Raise time is a conundrum for managers, eagerly anticipated and anxiously dreaded. As both givers and receivers, managers are at once the brokers and the broken. That’s because, except at the senior-most levels, what applies to their employees, generally applies to them as well. Stature changes scale, not principle.

By intent or by accident of position, raises are a way of exerting power over staff and yet, for many supervisors tied up in a complex merit raise process, it is a disempowering and frustrating exercise, fraught with the potential to enhance the discontent and cynicism of that very same staff. Raises are necessary evils, barely satisfying long-standing wants with, at best, short term returns. At the end of the day, the positives are fleeting while the negatives linger in the fridge like a left-over tuna salad sandwich.

I have been asked by a number of readers to discuss raises… more precisely, how to ask for them.

There is a difference between unionized and non-unionized staff raises, the former governed by negotiated collective agreement, the latter essentially by management fiat. I will focus on the second.

Asking for a raise is a little art and a little science. But with timing so much a factor (as we will see), it is also a lot of luck. It shouldn’t be, but it is.

So, here below, are four things to take into account when asking for a raise.

1. Consider the Context.

Put your desire (need?) for a raise in context. It may be the best of times to ask for a raise, but it may also be the worst of times. Every company goes through stuff and even those that try to benchmark the industry and that try to maintain a proven, disciplined, meritocratic process regardless of economic volatility and market vagary will take a step back when things get tough. Despite policy, companies are at different places at different times and, as your mother probably told you, there is a right time and a right place for everything. In your specific company, division or even department, the timing may simply not be right for a raise.

Yes, you say, but yours is a special case. You have taken on additional responsibilities or have achieved something truly special over the course of the past year. There is an old English proverb that goes: Circumstances alter cases. So, indeed, yours may be a special case, but, if the company is having financial issues, if there are confounding circumstances, you may have to rethink your timing or, at least, your approach.

Under stress, companies don’t always behave in a consistent or fair manner. Asking for a raise creates stress. Your boss may be under pressure. Perhaps, an important deadline has been missed, a performance target missed by a mile. Your messenger is no longer in a position to be helpful.

That does not mean you shouldn’t bring up the issue at all. As negotiation guru Chester Karras has wisely declared, you do not get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. Most likely, if you don’t ask, you don’t get. So if you realize the timing is bad but feel you are truly deserving of additional recognition and remuneration, discuss it with your supervisor, tell him or her that you understand the situation and do not wish to add pressure to the system but, all that said, you would like this to at least be acknowledged in your appraisal and at least mentioned to senior management. It might just get you to the next level. At the very least, it will be appreciated and be added to the bank of good will from which a raise could be drawn when the timing is more propitious.

Bottom line: Look around. Listen hard. Be wise.

2. Be honest with yourself. Do you really deserve special consideration?

Did you have an extraordinary year or did you ‘merely’ do excellent work or extra work. Because, frankly, excellence and hard work are not causes for reward. They are, in tough times especially, the minimum acceptable standards for performance.

Most companies of size have a raise policy and raise period, likely in the first quarter. Pretty much the only way to get a raise outside this period is to get a promotion or, at least, a notable increase in responsibilities. In cases where an employee had a significant achievement, the likely reward is not a raise but a bonus.

You’ve got to stand out. You have to take leadership on high visibility projects and then execute perfectly. You have to turn around disasters that have been hanging like albatrosses around the corporate neck. Perhaps you have revitalized a fading brand. Or saved a plant slated for closure because of poor productivity. Perhaps you have come up with a groundbreaking technology that opens up a new and highly lucrative market or dramatically reduces costs. If you show you can spin straw into gold, you have a claim on some of that gold.

Conversely, if your request comes as a surprise, don’t be surprised if it is rejected.

3. Be prepared.

So you have your supervisor’s attention. Set up a formal meeting expressly for the purpose. Nothing dampens the mood like an unwelcome surprise. As with any meeting, you must go in prepared. Remember, this is your meeting so you must take control.

By now you should have looked through all the salary calculators and know what is appropriate for your position, in your industry, in your area. These calculators always have a range. Find your place in the range based on your level, experience, and scope of responsibilities. Fudge for qualifications and skill set. By defining a range, you are not only helping yourself, you are giving your manager a negotiation strategy and wiggle room. Present your accomplishments – the ones that are the foundation of your request and put a present and future value on these accomplishments. How much money have you saved or earned or will be saved or earned for the company now and down the road? By giving him a range and the ammunition to use, you have done half his work for him. He can calculate in his mind the ceiling suitable for the circumstances and he knows the minimum you will find acceptable. That minimum number should be one at which you will come away satisfied.

Some companies cap promotion raises at 5%. Some companies will try to limit the ‘damage’ by splitting the raise over two years. Know your company and, again, know the context in which your raise will find itself.

Do not threaten. Under any circumstances. If an employee lays down an ultimatum and threatens to leave should the ultimatum not be met, a good company man will say, “Good bye. Send a postcard.” A poor manager will succumb, look bad to his boss and resent you for it. Rightly so.

4. Have a sponsor. Have two.

You’ve heard the expression: It’s not what you know; it’s who you know. Well, I would amend that to: It’s not who you know; it’s who knows you. It is good if your supervisor is supportive, better if he is mentoring you, better still if he is managing your career. But it help immeasurably if your supervisor’s boss knows and likes you, wonderful if the CEO knows who you are and has heard good things.

Outstanding performance gets noticed. Heading up a project of import can put a spotlight on your work, especially if the outline, progress and/or conclusion of said project are formally presented to senior management. Three times blessed. It is an opportunity not to be missed.

It also does not hurt to be friendly to senior people in the Human Resources department. Yeah, I know. But some of them are actually human. HR specialists can be pretty good at structuring a deal that works for the company and employee. They would know precisely what can and can’t be done, given the financial climate and salary structures under which they have to operate. They know how to work the system because they are the system.

Conclusion

There is no bulletproof way to ask for a raise. But, if it is truly merited and it otherwise doesn’t seem forthcoming, ask you must. Put the odds in your favor. Get your timing right, get your support in place, be prepared and make your case calmly and forthrightly. It may just be the smartest thing you did all year.

Good luck.

Love It or Hate It, Nike’s Ad Got Noticed

The sub-head: Widespread reaction means ad worked, executives say

Really?

I have a lot of respect for Hollie Shaw and I am sure her reporting is accurate. I also swore to myself way back when that I would not weigh in on the whole Tiger thing on the basis that enough ink had already been poured into the sea of Tiger Woods reporting to keep the Titanic afloat. But the premise that noise for noise’s sake is a good thing bears discussion.

You all know about the commercial. Trading in on the dead father’s memory and the respect in which that memory is held. A cut and splice job assembled to set the stage for the son’s redemption. A swirl of publicity ensued in the wake of the ad’s appearance. Some decried it for being in bad taste. Others, including a goodly number in the advertising industry said that bad taste or not, the commercial wouldn’t hurt Nike a bit. Indeed, they surmised, all that publicity would be a boon for a company that seen its golf sales decline 11% in 2009.

“If I were the marketing guy at Nike the day after that ad ran, I’d be a pretty happy guy”, said the chief creative officer at one large at agency.

Why?

In the bad old days, that mantra was a variation of the line usually attributed to master showman, P.T. Barnum: “I don’t care what they write about me, as long as they spell my name right.” Which is reminiscent of the classic from Mae West: “Call me anything, but call me often.” (Note: you may also find the first quote ascribed to Mae West and, another old time entertainer, George M. Cohan.) Any publicity, it was said, was good publicity.

Well, we know better now. And, somehow, I don’t see where the Nike ad is good publicity. Here’s my thinking.

1. Reflected Glory?

Nike’s promotions are celebrity-based, with Tiger Woods the centerpiece of its celebrity platform. If the ad reflects badly on Tiger Woods – and even the ad execs admit it doesn’t help polish Woods’ already tarnished image – how could it be a plus for the advertiser who clearly produced the ad to play off that image? Sorry, but ugly is as ugly does.

2. Bottom Line Contribution?

The link between Woods and Nike is well-established…and well understood by the golfing community at large. If this ad had not been aired, would Nike’s notoriety be one wit less impressive? I doubt it.

For example, none of Nike’s 2009 sales decline is attributed to the Tiger factor (if there is such a thing).

According to a survey conducted by TNS, a world leader in market research, global market information and business analysis, the scandal may have hurt Woods’ personal reputation, but not those of the brands he endorses. Respondents to a TNS survey said they had a more favourable opinion of Tiger’s brands including Nike, EA, Gillette and Gatorade (which did drop Woods but only at a point too close to the survey to have an impact).

I cannot see where this ad did Nike any good in the market or that missing out on the publicity garnered by its airing would have done it any harm.

3. The Fatigue Factor

Polls confirm that most people are tired of hearing about the Woods scandal. It was interesting…even titillating. For a while. But most now feel it’s time to move on and time to let Woods move on with his life, sympathy for Elin Nordegren notwithstanding. The ad, therefore, did nothing but keep the embers lit. It contributed to the fatigue.

Plus, frankly, the ad wasn’t that interesting. Or the production quality that good. In fact, objectively, the ad was pretty boring and, were it not for the context in which it was placed so callously, it would have been eminently forgettable.

In short, if I were the marketing guy at Nike the day after that ad ran, I wouldn’t be that happy with myself.

In the many presentations I have made over the years, I seldom counted on delivery alone to ensure that the information I offered up would have the desired impact. I was just not that good. So, I liked to use props, and the best and most readily available props are invariably the graphics by which the information is being conveyed.

There are basic rules for infographics, be they in a PowerPoint presentation, in a printed document or on screen.

1. Each graphic should make one point. Which means that if there is no point, don’t have a graphic. (Actually, if there is no point, don’t do a presentation at all.) The corollary is that if you want to make several points, then use several graphics. Layering can work, if your points are sequential and if the layering is handled delicately and judiciously. It’s a dangerous practice, however, that should be attempted only by the most adept.

2. The graphic itself should be obvious. Obvious doesn’t mean plain. It doesn’t mean boring. It does mean clearly understandable. Whether you are showing market share, population densities, product life cycle stages, elevations or critical paths, the viewers’ or readers’ eyes should know instantly where to focus.

3. If you have devices like legends, eyes are forced to hop from place to place just to have a reference point. Legends are not helpful. They cause clutter. They cause confusion. They should be avoided. Graphics where the legend is built into the concept are most effective.

If you are looking for a really great website on infographics, check out infographicsblog.com. It showcases some of the finest – and, sometimes, the less than finest – infographic work being done, saluting innovation and creativity as well as the ability to educate and impress. For each example, the author explains what works well, what doesn’t, and what essential element is missing that might, if present, have put the illustration over the top.

One of my favourite, if slightly flawed, graphics from this blog shows the evolution of Crayola crayon colours over time (100+ years). The kid in you has got to love it, though the ability to have the colour name pop up as your mouse rolls over each colour strip would have been a wonderful touch.

A particularly troublesome illustration tries to present the 10 best places to buy a house in America. Focusing on small cities, it looks at such factors as median family income, average property tax, the number of universities and museums within 30 miles, the number of librairies and movie theatres within 15 miles, the number of sunny days per year, as well as unemployment levels. It uses a variety of charting tools, several overlapping X and Y axes, and a map where the cities are identified by numbers for which you must refer to a legend. I would challenge anyone to actually identify, at a glance, which city would top the chart. Actually, I would bet that, given 10 minutes to study the graphic closely, most people would still be hard pressed to choose. It is one of those well-intentioned if ill-conceived graphics laden with data but light on useful information.

Spend some time at the site. It is as much fun as it is enlightening.

If I have learned anything over the past 30 years, both as an experienced practitioner and keen student of business strategy, it is this: Those who run companies have one basic responsibility. No, it is not to make money. It is to keep their respective companies running. The core of any strategy must, therefore, be sustainability.

Too often, you will hear the same answer, told smugly, when asked about the essence of business enterprise. Business, it will be knowingly explained, is about making money…the more, the merrier. In fact, greed is about making money, the more the merrier. Business is about building an enterprise that is capable of making money over the long haul. Strategies that yield unsustainable profits are short-sighted, short term and doomed to failure. Greed is short-sighted and almost never sustainable.

So, more than just building a profitable organizations, business leaders must be focused on building sustainable ones. A company must be able to withstand economic volatility, a hyper-competitive market, lengthy supply chain disruptions and, yes, catastrophic events. It is easy to make money when your boat, like those around it, is rising with the tide. But can your boat survive a tsunami? Can it survive a protracted industry slump? Can it survive the Chinese? How about new technologies? Sweeping regulatory changes? What would happen to your organization in the event of a major acquisition?

Sustainability in the management context is about ensuring that a company’s product or service offering responds to the needs of its customer base and that it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. It is about its operations being as productive and as low cost as its competitors. It is about having a strong and stable customer base and a reliable supply chain. It is about having a stable cash flow and not having bank covenants that could strangle it when things become volatile. And, yes, it is about being prepared for catastrophe.

So, what is the first step in becoming a company from which investors can count on reliable, consistent returns well into the future? How does an organization become sustainable?

The answer is somewhat paradoxical. To be sustainable, a company must change. To change, the company must begin by strengthening the status quo.

Sustainability strategies require leaders to take a long-term view of their business. Getting the future right, however, first requires getting the present right. You cannot attract good people unless you take proper care of your current people. You cannot attract new customers unless you are adept at keeping the ones you have. You cannot usefully leverage a weak product portfolio. You cannot successfully expand a weak geographic base. Jim Collins writes Good to Great because you cannot go from Bad to Great. Without a strong foundation, you cannot get to there from here.

Sustainability, therefore, begins with understanding what you are doing right and then doing it better. Build from the foundation up, not the roof down. In other words, do not change. Evolve.

In a fast changing world, where most advisors would say that to succeed you must learn to change, it’s a paradox, to be sure.

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.