Archive for April, 2012

The Pluses and Minuses of Interns

Wednesday, April 25, 2012 by:David Zahn
Comment
Comments(1)
|
|

This is the time of the year when a corporate version of speed dating occurs. Students pursuing various professional degrees begin looking for career relevant opportunities while at the same time many college-aged students are being wooed by companies seeking temporary assistance.  The pursuit and capture of interns and internships kicks into high gear as the semester comes to an end.

A recent article on CBSnews highlighted this phenomena and provided some steps to consider when choosing whether to use interns and how to establish a successful relationship with the intern.  Given that organizations of all sizes can, and do use interns, the appropriate use of interns is something that should be well-th0ught out to maximize the results for both the intern and for the business

Internships should be approached purposefully, or not at all.

Stop and Assess

Interns can have a very powerful impact on organizations.  They often represent a jolt of enthusiasm and energy that revitalizes an organization with the youthful exuberance and new ideas (often culled from the latest research and insights of progressive resesarchers and practitioners on campuses or studied in classes).  However, viewing and treating the intern as free labor can cause problems with Federal agencies that no business wishes to invite.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, unpaid interns need to be engaged in learning professional skills. The article includes the following quote,

 ” There isn’t substantive work they can do. Legally and ethically, interns aren’t just summer workers. If they aren’t learning, they aren’t interning — they’re just free labor. “You shouldn’t use them as extra pairs of hands doing administrative work, stocking [shelves], or other hourly-level work unless it is for a short exposure time to understand exactly what the hourly employee actually does,” says management professor John Millikin of Arizona State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business.”

Additionally, they are not to be used to replace salaried employees.  However, even putting the legal issues to the side, the decision to hire interns should not be done aitomatically without considering the following:

Resources

The hiring company should consider if there are staff members available to mentor and instruct the intern.  The intern is pursuing a learning opportunity in a field of interest.  As such, they are interested in being trained, shown, have demonstrated, etc.  Whether the guidance and oversight is given to one employee or spread across a few, it should be formalized and done with the intern’s interests included – and not just the organization’s needs as the focus. 

Additionally, the space and room needed for the intern to work must be provided.  If there is no work space for the intern, it will be a serious detraction from the ability of the intern to either learn or contribute to the company.  So, depending on the requirements of the internship, there should be phones, desks, computers, or other equipment available for the intern.  Having the intern take the office or desk of whichever employee is out of the office that day in a nomadic journey each day is not conducive to a successful internship.

Consider

While it may be tempting to view the intern as another resource to leverage that has little (if any) cost, before you hire an intern, think about what they will do and how you will help structure the experience as a learning opportunity. Short of that, the article points out that, “Failing to think before hiring can potentially leave you open to lawsuits like the ones currently plaguing Charlie Rose and media company Hearst. Even if you don’t face legal problems, trying to mentor an intern without the right resources can be a time and money drain on your organization that benefits no one.”

Saying it so I Hear

Tuesday, April 17, 2012 by:David Zahn
Comment
Comments
|
|

There is nothing more essential to business than being able to communicate the benefits or value of the company, product, or service. Whether that communication is with a bank, a supplier, or a customer; failure to do it properly is often the source of problems, the need to rework or duplicate work, lost sales, or other opportunities. 

American Society of Training & Development (ASTD) tracks the amount of money spent on employee development and it is shocking that even in the current economically challenged times, that over $125 Billion was devoted to various training initiatives.  Of that, a significant amount of it is spent on communication skills.  A recent Dale Carnegie study found that a significant amount of that was devoted to various forms of communication training (from telephone skills, conducting meetings, face-to-face conversations, emails, and presentations).  And yet – the need for the training continues to increase.  In just the last month, I have been approached by clients seeking to improve some form of their communication (primarily between sales or marketing functions and prospects or customers).

Communication is only effective if it is understood.

Finance – the Language of Business

Whether focused on the entrepreneur having to approach the bank for a loan or the sales person having to justify the benefit of a customer making a purchase, there are certain “vocabulary” words and ways of structuring the conversation so that it makes sense and accomplishes the purpose of the conversation.  Be sure that at a minimum, you understand and can explain:

  1. Costs
  2. Profit
  3. Return on Investment
  4. Risk
  5. Assets
  6. Expenses

While there is far more to having a successful conversation that drives the performance anticipated.  Those six (6) terms should at least get your focused where you want the conversation to be headed.

Lose the Techno-Speak

Two different clients of mine in very different industries and product lines recently contacted me to consult with them on the strength of their sales efforts.  Specifically, they wanted assistance and guidance around how they structure, present, and market their products or solutions to customers.  In both instances here is what I found:

  1. They had fallen in love with themselves.  They were passionate about their processes, their manufacturing approach, their own internal approaches.  Their selling strategies were self–focused.  It was as if they were asking, “I love myself, don’t you love me too?”
  2. They both were quick to compare themselves to leading competitors or an industry standard on various measures, but they did not ask their  customers, “how will you measure us and our success?”
  3. The customer was almost treated as incidental.  Very few instances of actual dialogue or discussion were occurring.  The sales effort was truly a presentation or stage production with an audience (only minus the lights and orchestra).
  4. Most importantly, the conversation was not about business opportunities or solutions to problems that were easily translated and understood.  Rather, there was an awful lot of referencing of acronyms, reports, industry buzzwords, and non-English vernacular that would only make sense to someone who was deeply entrenched in the technology.  Unfortunately for the sales people in both companies – the people who understand that level of detail and specificity can’t make purchase decisions at the budget levels needed, and the senior executives who can make those larger purchases are fluent in “business” and not technology.

The disconnects between seller and buyer are growing larger as technology advances and there are ever more complex ways to accomplish tasks simply (do we really need to know how a cell phone works, or do we just need to know how to use it to meet our mobile telephonic needs?).  A return to talking about how the product or service will enhance the job is what is needed.  Leave the “blah blah blah” to the competitors.

Boss and Business

Monday, April 9, 2012 by:David Zahn
Comment
Comments
|
|

This Spring includes a tour of a revamped E Street Band backing up Bruce Springsteen (the Boss). For those that are not fans, the band has lost two members due to deaths over the last few years. One of the losses was a “key member” of the band, Clarence Clemons, the saxophone player that Bruce often used as a “foil” in the live shows and provided a compelling “character” on stage.  The tour has recently played dates in Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New York City.  Future dates include Boston, West Coast dates and then international performances.

The Challenges

Clearly, the loss of bandmates who were very much “a part of the act” and a well-known contributor to the joy of the performances can be devastating.  More than just musicians, the band members of the E Street Band were/are critical components of the stage show and were integral to the entire experience.  Far from interchangeable parts, the members of the band were unique contributors.

The challenge confronted by the band is to:

  • Acknowledge the loss of the performers.  To ignore it would create a dissonance among fans who clearly are aware of their deaths and recognize they are no longer with the band on stage.
  • How to avoid becoming a “nostalgia act” and just playing the old songs – but with different musicians. 
  • Bridge to the fans’ acceptance of the new members of the band, and highlight/spotlight their abilities.
  • Create a product (recorded music and stage performances) that is familiar enough to maintain the loyalty of existing fans and still innovative or new enough to attract new fans.  Staying close enough to the “core” of the band’s mission – and at the same time moving forward.

The reviews for the show are uniformally positive.   While still playing many of the familiar songs of previous tours, there is also a fair amount of time devoted to new songs with new arrangements.  For a rock and roll musician, Bruce has managed to incorporate a song that includes rap, and other songs that borrow heavily from Irish melodies, a few folk songs re-worked, even a soul music medley.  He and the band work hard to avoid becoming stuck in the rut of doing the same things over and over (because it was once successful).

Longtime band member, Clarence Clemons died before this tour leaving a huge challenge for the band.

Lessons

  1. Similar to bands, many businesses are built around charismatic members of management.  Whether talking about a Steve Jobs of Apple, or the founder of the local insurance agency in town – the success of the company on an ongoing basis will often be determined by the ability to put a succession plan in place.  While it is doubtful that there was thought ahead of time about how to replace the sax player; in short order the band had reformed around a different composition that allows the band to explore even more versatile forms of music.  Key Man insurance may compensate financially for the loss of an executive; but it will not allow for the ongoing maintenance of the performance post-death.  For that, a succession plan is needed.
  2. Rather than stay in place, the band has recorded “new music” that leverages the use of different musicians and additional functionality.  A whole horn section (as opposed to a single sax player) is now part of the band and back-up singers permit exploration of more gospel and soul songs.  In comparison, a business must change to meet the burgeoning needs of new consumers.  While recognizable as the band of old, it also has evolved into a new version of itself.  Far from standing still, it is evolved and morphed.
  3. The core of the band and the performances have not changed.  Still energetic, anthemic songs, frequent interplay on stage between the performers, and well choreographed routines are incorporated.  For businesses, the analogy would be whether that means product offerings or doing business through social media; remaining devoted to the old ways will not succeed.  However, at the same time; the brand or company must still be familiar to the shopper/customer to retain the loyal following.

While the concert is a three hour journey through song, it is also instructive to recognize that it is not simply a good time (if one is looking at the experience from a student of business perspective).  Rather, it is an example of how businesses can withstand a loss and still move forward productively.

Value and Values are not the Same

Monday, April 2, 2012 by:David Zahn
Comment
Comments
|
|

The senior sales executive at a client asked to meet with me not too long ago to discuss how to improve his sales force’s execution in the field. His complaint was that his direct reports were not performing at the level required to meet the aggressive quota established by senior management and the board of directors.  Over a sandwich and a watered down fountain drink, he alternated between telling me how aggressive management was about meeting Wall Street’s expectations, willing to do just about anything short of bending the law; and the failure of the sales force to bring in the numbers as consistently and quickly as required to (as he put it in reference to management’s demands), “feed the beast.”

Like, but not the Same

As I listened to the executive describe the situation, it occurred to me that he had been using certain words that indicated the very problem the company was experiencing – only he was perhaps too close to it to see it objectively.  The words he used were:

  • Value (he referred to value-based selling often)
  • True (as in being fact-based and verifiable by data)
  • Food (well, this was about our meal, but it linked back to our discussion).

Value vs. Values

The company was putting emphasis on profit, sales performance, costs, etc.  In short, they understood the financial worth of value of their actions.  They were driving hard on maximizing the value of their behavior, and falling short of their targets in spite of how hard they were working (and they were working hard and operating at their peak level).

What was being missed by the firm, but not by their customers, was that the firm’s values were not at all focused on them!  For instance, rolling back prices to drive end of quarter volume or end of year performance communicated that the rest of the year was focused on gouging the customer and not on providing an equitable price.  Claiming to stand behind the products sold, but then making it very difficult to get technical support was clearly a “believe what we tell you, not what we do” mentality.

True vs. Truth

Very much related to the value vs. values distinction, the company’s sales and marketing efforts were focused on product performance (product feature comparison, lab tests, durability, etc.) – and other facts that can be substantiated by tests, data, independent verifiers, etc.  The sales and matketing efforts relied on presentations that extolled the virtues of so-called “facts”  that are measurable and quantitative.

What was in short supply in the sales communication or marketing collateral was what might be called, “truths” about the company, the sales person, or the brand/product.  The legacy, mission, core of the culture of the organization/sales person/brand were rarely mentioned.  So, the customer was able to discern the cold and passion-less “facts” about what was being sold – but not have a sense or feeling for who was selling it and what made that company different than any other company.

Think of the grocery industry – the talk is of prices, assortment, merchandising, etc.  The facts.  But there is the rare company that is known for being different (whether talking about Stew Leonard’s, Wegmans, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, etc.) and leveraging the “truths” of their c0mpany.

Food vs. Fuel

Lastly, as the last bites of our meal were consumed, I pointed out that there is a difference between food and fuel.  Food is what we consume and then become.  Add toxic practices, negativity, or non-beneficial aspects to be digested by the company and the corporate body will suffer.  In contrast, fuel is what we use to motivate, transport, and galvanize action.  It does not become a part of the corporate body, but it serves to add the energy to create action, sustain performance, and maintain result.

Do not confuse fuel and food.

As we concluded our meal and left the restaurant, the sales executive seemed to better understand that there is more to managing the sales force than simply demanding more of them.  He, and his senior management colleagues also needed to create a different environment and allow the sales and marketing teams to communicate those unique components of the organization to prospects and clients/customers very differently.