns out that the revolutionary new product wasn't new at all, nor was it revolutionary. It was a product that had been on the market for 5 years already that the company had purchased along with all the patents and IP that came with the product.  The CEO was planning on re branding it and selling it in other markets.  Collectively the entire room heaved a sigh and the energy and excitement was gone.  I could here the managers and reps frustration.

"If they couldn't sell it, how the hell are we gonna sell it?"

"I swear I thought he was going to introduce the new iPhone and instead he gave us a flip phone."

"Great! A new product to sell that doesn't do anything new or different."

" How is this going to revolutionize the industry?  It's an old product."


I don't think this was the reaction the CEO was hoping to get.  I think he was hoping they would stand and applaud, but they remained in their seats, heads down, contemplating their future and the future of the company.  As he stood there on the stage, a man alone, I felt sorry for him.  He was an engineer, not a visionary.  He was deep in a forest of formulas and codes and he couldn't get himself out.  He couldn't see beyond his computer screen to the bigger picture; changing lives, changing markets, or changing the world.  He didn't need to think outside the box, he needed to stand outside the box.  This is how you change the world.

Thank god Steve Jobs never wrote code.

Too Much Emotional Intelligence? Is That Possible?

 

Photo courtesy of 123rf.com

 

If you're reading this to feel good and looking for a happy ending with peace, love, and rainbows, then stop reading now.  If you're reading this to understand how the corporate world can sometimes "throw you a curve", than continue reading.  The more you understand, the better off you are in managing the corporate culture. In fact, this story is about how love and understanding is unappreciated in the corporate environment.

 



Last week, a friend of mine who is incredibly successful in medical sales was being interviewed for a VP position with a very large company.  He had been working at the company for over 6 years, his team was #1 in the country, and he felt like he was more qualified than the rest of the other candidates to win the position. 

The position was overseeing an entire team of people who would be selling and cross selling a variety of biomedical devices.  Since my friend had experience in selling and managing a team he thought for sure he had a good chance of being promoted.  Compare to the other candidates, he had more experience in the field, better sales numbers, more tenure, a better reputation in the company, and he had sold all of the biomedical devices being offered so he could relate to any of the 100 or so sales reps he would be leading.  It seemed like a "no-brainer" to me.  But then again, I was being objective and assuming the people making the decision were intelligent, but of course I was wrong.

After 2 weeks of interviews with 12 different people it came down to 3 candidates, and I apologize to all the women out there that who were probably qualified but didn't make the final cut. But that's another issue corporate America needs to work on.  I've listed the final 3 candidates below and their stories:

1.)The Outsider - It is so typical of companies to bring in an outside candidate to lead their team because they want to "shake things up".  However, what happens is this type of hire usually shakes things down, and I mean specifically employee morale.  The message being sent is "none of you are good enough to be our VP".  I'm not saying don't hire candidates from another company, but I would recommend if you, meaning CEO's,  have internal people who are more than qualified than promote them for God's sake!  The Outsider had a wealth of medical experience but in an operational position, and why was he even being considered for a sales VP?  No idea, but then again, I'm thinking rationally.

2.)The Insider - Too often, people hire someone in their own image.  Someone they like, simply because, "she reminded me of myself at her age", or "he's a lot like me, self made, tough as nails, and takes no prisoners." How narcissistic is that?!  Well candidate number 2 was with the company a little over a year, and he came from a different medical device company.   He had already turned over 4 of his reps in less than a year and he was floundering at number 15 out of 30 in the country.  However, my understanding from my friend was that he was hired to assume this VP role because the CEO had made a "suggestion" to hire him a year earlier.  What is interesting is that my friend liked him, and was rooting for him, if he himself didn't get the job.  Can you imagine that?  My friend was big enough to support a decision for a candidate with less experience and poor performance.

3.)The Right Stuff - So this seems like the obvious candidate to promote to the position.  He had come through the ranks and moved up the ladder because he was able to motivate people in a positive way.  Even during the interview process, one of the panel had said to him, "you seem to have such a great reputation in the company, great numbers,  and you really know how to rally the troops. It seems like your the ideal person for the job."  Now, when he told me after all the interviews that this panel interviewer had said this to him, I immediately knew he wasn't going to get the position.  Why?  Because no one tells you that you're the ideal candidate in the interview process unless they are trying to find a way NOT TO GIVE YOU THE JOB! That's a preface for them to start picking you apart and finding any reason they can not to give you the position.

Needless to say, he wasn't awarded the VP position.  When he asked some of the interviewers for feedback on what he needed to work on, if this opportunity ever again presented itself, they all seemed to respond with similar answers:

• "You do a great job of working with your people to get results but can you make the tough decisions."
• " Your ability to engage your employees might influence your decision to fire them or lay them off."
• " When you have so much invested in your people, it's not always easy to let them go. Some of the panel wasn't sure you'd be able to do that. "
• " You do such a great job of getting people to work together, but how well can you lead them when they aren't unified? And will you fire people who aren't working out?"
• " Your emotional intelligence is very high and that's great in the field, but at a VP level it's almost a liability, rather than an asset."

He told me this, and my response was, "are you f#$king with me?  One of them actually said you might have too much emotional intelligence?"

Keep in mind, my friend had laid off a lot reps when the company had downsized and he had hated doing it, but he did it anyway.  Despite his high emotional intelligence, he had made the hard decisions, and he told me that it made the lay-offs easier.  Because without a relationship with his employees it may have become a volatile situation in some cases.

My friend was confused by the answers and the decision but he still has a good job, at a good company and this opportunity may come again soon.  But still it really sends out the wrong message to the field, particularly when a person so well respected, with great numbers, is passed over for a promotion.

So I guess the message he received from this corporate sleight of hand was this:

"Care about your employees but don't care too much."

Have a good day?