Book Short:  A SPIN Selling Companion

At Return Path, we’re big believers in the SPIN Selling methodology popularized by Neil Rackham. It just makes sense. Spend more time listening than talking on a sales call, uncover your prospect’s true needs and get him or her to articulate the need for YOUR product. Though it doesn’t reference SPIN Selling, Why People Don’t Buy Things, by Kim Wallace and Harry Washburn is a nice companion read.

Rooted in psychology and cognitive science, Why People Don’t Buy Things presents a very practical sales methodology called Buying Path Selling. Understand how your prospect is making his or her buying decision and what kind of buyer he or she is, be more successful at uncovering needs and winning the business.

The book has two equally interesting themes, rich with examples, but the one I found to be easiest to remember was to vary your language (both body and verbal) with the buyer type. And the book illustrates three archetypes: The Commander, The Thinker, and The Visualizer. There are some incredibly insightful and powerful ways to recognize the buyer type you’re dealing with in the book.

But most of the cues the authors rely on are physical, and lots of sales are done via telephone. So I emailed the author to ask for his perspective on this wrinkle.  Kim wrote back the following (abridged):

Over the phone it is fairly easy to determine a prospect’s modality. I’ve developed a fun, conversational question which can be asked up front, “As you recall some of your most meaningful experiences at XYZ, what words, thoughts, feelings or visuals come to mind? Anything else?”

If you’re interested in letting your blog readers test their modalities, the link below will activate a quick 10 question quiz from our website that generates ones modality scores along how they compare with others. (It’s like Myers-Briggs applied to decision making.) http://www.wallacewashburn.com/quiz.shtml

In any case, if you are a sales, marketing, or client services professional (or even if you just play one on TV), Why People Don’t Buy Things is a quick, insightful read.  Thanks for the quick response, Kim!

Book Short:  Sloppy Sequel

SuperFreakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, wasn’t a bad book, but it wasn’t nearly as good as the original Freakonomics, either.  I always find the results of “naturally controlled experiments” and taking a data-driven view of the world to be very refreshing.  And as much as I like the social scientist versions of these kinds of books like Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point and Blink (book; blog post), there’s usually something about reading something data driven written by a professional quant jock that’s more reassuring.

That’s where SuperFreakonomics fell down a bit for me.  Paul Krugman has described the book in a couple different places as “snarky and contrarian.”  I typically enjoy books that carry those descriptors, but this one seemed a bit over the top for economists — like a series of theories looking for data more than raw data adding up to theories.Nowhere is this more true than the chapter on climate change.  It’s a shame that that chapter seems to be swallowing up all the public discussion about the book, because there are some good points in that chapter, and the rest of the book is better than that particular chapter, but such is life.

As with all things related to the environment, I turned to my friend Andrew Winston’s blog, where he has a good post about how the authors kind of miss the point about climate change…and he also has a series of links to other blog posts debunking this one chapter.  If you’re into the topic, or if you read the book, follow the chain here for good reading.  My conclusion about this chapter, being at least somewhat informed about the climate change debate, is that the book seems to have sloppy writing and editing at best, possibly deliberately misleading at worst.  (Incidentally, the reaction in the blogosphere seems highly emotional, other than Andrew’s, which probably doesn’t serve the reactors well.)

But I’ll assume the best of intentions.  Some of the points made aren’t bad – there is no debate about the problem or the need to solve it, the authors express legitimate concern that current solutions, especially those requiring behavioral change, will be too little too late, and most interestingly, they show an interest in alternative approaches like geo-engineering.  I hadn’t been familiar with that topic at all, but I’m now much more interested in it, not because it’s a “silver bullet” approach to dealing with climate change, but because it’s a different approach, and complex problems like climate change deserve to have a wide range of people working on multiple types of solutions.  I met Nathan Myhrvold once (I almost threw up on him during a job interview, which is another story for another day), and it makes me very happy that his brilliance is being applied to this problem as a general principle.

As I said, though, beyond this one chapter, the book is good-not-great.  But it certainly is chock full of cocktail party nuggets!

I help mentor CEOs on executive hiring all the time. One common refrain I hear when we’re talking about requirements for the job is about something I like to call The Mythical Playbook. If I only had the exec with the right playbook, thinks the hiring CEO, all my problems in that executive’s area would be magically solved.

I once hired a senior executive with that same mentality. They had the pedigree. They had taken a similar SaaS company in an adjacent space from $50mm to $250mm in revenue in a sub-group within their functional area. They had killer references who said they were ready to graduate to the C-level job. They had The Playbook! 

Suffice to say, things did not go as planned. I ignored an early sign of trouble, at my own peril. The exec came to me with a new org chart for the department, one with 45 people on it instead of the 20-25 who were currently there. I believed the department was understaffed but was surprised to see the magnitude of the ask. When I pushed back in general, the response I got was “I plan to overspend and overdeliver.” Hmm, ok. I don’t mind that, although a more detailed plan might be useful.  

Then I pushed back on a specific hire, pointing to a box in the org chart with a title that didn’t make sense to me. The response I got was “Yeah, I’m not entirely sure what that person does either, but I know I need that, trust me.” Yikes. 

There are two reasons why The Playbook is mythical. 

The first reason there’s no such thing as a Playbook for executives is that every situation is different. No two companies are identical in terms of offering or culture or structure. Even within the same industry, no two competitive landscapes are the same at different points in time. If life as a senior executive were as simple as following a Playbook, people would make a zillion dollars off publishing Playbooks, and senior executive jobs would be easier to do, and no one would get fired from them.

Now, I’m not saying there isn’t value in analogous experience. There is! But when hiring an executive, you’re not solely looking for someone who claims to know all the answers based on previous experience. That is a recipe for blindly following a pattern that might or might not exist. The value in the analogous experience is in knowing what things worked, sure, but more importantly in knowing when they worked, why they worked, under what conditions they worked, what alternatives were considered, and what things fell apart on the road to success. A Playbook is only useful if it can be applied thoughtfully and flexibly to new situations.

The second reason there’s no such thing as a Playbook when it comes to hiring executives is that the person who might have written the Playbook is actually not available for your job. Most CEOs start a search by saying, “I want to hire the person who took XYZ Famous Company from where I am today to 10x where I am today.” The problem with that is simple. That person is no longer available to you. They have made a ton of money, and they have moved beyond your job in their career progression. What you want is the person who worked for that person, or even one more layer down…or the person who that person WAS before they took the job at XYZ Famous Company. Those people are much harder to find. And when you find them, they don’t have the Playbook. They may have seen a couple chapters of it, but that’s about all.

In the end, the department I referenced above was more successful, but not because of adherence to the new exec’s entire Playbook. The Playbook got the department out over its skis – we overspent, but we did not overdeliver. The new exec ended up leaving the company before they could implement a lot, and that person’s successor ended up refocusing and rightsizing the department. That said, the best thing the department got out of the exec with the Playbook was their successor, which was huge — one element of a strong exec’s Playbook is how to build a machine as opposed to just playing whack-a-mole and solving problems haphazardly.

(Note – I am using the singular they in this and in other posts now, as Brad. Mahendra, and I chose to do in Startup Boards. I don’t love it, but it seems to be becoming the standard for gender neutral writing, plus it helps mask identities as well when I write posts like this.)

(This is the third post in the series… The first one When to Hire your first CMO is here, and What does Great Look Like in a CMO is here).

 In Startup CXO I wrote that I always think that the French Fry Theory can be applied to many things, usually other food items. The French Fry Theory is the idea that you always have room to eat one more fry and in my case I always do. But the same idea applies to marketing because you can always do “one more thing.” One more press release. One more piece of collateral. One more page on the corporate web site. One more newsletter. Trade show. Webinar. Research study. Ad. Search engine placement. Vendor. System. Speech. Take your pick.

The world we operate in is so dynamic that marketing (when done well) is nearly impossible to ever feel like you’re completely on top of and it’s near impossible to get closure. There’s always more to be done, and the trick to doing it well is knowing when to say “no” as much as when to charge into something. In my experience, CMOs who aren’t scaling well past the startup stage are the ones who typically do one or all of the following.

First, they’re stuck in “french fry mode” and treat all tasks like french fries. They focus on task execution (eating the next fry) and can’t pull up to think about whether they’re doing the right thing (should they be ordering another plate of fries?) and they are simply not scaling. If your CMO is constantly putting out fires that’s a sign that they may be too task-oriented and not strategic enough.

 Another sign that your CMO isn’t scaling is if they report on activity as opposed to outcomes. This is related to my prior point.  When all the world is a task list, then report-outs are just volumes of tasks but tasks are not the same as productivity or results.  I’m not sure why marketing ended up like this, but it’s frequently the only function in the company that spends time producing beautiful reports on all the stuff they do.  It probably comes from years of working with agencies who report like that to justify client spend.  Regardless, can you imagine seeing reports on activity instead of outcomes from other departments? Do you really need the report from the CFO that talks about how many collections calls the team made as opposed to reporting on bad debt? Or a report from the CRO talking about how many meetings a rep had with no mention of pipeline or closes – seriously?  No thank you.  CMOs who can’t link activity to outcome with a focus on outcome are not scaling with the job and for all you know they may be rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

A final sign that your CMO isn’t scaling is if they spend disproportionate amounts of time on creative or agency work.  That’s the glamorous and fun part of marketing, for sure.  Having made TV commercials as a head of marketing when I was at MovieFone, I can attest to that.  But even if you’re a big B2C marketer with a lot of agency and creative spend, while you should be supervising that work, spending all your time on it is a sign that you’re not interested in all the other, well, french fries.

Marketing is becoming increasingly complex and differentiated, and it can easily be a service center as opposed to a strategic function. I don’t think that’s ideal, but that may be how a company decides to run it. But even if it is a service function your CMO needs to able to create space in their day for thinking and analysis, they need to be strategic, and they need to be able to stop doing “one more thing.”

( You can find this post on the Bolster Blog here)

Book Short:  A Twofer

My friend Andrew Winston, who is one of the nation’s gurus in corporate sustainability, just published his second book, this one from Harvard Business Press — Green Recovery:  Get Lean, Get Smart, and Emerge from the Downturn on Top.  It builds on the cases and successes he had with his first book, Green to Gold (post, link to book), which came out a couple years ago and has become the standard for how businesses embrace sustainability and use it to their financial and strategic competitive advantage rather than thinking of it as a burden or a cost center.

Green Recovery is a shorter read (my kind of business book), and it hits a few key themes:

• Going green not only shouldn’t wait for better economic times, it’s a key way out of this mess

• Businesses have relied on layoffs to cut costs for far too long — it’s time to get lean on stuff, not people
• This is about survival for many businesses:  Detroit died because it missed the green wave of environmental interest and rising energy prices
• And the overarching theme…Green doesn’t raise costs, it lowers them – it’s a source of profit and innovation
  

The book reminds me a lot of my post Living With Less, For Good, which I wrote at the beginning of the financial market freefall last fall, talking about how we as a company were figuring out how to cut back without cutting people (something we’ve managed to do).  Although I wasn’t talking about green initiatives specifically, the point of getting leaner on “stuff” really resonates with me.

At the end of the day, Andrew proves that steering your company to go green — no matter what industry you’re in — is a twofer:  you can increase the strength of the business and simultaneously do your part to clean up the environment.  That’s definitely the “change we can believe in” mentality applied quite pragmatically!

I’ve always been a big believer in the consistent application frameworks for business thinking and decision-making.  Frameworks are just a great starting point to spark conversation and organize thinking, especially when you’re faced with a new situation.  Last year, I read Tom Friedman’s new book, Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations, and he had this great line that reminded me of the power of frameworks and that it extends far beyond business decision-making:

When you put your value set together with your analysis of how the Machine works and your understanding of how it is affecting people and culture in different contexts, you have a worldview that you can then apply to all kinds of situations to produce your opinions. Just as a data scientist needs an algorithm to cut through all the unstructured data and all the noise to see the relevant patterns, an opinion writer needs a worldview to create heat and light. 

In Startup CEO, I wrote about a bunch of different frameworks we have used over the years at Return Path, from vetting new business ideas to selecting a type of capital and investor for a capital raise.  I blogged about a new one that I learned from my dad a few months ago on delegation.  One of my favorite business authors, Geoffrey Moore, has developed more frameworks than I can count and remember about product and product-market fit.

But all frameworks can go stale over time, and they can also get bogged down and confused with pattern recognition, which has limitations.  To that end, Friedman also addressed this point:

But to keep that worldview fresh and relevant…you have to be constantly reporting and learning—more so today than ever. Anyone who falls back on tried-and-true formulae or dogmatisms in a world changing this fast is asking for trouble. Indeed, as the world becomes more interdependent and complex, it becomes more vital than ever to widen your aperture and to synthesize more perspectives.

Again, although Friedman talks about this in relation to journalism, the same can be applied to business.  Take even the most basic framework, the infamous BCG “Growth/Share Matrix” that compares Market Growth and Market Share and divides your businesses into Dogs, Cash Cows, Question Marks, and Stars.  Digital Marketing has disrupted some of the core economics of firms, so there are a number of businesses that you might previously have said were in the Dog quadrant but due to improved economics of customer acquisition can either be moved into Cash Cow or at least Question Mark.  Or maybe the 2×2 isn’t absolute any more, and it now needs to be a 2×3.

The business world is dynamic, and frameworks, ever important, need to keep pace as well.

A New VC Ready to Go!

One of the interesting things about being in business for 13 years (as of last week!) at Return Path is that we have been around longer than two of our Venture Capital funds.  Fortunately for us, Fred led an investment in the company with his new fund, Union Square Ventures, even though his initial investment was via his first fund, Flatiron Partners.  And even though Brad hasn’t invested out of his new fund, Foundry Group, he remains a really active member of our group as a Board Advisory through his Mobius Venture Capital investment.

Although our third and largest VC shareholder, Sutter Hill Ventures, is very much still in business, our Board member Greg Sands just announced today that he has left Sutter and started his own firm, Costanoa Venture Capital, sponsored in part by Sutter.  The firm was able to buy portions of some of Greg’s portfolio companies from Sutter as part of its founding capital commitment, so Return Path is now part of both funds, and Greg, like Fred, will continue to serve as a director for us and manage both firms’ stakes in Return Path.

The descriptions of the firm in Greg’s first blog post are great – and they point to companies like Return Path being in his sweet spot:  cloud-based services solving real world problems for businesses, Applied Big Data, consumer interfaces and distribution strategies for Enterprise companies.

I give Greg a lot of credit for going out on his own with a strong vision, something that’s unusual in the VC world.  We’re proud to be part of his new portfolio, and I’m sure he’ll be incredibly successful.  Like Fred and Brad and their new firms, Greg understands the value of being able to write smaller initial checks and back them up over time, he is a disciplined investor, and he is a fantastic Board member and mentor.

In this Olympic Season, Brad gets the gold medal and possibly world record for longest post with his excellent posting on Participating Preferred securities. Fred gets the silver with his contribution on The Double Dip. Dave Jilk and others share the bronze for their many comments.

I won’t add more to the debate but will try to close it by tying together a few of these postings. Fred and Brad both wrote subsequent postings on the related themes of If It Looks Too Good to Be True, It Probably Is and Fantasy vs. Reality. These comments could easily be applied to my thoughts on VCs being silly about bidding up crazy long shot concepts and committing Venture Fratricide.

And of course, it begs the new media version of the age-old question: if a web service costs $25 million to build and then falls into the ether while investors and management sheepishly turn their backs, does it make any noise?

Book Short:  Steve Jobs and Lessons for CEOs and Founders

First, if you work in the internet, grew up during the rise of the PC, or are an avid consumer of Apple products, read the Walter Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs (book, kindle).  It’s long but well worth it.

I know much has been written about the subject and the book, so I won’t be long or formal, but here are the things that struck me from my perspective as a founder and CEO, many taken from specific passages from the book:

• In the annals of innovation, new ideas are only part of the equation. Execution is just as important.  Man is that ever true.  I’ve come up with some ideas over the years at Return Path, but hardly a majority or even a plurality of them.  But I think of myself as innovative because I’ve led the organization to execute them.  I also think innovation has as much to do with how work gets done as it does what work gets done.

• There were some upsides to Jobs’s demanding and wounding behavior. People who were not crushed ended up being stronger. They did better work, out of both fear and an eagerness to please.  I guess that’s an upside.  But only in a dysfunctional sort of way.

• When one reporter asked him immediately afterward why the (NeXT) machine was going to be so late, Jobs replied, “It’s not late. It’s five years ahead of its time.”  Amen to that.  Sometimes product deadlines are artificial and silly.  There’s another great related quote (I forget where it’s from) that goes something like “The future is here…it’s just not evenly distributed yet.”  New releases can be about delivering the future for the first time…or about distributing it more broadly.

• People who know what they’re talking about don’t need PowerPoint.”  Amen.  See Powerpointless.

• The mark of an innovative company is not only that it comes up with new ideas first, but also that it knows how to leapfrog when it finds itself behind.  This is critical.  You can’t always be first in everything.  But ultimately, if you’re a good company, you can figure out how to recover when you’re not first.  Exhibit A:  Microsoft.

• In order to institutionalize the lessons that he and his team were learning, Jobs started an in-house center called Apple University. He hired Joel Podolny, who was dean of the Yale School of Management, to compile a series of case studies analyzing important decisions the company had made, including the switch to the Intel microprocessor and the decision to open the Apple Stores. Top executives spent time teaching the cases to new employees, so that the Apple style of decision making would be embedded in the culture.  This is one of the most emotionally intelligent things Jobs did, if you just read his actions in the book and know nothing else.  Love the style or hate it – teaching it to the company reinforces a strong and consistent culture.

• Some people say, “Give the customers what they want.” But that’s not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they’re going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, “If I’d asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, ‘A faster horse!’” People don’t know what they want until you show it to them. That’s why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.  There’s always a tension between listening TO customers and innovating FOR them.  Great companies have to do both, and know when to do which.

• What drove me? I think most creative people want to express appreciation for being able to take advantage of the work that’s been done by others before us. I didn’t invent the language or mathematics I use. I make little of my own food, none of my own clothes. Everything I do depends on other members of our species and the shoulders that we stand on. And a lot of us want to contribute something back to our species and to add something to the flow. It’s about trying to express something in the only way that most of us know how—because we can’t write Bob Dylan songs or Tom Stoppard plays. We try to use the talents we do have to express our deep feelings, to show our appreciation of all the contributions that came before us, and to add something to that flow. That’s what has driven me.  This is perhaps one of the best explanations I’ve ever heard of how creativity can be applied to non-creative (e.g., most business) jobs.  I love this.

My board member Scott Weiss wrote a great post about the book as well and drew his own CEO lessons from it – also worth a read here.

Appropos of that, both Scott and I found out about Steve Jobs’ death at a Return Path Board dinner.  Fred broke the news when he saw it on his phone, and we had a moment of silence.  It was about as good a group as you can expect to be with upon hearing the news that an industry pioneer and icon has left us.  Here’s to you, Steve.  You may or may not have been a management role model, but your pursuit of perfection worked out well for your customers, and most important, you certainly had as much of an impact on society as just about anyone in business (or maybe all walks of life) that I can think of.

Book Short:  Just One Minute

What The One Minute Manager does for basic principles of management and goal setting, The One Minute Manager Meets the Monkey does for delegation.  Both are blessedly quick reads (the classic “airport” book), and Ken Blanchard really nails some of management’s most critical components with simplicity and grace.

I’m a fan of the One Minute Manager school, and it does work well for some of the basics, but it has its limitations in terms of how broadly it can be applied.  My colleague Whitney McNamara‘s words in an email to me a few months back say it all:

OMM has actually been useful.  I have to agree that it’s got a bit of a “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” mystical simplicity thing going, but as you say, simple is sometimes what works best.

It’s really strong in that the basic lessons are at root so simple that they’re easy to forget about day to day…having them articulated in a similarly simple way, so that they stick at the top of mind easily, is nice.

The other side of that is that it presents such a simplified, best-of-all-possible-worlds sort of scenario that I did sometimes find myself wanting to set fire to the OMM’s office building and scream “let’s see you deal with *this* in 60 seconds, buddy”…but on balance a pretty good experience. 🙂

In the end, it’s not that good management is easy — but it can be quick and relatively painless if done well and regularly.

Pret a Manager

My friend James is the GM of the Pret a Manger (a chain of about 250 “everyday luxury” quick service restaurants in the UK and US) at 36th and 5th in Manhattan.  James recently won the President’s Award at Pret for doing an outstanding job opening up a new restaurant.  As part of my ongoing effort to learn and grow as a manager, I thought it would be interesting to spend a day shadowing James and seeing what his operation and management style looked like for a team of two dozen colleagues in a completely different environment than Return Path.  That day was today.  I’ll try to write up the day as combination of observations and learnings applied to our business.  This will be a much longer post than usual.  The title of this post is not a typo – James is “ready to manage.”

1. Team meeting.  The day started at 6:45 a.m. pre-opening with a “team brief” meeting.  The meeting only included half a dozen colleagues who were on hand for the opening, it was a mix of fun and serious, and it ended with three succinct points to remember for the day.  I haven’t done a daily huddle with my team in years, but we do daily stand-ups all across the company in different teams.  The interesting learning, though, is that James leaves the meeting and writes the three points on a whiteboard downstairs near the staff room.  All staff members who come in after the meeting are expected to read the board and internalize the three points (even though they missed the meeting) and are quizzed on them spontaneously during the day.  Key learning:  missing a meeting doesn’t have to mean missing the content of the meeting.

2. Individual 1:1 meeting.  I saw one of these, and it was a mix of a performance review and a development planning session.  It was a little more one-way in communication than ours are, but it did end up having a bunch of back-and-forth.  James’s approach to management is a lot of informal feedback “in the moment,” so this formal check-in contained no surprises for the employee.  The environment was a little challenging for the meeting, since it was in the restaurant (there’s no closed office, and all meetings are done on-site).  The centerpiece of the meeting was a “Start-Stop-Continue” form.  Key learning:  Start-Stop-Continue is a good succinct check-in format.

3. Importance of values.  There were two forms of this that I saw today.  One was a list of 13 key behaviors with an explanation next to each of specific good and bad examples of the behavior.  The behaviors were very clear and were “escalating,” meaning Team Members were expected to practice the first 5-6 of them, Team Leads the first 7-8, Managers the first 10, Head Office staff the first 12, Executives all 13 (roughly).  The second was this “Pret Recipe,” as posted on the public message board (see picture below).  Note – just like our values at Return Path, it all starts with the employee.  One interesting nugget I got from speaking to a relatively new employee who had just joined at the entry level after being recruited from a prominent fast food chain where he had been a store general manager was “Pret really believes this stuff — no lip service.”

I saw the values in action in two different ways.  The first was on the message board, where each element of the Pret Recipe was broken out with a list of supporting documents below it, per the below photo.  Very visual, very clear.

The second was that in James’s team meeting and in his 1:1 meeting, he consistently referenced the behaviors.  Key learning:  having values is great, making them come to life and be relevant for a team day-in, day-out is a lot harder but quite powerful when you get it right.

4. Managing by checklist.  I wrote about this topic a while ago here, but there is nothing like food service retail to demand this kind of attention to detail.  Wow.  They have checklists and standards for everything.  Adherence to standards is what keeps the place humming.  Key learning:  it feels like we have ~1% of the documentation of job processes that Pret does, and I’m thinking that as we get bigger and have people in more and more locations doing the same job, a little more documentation is probably in order to ensure consistency of delivery.

5. Extreme team-based and individual incentive compensation.  Team members start at $9/hour (22% above minimum wage that most competitors offer).  However, any week in which any individual store passes a Mystery Shopper test, the entire staff receives an incremental $2/hour for the whole week.  Any particular employee who is called out for outstanding service during a Mystery Shop receives a $100 bonus, or a $200 bonus if the store also passes the test.  The way the math works out, an entry level employee who gets the maximum bonus earns a 100% bonus for that week.  But the extra $2/hour per team member for a week seemed to be a powerful incentive across the board.  Key learning: team-based incentive comp is something we use here for executives, but maybe it’s worth considering for other teams as well.

6. Integrated systems.  Pret has basically one single software system that runs the whole business from inventory to labor scheduling to finances.  All data flows through it directly from point of sale or via manager single-entry.  All reports are available on demand.  The system is pretty slick.  There doesn’t seem to be much use of side systems and side spreadsheets, though I’m sure there are some.  Key learning: there’s a lot to be said for having a little more information standardized across the business, though the flip side is that this system is a single point of failure and also much less flexible than what we have.

7. Think time.  I’ve written a little about working “on the business, not in the business,” or what I call OTB time, once before, and I have another post queued up for later this summer about the same.  Brad Feld also very kindly wrote about it in reference to Return Path last week.  Working in retail means that time to work on IMPORTANT BUT NOT URGENT issues is extremely hard to come by and fragmented.  I suspect that it comes more at the end of the day for James, and it probably comes a lot more when he doesn’t have someone like me observing him and asking him questions.  But his “office” (below), exposed to the loud music and sounds and smells of the kitchen, certainly doesn’t lend itself to think time!  Key learning:  of course customers come first, but boy is it critical to make space to work OTB, not just ITB.  Oh, and James needs a new chair that’s more ergonomically compatible with his high countertop desk.

Years ago, I spent a few weekends working in my cousin Michael’s wine store in Hudson, NY, and I wrote up the experience in two different posts on this blog, the first one about the similarities between running a 2-person company and a 200-person company, and the second one about how in a small business, you have to wear one of every kind of hat there is.  My conclusion then was that there are more similarities than differences when it comes to running businesses of different types.  My conclusion from today is exactly the same, though the focus on management made for a very different experience.

Thanks to James, Gustavo, Orlanda, Shawona, and the rest of the team at the 36th & 5th Pret for putting up with the distraction of me for the bulk of the day today — I learned a lot (and particularly enjoyed the NYC Meatball Hot Wrap) and now have to figure out how to return the favor to you!