To summarize, blogger Dustin Curtis took American Airlines to task for a terrible website (cluttered front page, poor user interface, etc.). Remember, customer experiences take place at points of contact. Every interface, every encounter, online, in-store or in person, is critical. Curtis received a detailed, if anonymous, e-mail from an AA designer explaining why it is understandably difficult to get good design at large companies. The big issue, he explained, is the sheer number of interventions by competing interests within the company.

My own experience in a large company says this is not necessarily true. Successful design is predicated on a consistent brand message being presented with clarity and creativity. The size of the company and the need to accommodate a range of interests are not predictors of design excellence. But let’s put that aside for the moment.

Mr. X, as he dubbed himself, did say that there were updates on the way that would address some of the problems. So far, so good, though I question the need for anonymity.

In telling the story, Techdirt shows an unfortunate bias. Our intrepid reporter very much appreciated the response given by Mr. X. “It’s human. It explains the situation without PR/marketing speak that a recipient would know was bogus. It is the type of response that makes someone feel good about American Airlines (mostly). So, how did AA respond? It fired the guy.”

Let us begin by looking at the actual response given by the supposedly well-intentioned Mr. X:

“I like to think I’m decent at what I do, and I know the others I work with here are all pretty good. The problem with the design of AA.com, however, lies less in our competency (or lack thereof, as you pointed out in your post) and more with the culture and processes employed here at American Airlines.

“…doing the design isn’t the hard part, and I think that’s what a lot of outsiders don’t really get, probably because many of them actually do belong to small, just-get-it-done organizations. But those of us who work in enterprise-level situations realize the momentum even a simple redesign must overcome…. They know what it’s like.”

So, this is how I interpret what Mr. X said:

- I am a good designer. Any problems with the AA.com design are not my fault, nor the fault of my colleagues. The fault lies with my company which is large and unwieldy (“the group running AA.com consists of at least 200 people spread out amongst many different groups”) and the cumbersome process we are required to work with. Let’s face it: AA is not a “get-it-done” organization.

- Left to my own devices, I could make a really cool site. I could make changes I deem appropriate on a dime. I would not bother with review and approvals with all the revisions such reviews would likely engender. I would say no to new feature requests if they prove difficult to accommodate.

Am I being unfairly selective? Am I being a corporate apologist? Just read Mr. X’s e-mail and judge for yourself.

So, I see things differently from Techdirt:

- Mr. X is certainly human with a number of very human foibles…one of which is an inability to take responsibility. He and his colleagues are clearly unable to neatly marry up the different needs of a complex organization.

- His response does not show loyalty to his employer. He dissed his company publicly. And, in cowardly fashion, did it behind the cloak of anonymity. I wonder if he ever bothered to show Mr. Curtis’ e-mail to his superiors so as to allow the company to come up with an appropriate response. Forget for a moment the highly prejudicial comment about PR/Marketing Speak. The fact is that any company with its head screwed on straight, given a well-intentioned criticism, could easily respond without being bogus. (Whether or not American Airlines is a company with its head screwed on straight is another question and probably a very good one.)

- The response would NOT make someone feel good about American Airlines. On the contrary, it says: if you think the website sucks, you should see what it’s like working here!

Would I have fired Mr. X? No. At least not unless this was one of a series of offenses. But I certainly would have had a chat with him about the appropriate way to approach outside criticism of the company.

This is a case of dumb and dumber. It is not completely obvious which is which.

As my career wound down, I found myself becoming wiser in the ways of office politics and less willing to tolerate them. It is remarkable how much energy is wasted by those engaged in political chicanery and by those who become its victims.

How do you keep a lid on office politics? How do you keep people focused on what is important so that everyone benefits? I do have a few insights I can share based on years of observing the nonsense and nuisances of politics and - in the interest of full-exposure - becoming an adept politician in my own right.

I will focus here on vertical politics, including sucking up to and putting up with superiors. Future posts will look at horizontal or peer politics and political correctness (which is a whole ‘nuther thing).

1. You ain’t that smart

First of all, understand that most people are not that adept at the game of politics. You don’t need the thud and thwack of shoulder pads to know the game is on. The methods employed by those engaged in office politics are not so devious most of the time that they are not also obvious…especially to their superiors. It’s a case of been there, seen that.

People are, for better and too often for worse, people and, as such, there will always be those whose best and most subtle work has nothing to do with real work. So I don’t expect office politics to go away any time soon. I do, however, expect bosses to keep it from having an impact. At the end of the day, politics is about wending your way into the good graces of a superior or avoiding slipping into his or her bad books by hook if possible and by crook if necessary. That is why it is at the level of the superior that the opportunity to nip silly politics in the bud resides.

Bosses should be wary of any employee who claims all the credit for the successful execution of a complex project. Conversely, they should not accept finger pointing as an answer when things go wrong. Finger pointing is the reddest of red flags and one of the behaviors for which I have always had zero tolerance.

Employees could have legitimate beefs with the behaviour or output of colleagues, but how he or she deals with it is telling and will distinguish between those staffers worried about productivity or those about politics. I have actually had an employee twice removed come to me and ask why she had to work for a boss who was obviously not as smart as she was. Apart from the fact that it was not the case, what could she possibly have expected the outcome to be? How undiscerning did she imagine I was? Where did she imagine my loyalties lay? Sometimes, you really have to wonder.

Unless their noses are so far up in the air that their eyes can no longer face straight ahead, bosses should be able to smell toadies a mile away; they should make it obvious at the first whiff that they find the fumes noxious. Bosses should also slam the door in the faces of tale-bearers and gossip-mongers.

Politics take many forms. Few of these are attractive. Few escape notice.

2. Looking Good

There are two issues where the political and political correctness seem to overlap; there is making your boss look good; and there is arguing with your boss, where at least one of you will likely come out looking bad.

I once way-overspent on a bid to secure a major new account. A fairly low-ranking member of the marketing team at the time, I was given the assignment of putting the presentation package together. I had decided that we were being too timid as a company and nothing short of going all-out would do the trick. I figured that it would be easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission. I was only partially right. We got the account, but when the company president got the bill, he was beside himself (and, based on the heat from his breath, not too far from me). The manager of the Division that would benefit from the new business willingly took the hit for me. I went to see him and told him he should not have done that. I said that I would go to the President and say that he was covering for me and that I, indeed, knew exactly what I was doing. The manager replied that he, too, knew exactly what I was doing and, by saying nothing, was equally complicit. As well, he could survive the hit much more easily than me. “And anyway”, he said with a smile, “we got the account, right? I’m more than happy to take the business.” In truth, of course, by taking the blame he also got the credit. Not too long later, I became his Marketing Manager and my career was on its way.

Was I being a suck-up? Was my offer being political? Was the willingness to fall on my sword the politically-correct way to behave? I didn’t think about any of that at the time. I was ready to take responsibility because I felt that the ends justified the means. I wanted that account and I knew that I could get it. I was young, overly zealous and just a tad too righteous. I was, I suppose, an ass, though it all managed to work out.

Should you try to make your boss look good? Why not? The fact is, if you do your job properly, your boss will get credit anyway…for selecting good employees and for giving them the opportunity to excel. Win-win. What’s wrong with that?

3. Argue Me Elmo

You are a manager attending a meeting to review a large and rather important project. Other managers are present. Your boss makes a decision you know is wrong. Taking your role seriously, you decide to speak up. In the politest voice you can muster, you say that, in your opinion, an alternative approach might be more appropriate. Your boss says he disagrees and in the firmest and politest voice he can muster, thanks you for your input. What do you do?

Now, I’ve always been a bit argumentative and history will note that, in these very same circumstances, I reiterated my objection, reinforcing it with broader and ever more cogent reasoning. My boss, unfortunately, disagreed for a second time, with a considerably more pointed response. I knew it was time to stop arguing. At least time to stop arguing then and there. If I were to continue, it would force a showdown, an outcome with a winner and a loser. Both of us would, in this situation, come out losers. If I wanted to continue the debate, it would have to be in his office, out of sight and out of earshot. I would not necessarily win the argument (I did not, in fact), but no one would lose face.

So, did I compromise my principles? Did people see me as a hypocrite for backing off, if not a coward for backing down? To quote Sun-Tzu in The Art of War, “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” There was no win there and, frankly, what I was fighting for was not worth the fight. Best advice: pick your battles.

The End Game

If you are going to play politics, you had better be good at the game. And you had better be able to back up your politics with performance of equal or greater measure. In the end, though, if the performance is there, politics merely serves to clutter up the playing field. It will get in your way.

The bottom line is: do the right thing. Even better, go about doing it the right way. Don’t worry about The Politics. Because, somehow, one way or the other, they always manage to take care of themselves.

Turmel is the host of The Cranky Middle Manager Show. A star in The Podcast Network firmament, the show is popular for good reason. Turmel is an engaging interviewer and his guests generally have something useful to say. The subject matter is management - for better and, every now and then, for worse.

A few weeks ago, he interviewed Aubrey Daniels, author of OOPS! The 13 Management Practices that Waste Time and Money. Among the discussion topics were forced rankings and stretch goals. Aubrey sees both as counter-productive. Forced ranking, he says, creates unhealthy competition instead of fostering teamwork. Stretch goals, almost by definition, cannot be met and so engender little beyond frustration.

I have, in my career, dealt with both, up close and personal. The forced ranking was done by senior managers behind closed doors. The purpose was not so much to filter out the poorest performers as the infamous GE program purported to do. It was done to bring to the senior managers’ attention the fact that they depend more on some staffers than others and yet they put all these employees in the same salary pool and try to treat them all equally. In other words, it was done not as a policy measure but to send a message.

Regardless of the motivation or the filter used, managers cannot help but rank their employees by importance. And, when push comes to shove (i.e., if you actually had to fire someone at the end of the ranking exercise), performance is not that important. Let’s face it, accounting clerks and customer service reps are disposable. Analysts are expendable. As you move up the food chain, experience and technical knowledge are harder to replace. You have, thereby, simply created a bell curve of importance. In any forced ranking, a top producing clerk would be vulnerable and a so-so performing employee higher up the food chain would be safe. There is churn at the bottom and status quo at the top. In other words, nothing constructive has really been achieved.

The way around this, of course, is to do the rankings not vertically (i.e., within departments) but horizontally (by level, across the organization). The competition, as you might imagine, would then be not with staff, but among the senior managers themselves.

It is obvious (at least I hope it is) that I am not a fan of forced rankings or bell curves. People should be rated on how they contribute relative to the needs and expectations placed on their respective positions. And they should be rated on how they perform relative to their own capabilities. (That is probably another discussion topic. In truth, my colleagues were always harsh on me when I came down on a good employee who would never go above and beyond.)

I also have strong opinions on setting stretch goals. Stretch should be meaningful (important and understandable) as well as achievable. Otherwise, you are not stretching the band, you are snapping it. If your target is far away, set a series of milestones and timelines to reach the milestones. As a colleague of mine put it, you eat the elephant one bite at a time.

Aubrey Daniels is obviously someone whose heart is in the right place. He is certainly spot on when he talks about Hell’s Kitchen’s Gordon Ramsay. Now there’s a cranky manager! That said, again I differ from Mr. Daniels: all the swearing, the tantrums and the abuse notwithstanding, there would be a line-up a mile long if there was an opportunity to be one of Ramsay’s protégés like Marcus Wareing or Angela Hartnett.

Anyway, do yourself a favor. Load up on Twizzlers and then download The Cranky Middle Manager Show.

My take-aways from the two-day course included a good understanding of root causes and a terrific mug that graced my desk for the next thirty odd years. Over the three decades, I sipped at least 20,000 cups of coffee from my KT mug, protected it zealously from grasping hands, and washed it at least… oh… a dozen times.

The KT approach to problem-solving involves five logical steps that sound just like the Scientific Method you learned in high school; despite this – or because of this – it has been incorporated into Six Sigma, Lean Manufacturing and ITIL (the Information Technology Infrastructure Library). It is, in my opinion, both too simplistic and too complex a methodology. So, despite the whole build-up, the truth is I seldom, in fact, used KT for my own problem-solving. I’ve always found that nothing is that simple and, when you get down to it, seldom is any problem so complex.

So, what was my approach to solving seemingly intractable problems?

Step 1:

When faced with the most confounding problems, I have learned that you’ve got to go deep – yes, to the root – to find the cause. In that, KT and I are aligned. The first step - before you start digging - is to clear away all of the rubble. You’ve got to be honest with yourself and with your colleagues. You’ve got to put aside not only paradigms and prejudices, but also personal pets (people, products and projects). Otherwise, you will reject the obvious. Believe me, when you look back on a tough problem that has been solved, the cause will inevitably, in retrospect, have turned out to be obvious. (Note: In retrospect, everything is inevitable.)

Step 2:

For this, I refer to Murphy’s Law. Actually, two laws from Murphy’s Law, Book Three. Here they are:

Hoare’s Law of Large Problems: Inside every large problem is a small problem struggling to get out.

The Schainker Converse to Hoare’s Law of Large Problems: Inside every small problem is a larger problem struggling to get out.

To illustrate these seemingly paradoxical laws, I will, with apologies, use General Motors. Certainly enough ink has been and will continue to be spilled on this colossal corporate quagmire and commentary has and will continue to come from many closer to the scene than I. But I am a ‘car guy’ and can hardly help myself.

GM presents a very large problem indeed. The problem (if it makes sense to consider it a single problem) seems to be insurmountable. But, if you dig a little, you would find that the crux of GM’s problem has been, fundamentally and for some time, poor design. This is a very specific issue buried under an avalanche of crises. (Hoare’s Law) The poor design reflects a misunderstanding of the market caused by management arrogance as much as anything else. Management arrogance is a very large problem that is easily glossed over because arrogance, by its nature, is amorphous, subtle and self-propagating. The problem of design in this case (and, frankly, in many others) is really a symptom of the disease of arrogance. (Schainker Converse)

It all started back in the Alfred Sloan era. Sloan led GM from 1923 to 1946. He was a management and marketing genius. Credit Sloan for inventing brand families, annual model changes, planned obsolescence, and the market for used cars.

Sloan gave each car division its own price and style categories. Decades later, demographics changed, as did market dynamics. But the old divisions remained, along with too many old ideas. As Buick’s prime customer aged, however, so did the brand message. And so did the car’s technology. Pontiac’s demographic didn’t age; it simply disappeared. Badge engineering not only removed Saab from its demographic, but made it impossible to figure out what that demographic was. Also impossible to figure out was Saturn’s value proposition, which changed as the Division tried to go mainstream. Meanwhile, in a market becoming increasingly compact, GM could never figure out how to make a small car. Or, more precisely, couldn’t really see the point of putting a lot of value into such a small margin vehicle. Think Xerox and Canon.

The fact is that better design would go a long way to saving GM. The Enclave SUV saved Buick from extinction and the new La Crosse (Allure in Canada) will safeguard its survival. The CTS brought Cadillac back from the brink, but the STS and DTS are so long in the tooth that even the ancients won’t bite. Chevrolet has a little bit of everything, though not enough of anything really special. Malibu, like all the GM cars built on the Epsilon platform, is pretty good. The Camaro is competitive, though no major threat to Mustang in the pony car wars. The Volt, however, could be a game changer.

Bringing Bob Lutz out of retirement was a terrific move – even if Lutz is a Neanderthal. It was a great move because Lutz is very good at what he does. He saw that the various divisions had a lot of similarity but little synergy. He fixed the product development process. His appointment also showed that senior management recognized a very specific issue midst the clutter and was willing to sacrifice the comfort and challenge the slow pace that was the status quo.

Which brings us to Step 3.

Step 3:

Fix the problem fast and, if possible, fix it once and for all.

Epilogue: On April 1, 2009, Lutz stepped down on from his position as Vice-Chairman of Global Product Development and will retire from GM at the end of 2009. Lutz said that one reason for his decision was the regulatory climate in Washington that would force him to design what the feds want rather than what customers want.

Postscript: Lutz is back, this time in a marketing role. This makes no sense. Lutz is a design guy. His way of being and his way of talking make him far from an ideal marketing guy. Oh well.

Note: The 1960 Corvette pictured above is a classic example of good design.

Let’s face it, the market for new ideas is as bearish as that for IPOs. New ideas imply risk because they always come with elements of the unknown.

In his blog, Creative Streak, Eklund lists 10 ways ideas are stifled. I will expand on a few of these and then add a couple of my own.

Eklund Stifler #1: Lack of Oxygen

This seems to be a good place to start: are you capturing all the ideas available? Unfortunately, not all ideas get to bubble up to the surface. Shyness, uncertainty, lack of empowerment, fear of ridicule…any number of reasons, real or imagined, will inhibit people from coming forward and presenting an idea. In other words, ideas die in the womb. The fertility of these people’s imagination is wasted.

Corner Office Killer App: “Yes, But…”

When an idea is proffered up, there is an instant when it hovers weightless, somewhere between the rise and the fall. There is a silence, a tension, an apprehension. It is at that moment when the most common squelcher of ideas usually rears its ugly head. Someone says: “yes, but…”

“Yes, but…” is akin to the spider drawing prey into its web, wrapping it up in sticky goop, and then eating it at leisure. “Yes, but” means “nice try, but if you had thought it out first, you would have realized that it can never work.” The ‘but’ can be any number of things that have contributed, lo these many years, to corporate inertia: more important priorities; lack of resources; channel conflict; upcoming negotiations. It may or may not really be that important or relevant, but it is almost always deadly. Like a highway robber, it waylays, it leaves poorer, it spoils the trip.

“Yes, but…” is at its destructive best in the mouths of superiors. Regardless of the intent, a “Yes, but…” from your boss is a kick in the gut. It is now clearer to everyone in the room why he and not you is in the corner office. Everyone is now staring at that chunk of very green spinach stuck between your front teeth. If you are one of those shy, uncertain, unempowered, ridicule-fearing types, you will have nothing further to say.

If an idea is not allowed to breathe, to percolate a little prior to intervention, even a well-meaning attempt to improve it will likely hasten its demise.

Eklund Stifler #2: Budget

Budget is at the top of the list of Buts.

There are two ways the budget bogeyman makes its presence known. One is the zero sum expense game. There is only so much money available for, say, marketing, and while a good idea may move ahead of the pack, it cannot change the bottom line. If there’s no extra money, a new idea means cutting into a long-running campaign or cutting back on a new product launch or cutting out someone else’s pet project.

There is also the issue of capital. Some investments may have a good return and a relatively quick payback. But there is always a threshold at which the organization will balk. In my old company, the magic number was $1 million. Any project that Operations did not want to entertain suddenly required a million dollar investment. Even more magical was when the numbers were so attractive that the million dollars might not have been a deal breaker. Ta duh! Suddenly, without warning, the cost was $2 million. The hissing sound you may have heard was the air seeping out of the idea balloon.

Eklund Stifler #3: Mutilation

The natural successor to Budget. Most good ideas cost money. Not all ideas, to be sure, but most. And not necessarily a lot of money, but money nevertheless. Which means the idea has to be sold. Sometime in the future, I will discuss how to present an idea to Senior Management, but for now consider that the timing must be appropriate, the framing i.e., (rationale) impeccable, the excitement palpable, the packaging tidy (no loose ends), and the support (with the necessary documents and from the right people) fully in place. And, to Eklund’s main point here, you have to choose the right person to present the idea, the right person not necessarily being the one who had the idea in the first place. The key to the successful presentation of an idea is more often the presentation than the idea itself.

Corner Office Killer App: Where’s the Beef?

If you are going to put an idea out there, it should have some meat on it. It is easy to pick at the bones of a skeleton. It is somewhat more risky to take cheap shots at a 600 pound gorilla. If you know you are going to a meeting where ideas on a specific topic are to be bandied about, come prepared. Have numbers to back up you claims. Have answers for any possible objection. Have back-up documents. Have one or more colleagues in place to jump in with credible support. In other words, be prepared to bully your idea’s way into the spotlight and keep it there.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Percy Williams Bridgman, in his book The Intelligent Individual and Society, wrote “There is no adequate defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea.” The real stupidity is wasting a good idea or dismissing what is, at least, the seed of a good idea.

Despite the lead-in, this is not really a piece on CEO salaries, separation pay or stupid spending. Enough forests have been laid bare and countless terabytes expended on these subjects. Instead, I would like to write about those pour souls being sucked down these ethics and financial holes, caught in the swirl of all this dirty bathwater.

They are the middle managers and senior managers who execute the corporate will: department heads, directors, even vice-presidents. (Note: Some people would remove VPs from this discussion. In many ways, though, VPs do the same work as those directly below them but with an added layer of corporate responsibilities. They also have more information to keep them awake at night and more meetings to attend.)

There are a few things you have to understand about middle management.

First, they are indeed in the middle. They are the spokes of the corporate wheel. They are the messengers, bringing the news, good and bad, to and from the field. They bear the brunt of both CEO wrath and employee frustration. They have to translate corporate strategy into action, overcome internal weaknesses and face down external threats. They take their work home with them, tethered to their laptops, always on call. And they, more than anyone, pick up the slack when front line workers are let go.

Arguably, for what they do, they are hardly overpaid. Those below them in the corporate hierarchy imagine large salaries, bonuses, perks and privileges that simply do not exist. When it comes to reward, in fact, these managers are far from the middle.

How far? William J. McDonough, Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Board (a creation of the Sorbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) attacked the excesses of large company CEOs in an article on corporate greed.

In 1980, the average large-company chief executive officer made 40 times more than the average employee in his or her firm. By 2000, the multiple of the average CEO’s pay over that of the average worker in the firm had risen, according to some studies, to 400 times. “There is”, said McDonough, “no economic theory, however farfetched, which can justify such an increase. In my view, it is also grotesquely immoral.” (Note: Remember, McDonough is talking about large companies. CEOs of small to medium sized companies have more modest ambitions.)

How much of that largesse trickles down? The answer is, simply, not much. And not far. In most companies, the salary gap starts becoming pronounced at the VP level. On the other hand, says Todd Milbourn, finance professor at the Olin Business School at Washington University, “there’s still a pretty significant gap between, say, a senior vice president and a CEO”. My experience is that, in most companies, especially small and medium sized companies, VPs make something in the order of two times middle managers who, in turn make only percentage points better than the senior members of their respective staffs.

Bonuses tend to be somewhat more skewed. Perks – in my opinion, at least – are generally small potatoes, usually taxable and, anyway, beside the point.

For the increment in pay, the middle manager is also every bit as vulnerable as his employees. More so, when new management appears, either in a changing of the guard or merger / acquisition.

In the recently published The Truth About Middle Managers (Harvard Business Press), Paul Osterman, professor of human resources and management at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, points out that for the last 20 years, white-collar workers and managers have been vulnerable to layoff. “What’s happened in the last six months”, he says, “is just a little more intense than what’s been going on since the mid 1980s.”

The word ‘delayering’ has entered the vocabulary as a good thing. Taking out middle managers, say the human resource gurus (if not the HR managers), streamlines the organization, enhances communications and facilitates rapid decision making. I believe it does exactly the opposite. This pendulum, swinging way to the right, has a very sharp edge indeed.

So life is increasingly difficult and the times particularly rough for middle management. It is nigh impossible to move up these days and, arguably, unwise to do so anyway. They are truly, and incorrectly, between a rock and a very hard place.

He cited research conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, on students from various socio-economic backgrounds. The wealthier students tended to be more disinterested in others and less likely to engage in conversation than their less-privileged brethren. The psychologists concluded that what they were seeing was a reflection of basic animal behaviour: the higher animals are in the food chain, the stronger and fitter they are, the less they need others. “It is the experience of wealth that leads individuals to become disengaged”, observed Professor Dacher Keltner.

With this as the backdrop, Lynn then talks about CEOs, who he has found to be, often enough, an unpleasant bunch. “They bully, cajole, threaten and fume. There are very few examples of (CEOs) flattering or charming their way to the top. The accumulation of wealth requires an ability to crush rivals, stamp on employees, and sweep aside all opposition. Charm doesn’t come into it.”

I disagree. It is true that some chief executives can be… how should I put it?… determined. It is also true that some can be downright aggressive when push comes to shove. But I would argue that the ability to lay on the charm when and as required is a fundamental skill that most decent CEOs have mastered.

Engaging with others, generous listening, sending “I’m interested” signals… all enable successful leaders to enroll employees in corporate programs, secure the loyalty of customers in negotiations, create alliances, finesse bank loans, enthuse analysts, etc.

Most customers and suppliers will push back when they feel they are being bullied. Rudeness would be rebuffed vigorously. Balance of power is often established behind the scenes, while the more visible road to good intentions is being paved thickly with charm. Sometimes it works the other way around. One player is allowed to make public points if he is willing to make private concessions. There’s winning and there’s winning.

Employees are more easily cowed by authority; the fundamentals of hierarchal behaviour are well ingrained in most of us. But the true enrollment of employees, instilling real excitement, involvement and commitment, is not possible without first creating a belief in the sincerity and caring of the CEO. A ‘charming’ CEO will always get the benefit of the doubt. At least the first time.

CEOs tend to talk to other CEOs. Alliances, in theory a coming together of equals, can not be consummated if one potential partner aggressively pushes a win-lose scenario on another equally ‘determined’ chief executive. I have seen many an alliance and numerous potential acquisitions founder, not on the basis of due diligence but because of ego-driven obstinacy and the inability to finesse, i.e., charm, one’s way past clearly surmountable stumbling blocks.

By the way, if you are going to be rude, you had better be the CEO. It is a trait less tolerated by superiors, peers and staff as you work your way down the org chart. And it is one I’ve seen used as an excuse when staffing sacrifices have to be made.

In most cases, charm is a first resort, bullying the last. Power, wrapped in a smile, is almost impossible to resist. It is the ultimate expression of walking softly but carrying a big stick.

1. Good marketing works best in the service of good products, like Acquisio’s ppc management software (sorry for the plug - I’m a fan!).

2. Good products beat new products. Sustainable market leadership requires equal or better products than the competition.

3. Safety lies not in products but in portfolios of products.

4. Product lines must continually evolve as the market evolves.

5. The advantage goes to first movers.

6. Innovate rather than extend. In this way, you cannibalize someone else’s product instead of your own.

7. Seek technological leadership, but never be led by technology.

8. Competition always overtakes an innovation.

9. New products should not be developed, and current products should not be maintained, unless they are financially viable.

10. Product integrity and financial viability are the direct result of good execution.

At first glance, these principles appear straightforward, almost obvious, and your company may have applied many of them intuitively. My bet, though, is that there are products or groups of products in your company’s line-up that run counter to one or more of the guidelines and that their performance has been deleteriously affected as a result.

You may know of exceptions – successful products that break the rules – but invariably these exceptions will define and ultimately corroborate the rules.

Every company is different – to a point – and every market is different, again to a point. That said, I have found, over the years, that similarities outweigh differences and that one never goes too far wrong applying basic truths and process fundamentals. I would suggest, at the very least, you think about these guidelines not just abstractly but in reference to your own company’s product offering and those of your competitors. Better still, use them as a filter to see if your company is on the right track or if you are throwing fixed and working capital at losers.

Saturn, a different kind of car company that never quite figured out how to make a go of being different and, as a result, made little difference to the fortunes of its parent GM, is now on the verge of extinction. It is ironic that the more Saturn made cars people actually wanted, i.e., the more mainstream it became, the less relevant and more redundant it became. In other words, it is good to have a point of view, but make sure the view has a point in the first place.

Starbucks had a strongly-held point of view about coffee and people and how the two could come together. And that was enough – along, of course, with impeccable execution – to make the company an institution and an icon. Over-expansion which led to under-execution, along with competition from the lower brow and lesser brews of McDonald’s brought Starbucks profits to a coffee grinding halt. Vivanno smoothies, breakfast foods and other unimaginative fixes proved to be little more than froth. So now, two years later, Starbucks comes out with its newest game changer: VIA Ready Brew instant coffee.

According to the company’s spinners and weavers, Ready Brew is a breakthrough in “soluble” coffee:

“Ready Brew is different – it’s full-bodied and flavorful, just like the Starbucks coffee you know and love…The magic is in a proprietary, all-natural process that we spent years perfecting. We microgrind the coffee in a way that preserves all of their essential oils and flavor. No other coffee company takes this step, and it makes all the difference.”

The wording is reminiscent of an old ad for Tab, a vile diet drink introduced in 1963. “How could just one calorie taste so good?” the jingle asked teasingly. “Because the Coca Cola Company kept the flavor in Tab.”

Ready Brew takes direct aim at the $17 billion instant coffee market. Starbucks hopes to satisfy analysts without resorting to franchising and other brand-sensitive restructuring initiatives. But you’ve got to wonder: will the Nescafe crowd spend more for a Starbucks brew and could a frapuccino freak fall for an instant coffee? Will the brand be damaged by its implausible dip in the soluble pond? My guesses are no, no and yes. Time will tell.

So what about those 50 points of IQ? Starbucks shows what happens when your view gets fuzzy and Saturn when there is no substantive and sustainable view in the first place.

Factor analysis was a tool used cleverly by Steven Levitt, the University of Chicago economist who, with N.Y. Times journalist Stephen Dubner, co-authored Freakonomics in 2005. The subtitle of Freakonomics is apt: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. Cause and effect were turned upside down as they searched for interdependencies and correlations that to others seemed, at best, coincidental. They were able to debunk commonly held theories on many topical issues…as, for example, why the crime rates in New York City fell precipitously under the watchful eye of Rudy Giuliani.

Without being referred to specifically, factor analysis was also used by Malcolm Gladwell in his very clever new best-seller, Outliers: The Story of Success. It takes a leap of faith the size of the Grand Canyon to suggest that Bill Gates’ ultimate success was the result of accumulative advantage starting as an eighth grader when he had unlimited access to a computer, access denied even to university students. Ditto for hockey players who took advantage of the age cut in minor hockey to jump ahead of the pack.

Cultural legacy provides the basis for an even more startling leap from rice paddies to Chinese aptitude for math and deference to Korean Air pilots being the unwitting triggers to a succession of horrific crashes.

Gladwell is near-Holmsian in his ability to apply observation, deductive reasoning and inference to reach his conclusions. But he has the numbers to back up the anecdotal, if anomalous, evidence.

This is a fun book. It is, like Gladwell’s other books, breezy and easy to read. And while some of his theories might be a stretch, they aren’t as silly as, say, the Paul Revere stuff in The Tipping Point. It is replete with interesting concepts and enough terminology – divergence testing, orthogonal intelligence, concerted cultivation and mitigated speech – to wow even the stuffiest psychologist.

Like Levitt, Gladwell makes you think. Unlike Levitt, he offers up the basis, if not the blueprint, for making the most of your potential.

It’s all in the numbers. And, as you know, numbers don’t lie.