Performance Perspectives

Customer Engagement and Efficiency- Are these conflicting priorities?

Posted on by

The Challenges of Funding a  CEM Strategy…

A few weeks back, I was talking to a client about their latest strategies to enhance what is now known commonly as “the customer experience.” And like most companies that are working tirelessly on driving their customers toward higher levels of satisfaction, delight, and our latest aspiration, “engagement,” this company was going through all the common challenges of funding their new Customer Experience Management (CEM) strategy.

But also, like many others, funding their CEM strategy is meeting some pretty big resistance from their CFO and others who are trying to make corporate “ends meet,” especially in this economic climate. More and more, these two perspectives are clashing, not because the organization fails to value investment in Customer Service (CS), but more so because the impacts associated with that those investments are often less direct and less tangible, at least compared with the realm of immediate cost and productivity savings that produce faster (albeit not always sustainable) payback to the bottom line.

The Cost/ Service Trade-off: Myth or Reality?

For over two decades of working in the Customer Operations arena, I’ve heard clients invariably revert to the “perceived” trade-off between customer service levels and cost savings or efficiency efforts. That is, the notion that there is an inverse relationship between our ability to improve service levels and our ability to capture CS related productivity and cost savings. And for a long time, the data supported this notion. But as technologies improved, and companies began to increase investments in CS-related technology, tools and process changes, select companies started to prove  that notion false by demonstrating the existence of both high service levels and low cost at the same time–companies clearly worthy of the term “myth busters”.

Yet despite all those great examples from the 90’s, we are now seeing many return to the proverbial “trade-off” as a reason for deferring further investments in their CS infrastructure. Make no mistake, there are clearly companies that are pushing the envelope of customer delight, and perhaps even engagement, but more often than not, investments in CEM, and even critical investments in basic infrastructure, are once again hitting the funding wall.

Some of this is clearly driven by the current economic climate. As a CEO from one of my energy clients said recently, “We haven’t given up on CS. But these investments are discretionary, and right now we are struggling to ‘keep the lights on'”. And, while on the surface, this may provoke emotions of heresy from those in highly competitive markets, it’s hard to argue with financial realities. At one time or another, most CS executives, regardless of industry, have encountered this same argument from their C-Suite executives.

Unfortunately, for some, the lack of investment in that infrastructure has created a bit of a back-slide in performance, creating the question of whether we are back to the days of the proverbial trade-off.

Reversing The Course…

As with most things in life, the cup can be either half empty or half full based simply on the lens through which we are looking.

Sure, we all want to delight our customers and make them happy. But from a financial perspective, there is always an ROI at play, and it’s not always easy to establish a causal linkage between that “added delight factor” and the bottom line. Hence the conflict.

But this assumes we are trying to impress, delight, or otherwise “engage” the customer for the sole purpose of selling more of our product or service. And that is clearly part of it. But again, at the risk of offending our hardcore sales and product advocates (of which I am one), I would assert that there are many other reasons for having an engaged customer that go far beyond the next product sale or any direct influence on buying behavior at all.

Beyond the Obvious…

From my perspective, “Engagement” is about changing the overall predisposition of a customer from one of negative predisposition or neutrality, to one of positive engagement that is leveragable in some context. That context could be higher sales, repeat business, or Word of Mouth (WOM) referrals, but it could also serve a variety of other purposes.

One of those purposes is cost savings. What?

That’s right, cost savings.

Over the past several years, we’ve completed a variety of assignments that were geared to identifying efficiencies where the mandate was “zero degradation to Customer Satisfaction”. Not an insignificant challenge. Especially when you consider that most companies have explored every way under the sun to drive more productivity out of their workforce, and have automated just about everything they can automate. And in some cases, these efforts have in fact degraded service level.

But many of those changes were inflicted on customers in a “push fashion”. Sure we’ve made tons of good changes in everything from local office closures, to call center automation improvements, to web interaction, but many of those changes were “pushed on the market” regardless of the level of satisfaction or disposition it happened to be in at the time. Yet we still wonder why the acceptance rates on what may appear to be wonderful customer options are at levels well below their potential. Experts claim that something as basic as “paperless billing” should be hitting 50-70% saturation in the next 3 years, but most of us are only at a fraction of those levels. But to me that is not surprising, given that we have not yet engaged the customer who we are asking to accept these changes. At least not in the spirit of how it is defined above.

Engagement for the Sake of Cost Reduction ?

Just for a second, put on your CFO hat and consider the following argument.

Cost is a product of both efficiency and transaction volume. We can decrease cost per transaction by 5,10, or even 20% in the form of cost-per-call, cost-per-bill, cost-per-payment, and the litany of other transaction types we offer. But the large majority of cost still remains.

Now think about the other side of the equation. Transaction volume. Different story entirely. When we eliminate a transaction, be it a printed bill, a mailed payment, or a call to the call center, we eliminate 100% of the cost. Looking at it this way, there is no question where our focus should be. And looking at the potential that our recent advances in technology could have on enabling these reductions in transaction volume, it’s rather amazing that such a large part of our focus is still on operating and productivity gains.

On this basis, and given the potential that exists in the workload dimension alone, it is conceivable that savings of 30, 50%, or more are possible, and go well beyond what we would ever consider from mere productivity gains.

It all starts with Impacting Predisposition and Behavior…

Given the impact of workload on bottom line, why wouldn’t that become our primary focus?

Perhaps it should be. Or at least one of our primary goals. But haphazardly looking for where we can drive customers to self-service channels without a clear strategy will get us right back to square one. The “win win win” (CCO, CFO, and Customer) if you will, is only achievable if the levels of potential I describe above are fully realized, and accomplished in a manner that leaves the customer satisfied and engaged.

Engagement is about changing customers’ predisposition from negative or neutral to positive and engaged. Once that is accomplished, there exist numerous ways to leverage that engagement, including getting the customer to willingly shift the nature and frequency of their interactions with us, thus decreasing transaction volume. But that is only the tip of the iceberg, as the companies mastering this dynamic are finding out.

But it all starts with the lens we look through.

So next time you are faced with hitting that infamous “funding wall”, or get challenged on the basis of your new CEM strategy, think beyond the obvious.

-b

For more on driving Customer Excellence through combined efficiency and service level focus, see the folloowing posts on EPMEdge.com . Related articles include:


Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Promises & Commitments- A powerful combination in driving performance excellence….

Posted on by

Promises, Commitments, and Peak Performance…

From a performance perspective, failures and breakdowns (whether they occur in operational  processes,  business negotiations, or our everyday relationships with colleagues, friends, or family) often fail for one simple reason:

“The failure to make and manage commitments effectively!”

That’s not just my opinion, but rather the opinion of many recognized “gurus” and thought leaders in the change management discipline. So much so, that “commitment based management” is now a well known and accepted approach to  managing change, and has developed what I would call a true “following of believers” within consultancies and companies who have used it effectively.

While, to many of you, this may appear to be somewhat “common sense”, it is based on a long history of research and hard work done by Fernando Flores and his colleagues over the past several decades. I’ve had the opportunity to work beside some of his students, and while I didn’t agree with everything they’ve preached, they did convince me (through a myriad of real life examples), of the enormous depth and breadth of impact deriving from this simple yet powerful concept. If you are interested in learning more about the model, and the research behind it, a little time on Google will give you more than you need. I have also included some links at the bottom this article, and would encourage you to take a look.

A simple yet powerful model for sustainable change…

There are a lot of complexities and nuances to the model, and I encourage you to take the time to understand its background, development, and evolution. As the attached articles indicate, much of it originated in Flores’ research into the intersection of linguistics, psychology, and biology: three areas only now being collectively explored outside this discipline as a highly dependent web of interrelationships and connections.

The Commitment Management Cycle as adapted by Vision Consulting (click image to enlarge)

But at its core, the model is, in fact, quite simple. It involves several aspects:

  • The transaction– Any transaction which involves commitments being made and delivered upon. This could be an interaction with a colleague, a transaction with an “actual” customer, a negotiation with a vendor, or any variant or sub-variant of the above.
  • The parties– Specifically, a customer and a performer, which I would encourage you to think about in a dynamic way. (i.e., roles can change in other transactions, or even within stages of this one).
  • The Customer’s condition of satisfaction – both tangible and intangible, with both clearly understood within the context of the transaction.
  • The 4 stages of the transaction itself- Preparation, Negotiation, Performance, and Acknowledgment of completion of the transaction.
  • The range of movements and interactions within the transaction -Manifestations of what the original research called “speech acts” – (Requests, Promises, Assessments, Assertions, and Declarations) – each manifesting themselves in the actual phases of the transaction through the words and behaviors of both the performer and customer.

Some would say I’m over-complicating a simple dynamic. But those at the core of the discipline would say I’m actually over-simplifying it. So I suspect this may actually be a fairly balanced representation, although I still encourage further reading and study to draw your own conclusions.

Nevertheless, with the right understanding, the lens that this model offers provides a very powerful view into how these transactions work, and where in fact many of them break down. While the notion of “customer and provider” roles is not new, what is unique is the range of dynamics at play and what is required to make it work.

In a nutshell, the model plays out through a series of interactions that form the basis of the commitment. It starts with an attempt to understand (though good listening and well-grounded assessments) the “customer” in the way that allows the performer to make a clear, compelling, and coherent “offer” to which the customer can either reject or accept in the form of a “request”. While this often results in an iterative conversation, one of the things that can emerge is what we’ll call “the promise”. If the promise does in fact manifest as a commitment, the process (specifically the coordination of action through conversations and behaviors) plays out until delivery is perceived, declared, and assessed.

Again, simple yet powerful in terms of applying a clear and measurable framework and specific actions to an otherwise common everyday occurrence. And it works not because we recognize the importance of commitments and the presence of this simple process, but because of a common awareness of what each phase entails in terms of key actions, required skills, necessary behaviors, and competencies that have either been absent, overlooked, or become unlearned.

The implications are significant and far reaching…

As I’ve worked within and around this model, with companies who have embraced it holistically (like many embrace Lean or Six Sigma initiatives), it has become clear to me that the tools offered by the approach have broad, sweeping implications. Here are just a few examples that point not only to the value of adopting this framework, but also the unique dynamics and behaviors at play that require significant leadership commitment and investment to instill within the organization.

  • Customer Service/CRM – This should be the most obvious and straightforward application for this methodology, since the roles of Customer and Performer are obvious from start to finish…right? Wrong. For one,  if you study the model, you will understand quickly that the roles are dynamic and change frequently “within the process”. But even without that complexity, there is the myriad of actions that occur within the transaction that many CS Organizations (performers) are simply blind to. For example, are your CSR’s aware when every time they make a “promise”? (Do they really? Be careful, as it could happen 10 times inside of one interaction!). Do they know what they are actually doing (and where in the interaction they are) when they say the words “I’m sorry”, and simply move on (see post on the “empty promise”) ? So much of this process could be improved with some simple and basic understanding of how this transaction works.
  • Leadership alignment – A major issue for many companies, and perhaps the least understood. Why? Because at its core, alignment issues are about trust. As a close colleague once told me, trust is made of 3 things: Sincerity (of the person your are making the trust assessment about), Competence (in their ability to perform in all domains of the transaction), and Reliability (your assessment of their ability to consistently deliver on promises). There are too many dynamics to explore in one short paragraph, but I think you’ll agree that working within a framework like the above would bring into focus much of what our leaders and managers are blind to (often not willfully), thus improving the overall trust and alignment of the group.
  • Managing Performance – This one may actually be the most direct application of these principles since the customer and performer are usually defined for the scope of a specific transaction. Save for team goals, they usually take place between leaders/managers  and their subordinates. And in those cases, it is a fairly straightforward negotiation. But the problem in most negotiations like this is that neither the customer nor performer play their roles very well, largely because they do not understand what their responsibilities are within the transaction. This ranges from”understanding the customer enough to make a relevant and robust offer”, to the ensuing “request”, “establishment of conditions of satisfaction”, a “promise to deliver”, the “declaration of completion”, and everything in between. I spoke yesterday to the variability in companies’ target setting effectiveness. This model would help address many of those concerns by improving clarity of roles and actions required of the parties.
  • Labor Negotiations – This is such a volatile situation for many companies that any resource used to address it has become such a specialized skill that it is almost a “self contained” problem within most organizations (critical, but viewed and resolved separately through other courses of action.) But I’ve also seen companies who have applied these skills (usually as a result of all leadership and even labor representation in the business having been taught how to operate within the framework), and their successes has been impressive. It doesn’t solve every breakdown easily, but just as with leadership alignment, these breakdowns are rooted in trust, and solving the trust problem is the fastest path to addressing the range of other barriers to a productive settlement and ongoing relationship.
  • Operational Process Improvement– I am not going to argue here about the best way to address process breakdowns or inefficiencies. I happen to be a strong advocate of tools like Lean and other supporting tools like Benchmarking, Dashboards, and other aspects of the Performance Management infrastructure. But one thing we can all agree on in “operational improvement space” is that process change requires people change, and without addressing the leadership and cultural dynamics, change will undoubtedly fail. One very powerful aspect of this model, is the degree to which it blends operational work-flow with human dynamics of managing commitments. In fact, one of the most creative and effective “process maps” I’ve seen to date did NOT include boxes, lines, and swim-lanes like we see on conventional flowcharts, but rather a series of connected “loops” like the one above, each of which spawned other “commitment loops, thus allowing the more critical human  breakdowns in alignment, trust and commitment management (often the real culprits and victims of process breakdown) to be more fully understood and addressed. Pretty powerful stuff!
  • Technology Development– Much of Flores’ early work resulted in a book called “Computers and Cognition”, and while I found that book, and his later works to be very in-depth and sometimes difficult reads, they have become like “books of the bible” for the many gurus that were born under his leadership. And so it is not hard to make some pretty clear connections between technology and software, and the implications of the above on their thinking and ongoing development. If you think about it, all the basic tenets of commitments are found in most applications we work with on a daily basis, from email and calendaring, to work planning and management systems…not to mention the plethora of implications emerging from the advent and rapid evolution of Social Media.

These are five examples for which I have either applied these principles directly (performance management systems, process change, and leadership alignment ), or seen them successfully deployed by others (formal negotiations (from unions to suppliers) and software/ technology deployment). But this list is by no means exhaustive and the approach deployed clearly has the potential to impact many other facets of business, government, and even our personal lives.

Again, my intent is certainly not to oversimplify the importance, or the manner, in which this approach can be deployed. But at the same time (at the risk of offending the true disciples of this methodology)  it’s not “brain surgery”, and it is possible to deploy with the right skills, talent, and understanding. But at the same time,  I’ve seen some companies (including some I have consulted and worked with) fail because leadership lacked the openness and receptivity required to learn, commit to, and develop the competencies required to effect the level of change possible.

Read the articles below and come to your own conclusions. If, after that, any of this strikes a real chord with you, and you want to learn more (specifically how this impacts areas like the 7 I mention above, and the degree to which they can be integrated into your existing performance management and operational improvement initiatives), send me a comment or drop me an email at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com and I’ll be happy to connect you with some wonderful people who I call “the real brain surgeons” of this type of change.

HBR Article on Commitment Based Management

Fast Company article on Flores’ and his approach

Blog Post by Clarke Ching on “Conversations for Action”

Blog Post by David Arella on “Managing Commitments”

Coordination of Action: Implications on Customer Relationship Management (by Vision Consulting)

Change Management Perspective (by Vision Consulting)

There are, of course, many adaptations and improvements to Flores’ thinking that have emerged over the years, and this is just a small sample. If there are other articles you’d like me to add on this specific approach (and there are many good ones out there), just post them in the comments and I’ll be happy to reference them via an updated post.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Metrics Don’t “Run” Without Targets

Posted on by

What today’s metrics are missing…

Yesterday, I published a post on improving the value of metrics in managing the Social Media performance of individuals and businesses. The inspiration for writing that came from the recent flurry of posts from this week’s “eMetrics” conference, and my own reflection on whether the current approaches and tools (and some of the improvements that are emerging) were going to be effective in addressing the gaps that exist today.

I received some good feedback on that post, some from individuals like myself who struggle with these metrics and their relevance for ourselves and our clients, and others from vendors simply trying to inform me that some of the gaps I was observing were not as significant as I might have been suggesting (perhaps a fair assessment).

I talked a lot yesterday about choosing the “right metrics”, and remain convinced that “metrics” are certainly an important piece of the equation. Choosing the wrong metrics can send you in the wrong direction quickly. And nowhere is that more visible than in the stampede toward maximizing performance on what I’ll call the  “generally accepted” set of  KPI’s. You all know what those are. And from my comments yesterday, you also know the dangers I see in all of us gravitating to the same “common denominator” even though we recognize that an infinite array of unique objectives exists.

Targets – The “forgotten sibling” of metrics

As I spent a little time reflecting on all of this, it became clear to me that the main area that needs addressing may not be the actual metrics themselves, but rather  making the metrics, and especially the targets, more relevant to the area being managed. And this is a problem that faces all businesses, both within and outside of Social Media space. So, today, I am going to focus on that part of a business metric that “completes it”, the TARGET itself: How it is set, challenged, managed, and delivered upon.

You might be saying to yourself that ‘setting targets should be a relatively simple and easy process’. Well, for some, the steps may be simple, but executing the process consistently is far from it. Companies and individuals are constantly asking  the question “where and how high” they should set the bar?” To answer that question involves some good introspection and analysis. And to do that well, you often need good information and benchmarks on which to base those decisions. But most importantly, it takes knowledge and awareness of what a “target” is, the role it plays in the performance improvement cycle, and the process by which targets should be established, vetted, and updated.

A real blind spot for many…

It’s truly amazing that, amidst all of the data tracking and information that surround us, so little time is actually paid to thinking about, and establishing THE TARGET . What good is measuring something if you don’t know whether you should be shooting for 10, 50, or 5000? So it’s hard to imagine performance tracking and management adding any real value without accompanying targets.

Yet that is exactly what is taking place – not only inside of Social Media, but industry in general. When I am helping a client implement a corporate performance management system or process, a key part of that engagement is often inventorying and improving the KPI’s and business metrics that should be currently “fueling” that process. As part of that step, I am naturally going to be asking what their aspirations, goals, and targets are for their specific metrics and KPI’s.

But more often than not, when I do ask that question, I get blank stares. Sometimes, if I’m lucky, I’ll get an answer like “to get better” (which may be a “broad goal” but far from a “target”). I ascribe this not to corporate ignorance (some of these companies are pretty big and reasonably successful in their market), but rather a failure of leadership to translate and cascade their broad goals or macro level targets for the “company level KPI’s”, into more actionable targets at the operating level.

But whatever the reason, using metrics without targets is about as helpful as using GPS navigation without a programmed destination. And in the absence of targets, the best you’ll get is mindless (and often costly) tracking of statistics, and if you’re lucky, some backward-looking trends. What you won’t get is a point of reference for evaluating success, and little ability to correlate success with the deployment of new strategies or initiatives. And in the end, aren’t those the ultimate goals of our performance measurement and improvement activities?

The 3 R’s of good target setting…

As you set up your process and routine for better “target setting” (which should take place both in the planning and review cycles of your business), you’ll want to pay real close attention to what I call the “3 R’s” of target setting. Those include making your targets:

  • Real – By “real”, I mean a genuine, thought through, meaningful number, based on both data and introspection. To “improve from last year” or to “get better by x percent” is not a real target, but merely a statement of an aspiration or goal. Shoot for a specific number and be able to say why you chose it. The more genuine and real the target is, the better you will be able to articulate it in your leadership narrative , and the stronger your ongoing performance dialogue and problem solving will become as an organization.
  • Relevant- By relevant, I mean both contextually relevant, and realistic. And this is always unique to, and highly dependent on  the business, work unit, or individual being measured. In fact, in my view, this is the number one breakdown in social media metrics in that there is often no connection between a company or individual goal (THEIR unique objective) and the target they are using for their metrics tracking, be it a follow count, an engagement score, or a Klout measure. The use of each of  these measures can carry very different implications depending on the specific user objective at play, just as a business indicator would be across two different industries or segments of the company. I’d like to see a scenario in which users of SM statistics could articulate a set of aspirations (type of influencer, specific industry or niche, and maybe size of market–(and I’m still noodling with this obviously)), and the tool or technology that would help them select a unique target range to achieve that objective. (For example, a follow count target of “a”, Klout score target of “b”, engagement score target of “c”, and velocity score target of “d”). The point is to try and align the measure to the context being managed. How you get there, whether though “normalizing the data”, or simply making informed judgments, is less important than making sure the context differences are reflected.
  • Robust- Robustness means testing the target against what should be possible in terms of improvement. Often, this is the role that performance benchmarking can and should play in the process, assuming it’s done right and you’ve normalized somewhat to make the comparisons relevant. Benchmarks can tell you if you’re in the right ballpark. But it goes beyond simple benchmarks in evaluating the robustness of a target. I often find that a formal set of internal challenges to the targets makes a lot of sense. While it’s got to be a safe and constructive process to work effectively, a good challenge would ‘sniff out’ a target that passes a benchmark test, but would identify, as well, areas in which there may exist considerably more opportunity (i.e., the target is insufficiently aspirational). Or it could challenge areas in which the metric could be “gamed”.

Here’s a sports example. Suppose you’re a golfer, and you want to bring down your score, and one of the metrics you elect to track is the percentage of “greens hit in regulation” (i.e., you’ve gotten to the green within par allowing for 2 putts after the green is reached). At first you say you want to “improve” from your baseline of 60%, but that really doesn’t reflect any quality thinking about improvement potential. After refining your thinking, however, you decide that 65% would be a good target (That’s REAL). You then do some benchmarking and find that an average benchmark would suggest that a good target is 50%. But after normalizing for ‘those better than a  5 handicap’ (which in this example may be your strategic goal), a more relevant target might be 70% (That’s RELEVANT). But after challenging that, and looking at your trend, and the way you’ve been hitting lately, you may conclude that going from 60 to 70% is too shallow an aspiration (in fact you may have already achieved that, not on average, but certainly in your last 3 rounds), so you elect to go with the benchmark of the “top quartile” of those 5 handicappers on “their” GIR performance and shoot for 75% instead (That’s ROBUST).

So next time you review your metrics, don’t forget the importance of having targets, and making sure they meet the 3R’s test of quality.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

What a good preacher can teach us about accountability…

Posted on by

iPads, Insomnia, and Podcasts…

Sometimes, when I have trouble sleeping, I will find a good podcast or ‘sirius talk’ channel that looks interesting, and let the drone of the narrator “read me to sleep”.

I don’t know what it is about “talk radio” or short podcast subjects that do the trick for me (instead of music, for example), because some of the topics are really interesting and engaging and would keep most normal people “awake” rather then send them off to sleep. But not for me. 30 Minutes into one of these podcasts or talk shows, and I’m out like a light.

Who Knows. This phenomena probably has to do more with our childhoods, when we were “put to sleep” by our parents reading us  a good story book, than it does the level of topical ‘engagement’ of the content itself. But that’s a subject for another day, or perhaps my therapist.

Now, sometimes when you download a podcast, there is not too much background available on the host, but that usually doesn’t bother me because the vast majority of them on itunes are pretty much free. So, if it’s a bad one, so be it- it’s still usually enough to put me to sleep through the sheer value of their mindless droning. Last night could have been one of those nights.

Last night, however was about the content. I found a podcast dealing with the topic of “personal change”, something near and dear to me because so much of the consulting work I do involves cultural alignment, behavioral change and leadership skills. Invariably, all of those are in some way dependent on PERSONAL change, often of significant magnitude.

Rapture, repentance, and judgment day…

As the podcast opened,however, it was clear that I was in for a surprise. While the topic was “personal change” (which we all know can span a broad array of angles), this one had what one might call a “spiritual bent” to it, which clearly was not evident by the podcast icon and description.

Although it was not what I was expecting, I did listen on. After all, who can’t resist a little advice from a good “preacher man”!

As I am fading off to sleep amidst his messages of raptures, repentance and judgments, the word “ACCOUNTABILITY” popped out of my ear buds like a shot in the dark. And while it probably was his intention to pique my interest will all of his other words of prophetic wisdom, it was the word “accountability ” that hooked me.

Now, if God is reading this, I don’t mean to say that I didn’t internalize ALL of the other parts of the sermon. I LISTENED TO ALL OF IT!!!” It’s just that the subject of accountability is one that I have been working with many of my clients on currently, and so the mere mention of the topic grabbed my attention just A LITTLE more than the “end of days” stuff. But that was for one instant, until I returned to the rest of the sermon, at which point I paid perfect attention. (Ok- bases covered with God- check.)

What “The Preacher” says about accountability…

Good preachers have a few things in common. One, they are charismatic speakers. Two, they are usually great storytellers. And three, they have an uncanny ability to translate complex principles into very simple messages. So what was his simple message on the subject of accountability? Just tell someone!!

That’s right, tell someone. Such a simple act. Yet such powerful implications. Here was his four step process to accountability:

  • Make a decision to make a commitment
  • Set a goal
  • Write it down
  • And tell someone

Now before you conclude that it’s not that simple (and I am not suggesting it is), just think about this in various facets of your personal, spiritual and work life. Heck, think about something as simple as exercise and weight loss (yet another topic close to my heart- literally!). I know for me, the only time I take that seriously is when I do in fact ‘tell someone’. I don’t know exactly why that works, but it does. Probably, it has something to do with someone else “watching”. Or perhaps it is because you feel a commitment beyond just yourself. Whatever the reason, I find that it works.

It also works in other areas of my life. When I commit something verbally to my kids, it means more than just a superficial personal “intent”. Same with my spouse. And truth be told, as a “good Catholic” (subject to debate, I suppose), when I make a confession to a priest, I take the commitment of “doing better next time” more to heart, than if I just made that same commitment to myself in passing.

I think”writing it down” certainly helps too, since it is now part  of “recorded history”, and something you can go back to and look at. It becomes tangible.

Livin’ “The Gospel” in business!!!

Even if it’s just inside your own sandbox…

As I think about this in a business context, specifically with respect to performance improvement, it all makes sense, doesn’t it? I can’t tell you how many times those “personal change “rock-stars” (from Carnegie  to Covey) have preached these same principles in their books on ‘achieving success’, ‘positive thinking’, and the broad array of topics they wax so eloquently on. And no doubt, every consultant (including your’s truly) has developed some methodology for driving accountability and change that include these basic four steps in some way, shape, or form.

I know many of you are working on driving accountability into your business cultures, and have one point or another, been involved in that type of multi step, multi phase, “journey of change” that was no doubt complex. And for many of you, some level of reward was received from those efforts. Change management programs do work, and with good leadership commitment, can really mobilize and cement long term improvements to a results oriented and highly accountable culture across the business.

But there are other times, when a manager just wants to simply motivate an employee, change the attitude of a team member, or the shift culture within a small workgroup. But instead of moving ahead in their little “patch of turf”, they often get caught up in the narrative of “it’s all about leadership” and the inability to change things from within unless “the top dogs” are behind it. That’s unfortunate, because change can happen in small pieces if the managers of those parts of the business understand the simple behaviors required to catalyze that change.

So before you conclude that reaching an new or ambitious goal is not achievable with your current team and cultural environment, give the preacher man a chance, and try out his 4 steps. Make the commitment. Set a goal. Write it down. And tell someone.

Then come back in a few weeks and see if anything has changed. You might surprise yourself!

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

SM Metrics- Getting beyond followers, klout, and social butterflies!

Posted on by

More Metrics Insights- Really? Haven’t we had enough?

I’ve been following all the “buzz” over the past week from #SXSW and now #eMetrics regarding the development, reporting and use of “metrics” in Social Media (SM) space. Quite interesting dialogue to say the least.

For some of you, particularly those who don’t live and breath Social Media, all of this may have turned into “white noise”, as this weekend appears to have exhausted just about every angle on the subject of SM metrics that we could possibly explore. But  fear not! As another week kicks into gear, there will no doubt emerge a new wave of posts and blogs on the very same topic.

But I must admit, that all of this “metrics talk” does strike a chord with me. After all, having spent nearly two decades in helping company leaders and managers get their arms around business metrics, and the broader discipline of performance management, you would expect my ears to jump up at the word “metrics”! (I know…sad but true). And while SM is not an area I have spent an enormous amount of time studying or participating in from “the inside”, I am finding that many of the same principles I use with my “corporate clients” and  very much “in play” for this new and ever evolving market.

Stepping outside my “sandbox” …

While my life does not revolve around advances in SM, I have become what one might call a “steady  user” of it. From my evening “blogging” hour, to ongoing “check-ins” via Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn; I would confess to spending at least 10-15% of my ‘awake time’ interacting with online friends and colleagues.

Of course, like many of you, Social Media (which for me includes my morning time with my Pulse reader scanning news and blogs that I monitor) has replaced the time I spend reading newspapers, magazines and “industry rags” (in fact it’s become much a more efficient medium saving me lots of time and energy). And those ongoing “check ins” that I initiate, usually occur when I am either ” restricted” (cabs, airports, etc.), between tasks, or otherwise indisposed (I won’t elaborate on the latter- you get the idea).But the “blogging hour”… that is something separate for me, and while I do enjoy it and it helps me unwind, I also recognize it for what it is- a personal and professional investment in my own development.  So yes, you could say that SM should be important simply because of the 15% percent of my day that I rely on it for.

But for me, it goes a little beyond that, especially now that the conversation has turned to metrics, and the broader issue of managing SM performance and results. Ever since I got into the Performance Management discipline years ago, I’ve been a strong believer and proponent of finding ideas and insights, wherever they occur (different companies, different industries, different geographies, etc.), and applying insights to current challenges within our own environments. Some would call this “benchmarking”. Others may call it good learning practices. For me, it’s not only common business sense, but a core set of principles that I live and manage by. And for many like me, it is the basis of any good Performance Management system.

So it’s only natural for me to observe what’s going on in this space and try to open some good “cross dialogue” on how we can lift the overall cause that I know we all are pursuing: More effective measurement, better management of performance, and stronger results.

Exploring “Best Practices” In SM Performance Measurement…

A few weeks back I published a post on what businesses outside of SM space could learn from what is happening within SM. Many of you found that useful, although I must admit that it was the first time that I really began experimenting with what was available out there in terms of thinking andtools. But rather than focusing on the tools, I tried to explore some of the bigger themes that were emerging in terms of practices and approaches, and attempted to determine which aspects of that thinking in SM might be be “import-able” by other sectors as “lessons learned”.

Today, I want to ‘flip the tables’ a bit, and talk about what other industries can teach Social Media about the art of measuring, improving, and delivering on our individual goals and aspirations.

I was inspired to go this direction by a number of posts over the weekend that appeared to delve into the same question (here’s an example regarding the measurement issues with Klout) When I read that, it sounded like some good stuff, I realized that this was really  the tip of the iceberg on a really important issue. So expanding on this seemed to be the next logical step.

So what Can SM Learn From Others?

The below observations are based on merely a snapshot of what I see taking place now, and fully realize that dialogue is occurring at this very minute in certain hotel bars and restaurants on this very topic. My goal is not to suggest an exhaustive list of “fix it now’s”, but rather to open an ongoing dialogue on what we can learn and apply in our individual areas of expertise.

  • Is what we’re measuring today meaningful?

OK, let’s get some basics out of the way, at the risk of boring (or offending) some of the social media pundits and ‘real experts’ out there. For most users (consumers of Social Media)- the everyday user of Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, for example- the answer to ‘whether or not SM measures are meaningful ?’ is “probably not”. Save for ego and vanity, measurement of things like the number of “digital friends” (Facebook friend counts and Twitter followers for example) mean very little to the nature of managing meaningful relationships- whether it is in maintaining existing ones, or growing new ones. Meaningful relationships go way beyond these surface level statistics.

Of course, there are those individuals and businesses who do use, and rely heavily on, more in depth statistics for tracking their progress. So I believe at least some of them would say “yes- meaningful…but with a lot left to be desired”. The stats and measures are there. Are they meaningful and value adding to the business? Subject to debate.

What we can be certain of, is that things like Follower counts, Klout scores, Retweets, and Click-through’s are measures that are becoming less and less valuable, and that there is a deep yearning for more. Whether this takes the form of refining what’s in the algorithms and “black boxes” , or a major rethinking of the metrics themselves (which would be my vote), still appears to be a subject of great debate.

  • For the sake of what?

When you walk into a large company that “manages by the numbers” (and trust me, many don’t), you see that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of things they are tracking. Some are real meaningful, and some are as useless as an “asshole on your elbow” (I heard that one from a old (and wise) plant manager in Texas, and have been waiting months to use it- hope I didn’t offend :)

When I see that level of measurement/ quantity of metrics, a little “warning sound” goes off in my head and I start exploring the question: “For the sake of what?” are you measuring this or that? I use a variety of techniques to get them to tell me how they are going to use a certain metric (most often the question of “why?” asked repetitively works best), but often the question is rhetorical because there is no answer. I once heard someone say, “If you want to see if information is valuable, just stop sending out the report and see if anyone screams!”.

Fact is, if a measure doesn’t have a causal link to some major result area, or worse, if the person managing it cannot see that link, the metric serves no purpose other than to consume cost. Most of the tools I see in SM space for tracking metrics simply  report stats with no obvious linkage to any real outcome. Even if something like # followers was important (and we all know that most often it ranks pretty low), there is no clear path evident in the reports on how the stats actually impact an outcome that is important to the user (other than loose descriptions and definitions at best).

Yet, we all know that the tools and models for establishing those linkages exist everywhere. Just look at some of the basic tools used by stock traders. While they are not perfect by a long shot, “technicals” like Stochastics, Bollinger Bands, and simple breakout patterns, have clear paths to a high probability event or outcome, yet are available to even the most amateur  investor. Even “stogy” old Utility companies can draw connections between things like permit rates, new connection activity and downstream staffing requirements. I’m not suggesting it’s easy, just that it’s important and that the tools are there to execute and simplify.

  • Who really cares?

For me, this is the MOST IMPORTANT item on the list. Most of us have seen the Klout site, Twitalyzer, and the myriad of other tools out there to support the development of personal networks. These tools are extremely useful, and possess a wealth of information if you have the time and stamina to think about what it all means. I mean, come on… to have 25 metrics on one page with trends only one click away is something that a real metrics guy can only look at and say “WAY COOL”. Seriously, very cool! That’s the good news.

The bad news is that it’s the same news for everyone. But we all know the dangers of “one size fits all”. I’m not diminishing the value these tools provide. SM would be lost without them. And in their defense, certain sites like Twitalyzer and Klout have gone beyond the simple dashboards and have incorporated categories that many aspire to, and have begun to draw some connection between these aspirations and those broad categories.

But it’s just a start (I mean come on…Are  any Twitter users actually aspiring to be “social butterflies”? (ok, don’t answer that, because they’re probably some who do!) Perhaps a better question is whether a “social butterfly ” would ever aspire to be a “thought leader” ? My point is that it’s probably not a linear sequence of development, and while these categories get us one step closer to aligning measures with goals, they are still missing 2 things:

1) Better understanding of the goals of users (its probably more than 4 and less than 100) and

2) a guidance system that helps one use the metrics to achieve those goals.

So here’s a thought…What about a simple interface that allows you to pick a goal, and then tells you which metrics you should care about and what the target should be to accelerate within that goal class? You’d be building a model that would clearly feed on itself. I’d be surprised if the BI guru’s out there don’t already have this built into their corporate BI suites and Web Analytics tools, but it would seem to me to be a great draw for the myriad of other users with goals that extend beyond butterflies and mindless follower counts.

Find out what’s important, at as customized a level as you can (and is practical), and tell us how to get there. That’s the “holy grail” in every business, and what every CEO is and Executive is craving from its performance management process – “I’ll tell you what my strategic goal/ ambition is,…and you tell me what the metrics AND targets are  that will help me get there,… and then help me  track my progress!”

  • Can tools help? (and how?)

Absolutely and without question, the answer is yes. But just as other businesses and industries have jumped too quickly, often placing ‘technology before process’, so has SM in my view. Part of this is because of how the industry is “wired”, and how it has evolved. Born through technology, and managed and staffed with a heavy technology bent, it’s not surprising that we’ve reached a point where the data has become king, UI’s have a lot to be desired.

I’m not talking about the ease of navigation, the placement of charts, or the rendering of drill down information. I’m talking about how the user (the customer) thinks…starting with their goals, and accessing the relevant metrics to show progress and critical actions they need to take to improve. I suspect the developer who can “visualize” (to use an overused term in today’s SM environment) that kind of “line of sight” will ultimately win the hearts of its users.

The other role technology can play is enabling the algorithms and models that are required to deploy the kind of “mass customized”/ goals oriented solution I described above. Without these tools, the likelihood of being able to normalize, analyze and model these relationships would be impossible. So in my view, the tools are critical, but the effort first needs to be on the process (getting the line of sight understood) and then working the raw data in a way that renders it in a context-specific visualization. That’s in a perfect world- but it’s still a good aspiration.

Like I said, these are just the things that are ‘top of mind’ for me at the moment, and only informed by the lens through which “Bob” is looking. I’m sure some of these issues are top of mind for you too, and you may actually be unveiling (right now) that new “holy grail” subscription site  that has the answers. If so, great…I may be your perfect customer. But if the last two decades have taught me anything, it is that different perspectives and different lenses often pose new questions and spark new crystal balling that lifts the entire game.

Of course I welcome any comments and expansion on the above list. As I said earlier, this is just the beginning of my own thinking, inspired in part by some of yours. I look forward to more of yours!

PS- For anyone who is interested in Performance Management and Metrics topics outside of the world of SM, feel free to bookmark http://EPMEdge.com

Links to some of my more recent posts on these subjects are provided below

Incorporating the principle of “line of sight” into your performance measurement and management program

Managing through the “rear view mirror”- a dangerous path for any business

Data, information and metrics: Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com