Management Partrnerships

Last year I wrote a blog entry on leadership. That entry was based on an idea expressed by Rabbi Mendel Lew, and given in one of his weekly synagogue sermons. Today Rabbi Lew gave another sermon which I think has implications for management.

The topic was a strange verse in the Book of Genesis just prior to the creation of Adam's wife, Eve. Genesis chapter 2 verse 18 is generally translated from the original Hebrew as follows: God said, 'It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a compatible helper for him'. Two verses later (verse 20) the same idea comes up. The man named every livestock animal and bird of the sky, as well as all the wild beasts. But the man did not find a helper who was compatible for him. The Hebrew words "ezer kenegdo" are translated as compatible helper or similar variations (e.g. a suitable helper) but a more literal translation would actually be a helper against him or a helper who contradicts him / argues with him. (For linguists - ezer means "helper", while kenegdo means "against him")

So what does this have to do with management. The second verse quoted gives the clue - in that Adam was not actually on his own, as implied in the first verse. Adam had companions - dogs, cats, livestock, etc. However none could advise him or work with him. They were all subordinate to, and dominated by, him.

There are two types of managers

1. those who seek to dominate those around them
2. those who listen to, work with, and respect the opinions of those around them.

The first sort generates "yes men" and "yes women" who dare not question the wisdom and leadership of the manager. The problem with this sort of manager is that if they are wrong they will have nobody to tell them so. They will have helpers - but nobody to tell them when they are wrong, or even to discuss issues objectively. Nobody will risk contradicting such managers - and if such a manager did ask for the opinions of those around them, the answers received would be crafted to correspond to what people thought he/she wanted to hear. Essentially the helpers are a bit like a sheepdog rounding up sheep for the shepherd - very useful, but only so long as everything is straightforward and there are no problems. The moment problems occur, the manager - like the shepherd - will be alone. Essentially this type of manager has nobody to share ideas with: he/she has no peers to listen to, to respect and to view as equals.

For true management and leadership success this is not enough. You also need to hear contradictory opinions and take into account the views of those who disagree with you - who are against you. From the differing opinions you can then develop a balanced viewpoint - and end up making better, more profitable decisions.

In a recent blog entry (Thinking Hats) I suggested that prior to making a decision you look at the problem from six different perspectives, with the sixth being a synthesis of the other five. The same applies to management: to manage successfully you need to consider the opinions and attitudes of those around you. You need an ezer kenegdo whose opinions are seen as equal to your own, so that you can balance your and your peers' views when making decisions.

However this only goes as far as the planning stage. When it comes to action, you need to think as one - and act as one. There should be no scope for different people to pull in contradictory directions. Successful managers should take on board diverse viewpoints, and then come up with rational strategic or tactical decisions that bring people together; that unify the various perspectives; and that lead to coherent actions that fulfill agreed business aims and objectives.

Competitive Intelligence and the small business

I wasn't planning to do another entry so soon after the last one, but felt I had to highlight an excellent article on competitive intelligence in the latest issue of FreePint. The article, entitled DIY Detection: Competitive Intelligence for SMEs is by the Australian based consultant, Vernon Prior, and gives a very comprehensive description of how to do CI on a low budget. (I wrote an article several years ago for the sadly defunct Competia newsletter on a similar topic - you can still read the article Competitive Intelligence on a Small Budget but unfortunately many of the suggested links for Internet research are now dead or no longer offer the same material).

Vernon's article covers all aspects of CI - from what to look for, how to look for it, and what to do with the intelligence when you've found it. He discusses both secondary and primary sources and concludes with brief guidelines on actually setting up a CI operation. A well written article, that beats mine in its depth and comprehensiveness - taking account of the limited word count available for such articles.

Another site of interest to Competitive Intelligence specialists is Jens Thieme's Competitive Intelligence & Marketing Intelligence Resources & Tools web-site at www.markintell.com. This - still growing - resource for all aspects of CI, includes some excellent articles on CI and related disciplines and Vernon is a contibutor/member of the site.

Thinking Hats

This entry has been prompted by a comment (critique) on Jon Lowder's CI blog that I don't publish very often. I could try and make excuses (work, laze, inability - delete whichever is not applicable). However I won't - as I think the complaint is totally justified. In fact I tend to have spurts - and publish when I get ideas. I'd prefer to blog something that fulfilled the aims I have for this blog then just use it for a stream of consciousness - much of which would be just a way of me asserting my ego. So thank you Jon for the prompt to think!

First - a couple of comments on Jon's blog - if you've not ever read it. He has some great tips which I firmly second. For example, recent blogs mention the uses of LinkedIn in CI. I've been a LinkedIn user for some time - and have found it invaluable as a source for potential contacts. I've also signed up with other networking groups although my network is smaller on these - Xing, Ecademy, etc. Also - don't ignore Facebook and MySpace. A lot of companies have signed up for pages on these networking sites, and you never know who or what you might find that could help with a project.

Jon mentions a new LinkedIn feature - the ability to ask questions, and get answers from other users as a strength of the service. Potentially it could be - although I felt the answers given were poor. I think a better service for answering questions is the FreePint bar which has a circulation list of approaching 100,000 expert searchers who answer questions on a massive range of topics - many of which are relevant for competitive intelligence professionals. (As an example, recent posts have looked at international tax comparisons, media monitoring, Swiss, Austrian & German company shareholders and Russian export regulations).

In the example Jon highlighted, half the answers suggested HitWise. This is a great service, but I'm not sure that it is the right solution for the questioner, from the bank JP Morgan-Chase, who was looking for competitive intelligence vendors for paid search - asking Is CI effective in Search? None of the answers given took into account the questioner's origins in financial services - or asked what he meant by his question about whether CI was effective in search.

What Hitwise offers is a service giving customers knowledge on how Internet users interact with web-sites - your own and your competitors. You can use it to compare how your site is performing against competitor sites - and if this is what was wanted, then Hitwise would be a good solution. However Hitwise's strength is not really for B2B web-sites, as these will generally receive much less traffic than the consumer web-sites for which the Hitwise service is best aimed. If what was wanted were vendors who were experts at secondary Internet search then Hitwise would not be the correct solution - members of the Association of Independent Information professionals (www.aiip.org) would have been a better bet - as most are experts at searching the Internet and other databases, and many, including us at AWARE, specialise in competitive intelligence.

In fact, another interpretation of this question is completely different and takes into account both the nature of the questioner and medium where the question was posed. LinkedIn attracts a lot of recruiters and recruitment agencies, and is used by these for looking for candidates. Search is sometimes used in this context so the question could have related to this i.e. Is CI effective in Recruitment Searching? If this was what the questioner really wanted then none of the 8 responses was satisfactory.

This highlights a lesson for all competitive intelligence professionals - you need to know, for each research request:

• who is actually asking the question (i.e. you are asked a question by your boss, but this is because his or her boss has asked them a question - are the two questions the same or has something been lost in the transmission?),
• why are they asking it,
• what are they really looking to achieve with the answer.

Only then can you really answer the question. It's a question of putting on your thinking hat to get behind the, often, easy looking question.

In fact, if you really want to study a problem it's not one thinking hat that should be used but six! This idea comes from the work of Edward de Bono - and should be a key element of all competitive intelligence analytical approaches. Essentially every problem for which a decision is required should be looked at in six ways:

1. Neutral: focusing on the data available, knowledge gaps, past trends and extrapolations from historical data. Unfortunately this is where a lot of CI people stop in their analyses - and just present the neutral view. This is rarely the full answer that the decision maker needs.
2. Self-opinionated / emotionally: how will your customer react to the response you are giving him or her? Does your work answer the question they've posed - not the surface question, but the underlying driver that led to the question? You need to use intuition and your emotional instincts to look at the problem with this approach. What are the emotions involved? How will people respond to your research when they've not been through the process or followed the reasoning you took to reach the answer?
3. Judgmentally: what are the bad points or weaknesses in your work or the decision suggested? What could go wrong? Be cautious and risk-adverse. This approach lets you prepare for the worst and makes you think of alternative options and create contingency plans if things don't work as expected.
4. Positively: now look at the good points and the benefits that will result from any decision. Even if everything looks like a disaster, trying to see the positive can help find a way out of the mess. It can also help show the value in the decision - in a way that may not be immediately obvious.
5. Creatively: brainstorm a bit. Try and think beyond the problem for alternative solutions or approaches. Don't criticise any ideas - just go with the flow. This approach allows you to come up with further suggestions and ideas that could add increased value to what you are suggesting. More importantly they show that you've really considered all aspects of the problem.
6. Take an overview of the other 5 approaches: this final approach looks at all the other five and evaluates the responses, synthesizing the responses into a single coherent, balanced position. If there are too few alternatives then it may be time to go back to the creative approach. If everything looks perfect, then be really judgmental and see if you can come up with anything wrong at all - just in case there is some gremlin that was missed. If everything looks bad, go back to the positive approach and look to see if there is anything salvageable.

Answering problems and coming to decisions using de Bono's 6 Thinking Hats technique will result in better solutions and safer, more resilient and robust decisions - avoiding potential disasters, while being able to feel more confident about the actions you commit to.