Jim Collins, in both Good to Great and Built to Last talked about the BHAG – the Big, Hairy Audacious Goal – as one of the drivers of companies to achieve excellence.  Perhaps that’s true, especially if those goals are singular enough and simplified enough for an entire company of 100-1000-10000 employees to rally around.

I have also observed over the years that both star performers and strong leaders drive themselves by setting large goals.  Sometimes they are Hairy or Audacious.  Sometimes they are just Big.  I suppose sometimes they are all three.  Regardless, I think successfully managing to and accomplishing large personal goals is a sign of a person who is driven to be an achiever in life – and probably someone you want on your team, whether as a Board member, advisor, or employee, assuming they meet the qualifications for the role and fit the culture, of course.

I’m not sure what the difference is between Hairy and Audacious.  If someone knows Jim Collins, feel free to ask him to comment on this post.  Let’s assume for the time being they are one and the same.  What’s an example of someone setting a Hairy/Audacious personal goal?  My friend and long-time Board member Brad Feld set out on a quest 9 years ago to run a marathon in each of the 50 states by the age of 50.  Brad is now 9 years in with 29 marathons left to go.  For those of you have never run a marathon (and who are athletic mortals), completing one marathon is a large, great and noteworthy achievement in life.  I’ve done two, and I thought there was a distinct possibility that I was going to die both times, including one I ran with Brad .  But I’ve never felt better in my life than crossing the finish tape those two times.  I’m glad I did them.  I might even have another one or two in me in my lifetime.  But doing 50 of them in 9 years?  That’s a Hairy and Audacious Goal.

For me, I think the Big goal may be more personally useful than the Hairy or Audacious.  The difference between a Big goal and a Hairy/Audacious one?  Hard to say.  Maybe Hairy/Audacious is something you’re not sure you can ever do, where Big is just something that will take a long time to chip away at.  For example, I started a quest about 10-12 years ago to read a ton of American history books, around 50% Presidential biographies, from the beginning of American history chronologically forward to the present.  This year, I am up to post-Civil War history, so roughly Reconstruction/Johnson through Garfield, maybe Arthur.  I read plenty of other stuff, too – business books, fiction, other forms of non-fiction, but this is a quest.  And I love every minute of it.  The topic is great and dovetails with work as a study in leadership.  And it’s slowly but surely making me a hobby-level expert in the topic.  I must be nearing Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hours by now.

The reason someone sets out on a personal quest is unclear to me.  Some people are more goal-driven than others, some just like to Manage by Checklist, others may be ego-driven, some love the challenge.  But I do think that having a personal quest can be helpful to, as Covey would say, Sharpen the Saw, and give yourself something to focus personal time and mental/physical energy on.

Just because someone isn’t on a personal quest doesn’t mean they’re not great, by the way.  And someone who is on a quest could well be a lunatic.  But a personal quest is something that is useful to look for, interesting and worth learning more about if discovered, and potentially a sign that someone is a high achiever.

Last week I wrote about The Tension That Will Come With the Future of Work.  No one knows what the post-pandemic world of office vs. remote work will look like, but there are going to be some clear differences between how people will respond to being in offices or not being offices going forward.  As I said in that post, I think the natural, gravitational pull for senior people will be to do more remote work, because of a combination of their commutes, their personal time, their work setups at home, and their level of seniority…but with the possible exception of engineers, “all remote” may actually not be in the best interest of a number of junior or more introverted team members.

Two things popped up in the last few days that are making it clear to me that there’s another issue all of us — whether you’re a CEO or CXO or an entry level employee — will face.  We’ve become much more efficient in how we do our jobs and run our lives.  In my case, I’ll go ahead and say it — I’m addicted to the efficiency and scarcity of social interactions in my work life now in a way that I’m going to find hard to unwind, so I’m calling it “ruthless efficiency.”

Example 1 is a time-based example.  I’ve been doing virtually all client-related meetings, whether sales calls or customer success calls, in 30 minutes over Zoom or equivalent for a year now.  Sometimes I even get one done in 15 minutes.  Very, very rarely, I’ll book one for an hour.

One of my Bolster colleagues who lives not too far away in Connecticut is having drinks with a very important potential partner one night next week as the temperatures outside warm up here in the northeast.  She invited me to join — and really, I should join.  But then “ruthless efficiency math” sets into my thinking.  Instead of a 30 zoom, this will take me three hours – an hour drive each way plus the meeting.  Maybe I get lucky and I can do a call or two from the car, but is the meeting really worth 4-6x the amount of time just so I can be in person?  Even though this is the kind of thing I would have done without hesitation a year ago…that calculus is really hard to make from where I sit today.

Example 2 is an expense-based example.  We have spent basically $0 for a year on T&E.  Now we are planning some kind of a multi-day team meeting a few weeks from now around the 1-year anniversary of the company to work on planning for the next couple quarters.  The quarterly offsite, including travel, hotels, etc., has been a deeply-ingrained part of my leadership Operating System for 20-25 years now.  OF COURSE we should do this meeting in person and offsite if the public health environment allows it and people are comfortable.  But then “ruthless efficiency math” sets into my thinking.  What’s this meeting going to cost?  $10,000?  Depends where we do it and how many team members come since we have people in multiple cities.  But YIKES, that’s a lot of money.  We are a STARTUP.  Shouldn’t we use money like that for some BETTER purpose?

Forget the big things.  I think we all realize that we don’t have to hop on a plane now and do a day trip to the other coast or Europe or Asia for a couple meetings unless those meetings are do-or-die meetings.  It’s these little things that will be tough to readjust now that we’ve all gotten used to having hours upon hours, and dollars upon dollars, back on our calendars and balance sheets because we’ve gotten addicted to the amazing, and yet somewhat ruthless efficiency of the knowledge worker, pandemic, work from anywhere, get it done in 30 minutes on a screen way of life.

The Gift of Feedback, Part II

I’ve written a few times over the years about our 360 feedback process at Return Path.  In Part I of this series in early 2008, I spelled out my development plan coming out of that year’s 360 live review process. I have my new plan now after this year’s process, and I thought I’d share it once again.  This year I have four items to work on:

1. Continue to develop the executive team.  Manage the team more aggressively and intentionally.  Upgrade existing people, push hard on next-level team development, and critically evaluate the organization every 3-6 months to see if the execs are scaling well enough or if they need to replaced or augmented
2. Formalize junior staff interaction.  Create more intentional feedback loops before/after meetings, including with the staff member if needed, and cultivate acceptance of transparency; get managers to do the same.  Be extra skeptical about the feedback I’m getting, realizing that I may not get an accurate or complete picture
3. Foster deeper engagement across the entire organization.  Simplify/streamline company mission and balanced scorecard through a combination of deeper level maps/scorecards, maybe a higher level scorecard, and constant reinforcing communication.  Drive multi-year planning process to be fun, touching the entire company, and culminating in a renewed enthusiasm
4. Disrupt early and often, the right way.  Introduce an element of productive disruption/creative destruction into the way I lead, noting item 2 around feedback loops

Thanks to everyone internally who contributed to this review.  I appreciate your time and input.  Onward!

Agile Reading

While not exactly a laugh a minute, Lean Software Development:  An Agile Toolkit, by Mary and Tom Poppendieck, is a good read for anyone who is a practitioner of agile development — or anything agile.  (Note:  if you want a laugh a minute, read Who Moved My Blackberry?, which as Brad says, is hilarious — kind of like The Office in book form).

As I wrote about here and here, Return Path now does both agile development and agile marketing.  The book draws many interesting comparisons between manufacturing and engineering, which I found quite interesting, and not just because I’m a former management consultant — there’s something that’s just easier to visualize about how an assembly line works than about how code is written.  The foundation of the book is writings and sidebar anecdotes about 22 Tools, all of which are helpful to understand the principles which underly and power a successful agile process.

Concepts such as seeing and eliminating waste, empowering a team while still managing to lead it, and why small-batch work and application of the theory of constraints makes sense across the board are made easy to understand and easy to apply by the authors.

Thanks to my colleague Ed Taussig for this book.

Social Computing:  An Amusing Anecdote About Who is Participating

We learned something about Wikipedia tonight.  Mariquita was reading an article on Castro on CNN.com entitled “Castro Blames Stress on Surgery” about his upcoming intestinal surgery.

[Quick detour — I’m sorry, Castro blames the surgery on stress?  Isn’t it good to be the king?   And he’s handing  the reins of government over to his oh-so-younger brother Raul, at the tender young age of 75?]

Anyway, we were debating over whether Castro took over the government of Cuba in 1957 or 1959, so of course we turned to Wikipedia.  Ok, so Mariquita was right, it was 1959.  But more important, we learned something interesting about Wikipedia and its users.

There were three banners above the entry for Casto that I’ve never seen before in Wikipedia.  They said:

This article documents a current event.  Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed.  Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable.  Please read talk page discussion before making substantial changes.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.  Please see the discussion on the talk page.

That’s interesting of the editors, and it made me rush to read the entry on our fearless leader, George W. Bush.  It only had one entry, a bit different from that of Castro (who, at least in my opinion, history will treat as a far more horrendous character than Dubya):

Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by anonymous or newly registered users is disabled (see semi-protection policy). Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

Well, there you go.

Email Marketing 101

We just published a book!  Sign me Up! A marketer’s guide to creating email newsletters that build relationships and boost sales is now available on Amazon.com.  The book is authored by me and my Return Path colleagues Mike Mayor, Tami Forman, and Stephanie Miller.  What’s it about?

– At its core, the book is a very practical how-to guide.  Any company — large or small — can have a great email newsletter program.  They’re easy, they’re cheap, and when done well, they’re incredibly effective.

– This book helps you navigate the basics of how to get there, covering everything from building a great list, to content and design, to making sure the emails reach your customers’ inboxes and don’t get blocked or filtered.

– Our central philosophy about email marketing, which permeates the advice in the book, is covered in my earlier New Media Deal posting (which is reproduced in part in the book’s Preface) — that customers will sign up for your email marketing in droves if you provide them a proper value exchange for the ability to mail them.

– I’d encourage you to buy the book anyway, but in case you need an extra incentive, we are also donating 10% of book sales to Accelerated Cure, a research organization dedicated to finding a cure for Multiple Sclerosis, in honor of our friend and colleague Sophie Miller.

More postings to come about the process of writing, publishing, and marketing a book in 2005 — boy was the experience we had different than it would have been 10 years ago.

Desperately Seeking an Owner for “Other”

A couple weeks ago in Living with Less…For Good, I mentioned that we’re on a crusade against extraneous expenses at Return Path these days, as is pretty much the rest of the world.

After a close review of our most recent month’s financials, we have a new target:  “Other.”  A relatively inconspicuous line on the income statement, this line, which different companies call different things such as “Other G&A” and “General Office,” is inherently problematic NOT because it inherently encompasses a huge amount of expenses, although it might, but rather because it inherently doesn’t have an owner and rarely has a budget.

As we dug into the gory details of “Other” our accounting system (btw – we LOVE Intacct – great web-based application for better information flow and transparency), our Exec team came to this realization the other day.  It’s not that we buy too many pens, per se.  It’s that the absence of someone being in charge of that line item means that no one manages it to a budget – or even just manages it to some kind of reasonability test.  What we found in the details was that there are definitely more areas we can do better at managing expenses here.  No individual item is going to change our income statement profile, but little things do add up to big things in the end.

Whether it’s duplication of expenses, too much FedEx, forgotten recurring items, or the storage locker that we don’t even know what’s in any more, we’re spotting little ways to save money left and right.

For us going forward, we are going to put someone in charge of this line item, develop a budget, and without forcing big-company-like procurement policies on the rest of the organization, manage it down!

Hiring vs. Promoting – and a Must-Read Blog

I have to admit that I have a bit of blog envy when it comes to Fred and Brad.  We all started blogging roughly at the same time over 8 years ago (Brad and I the same day, Fred a few month before), and both have hugely large audiences compared to mine.  I don’t care all that much — mostly I blog for me and for my company, not for any other reason.  But one of the things I admire about both their blogs, particularly Fred, is the size of their *active* audiences.  (Both of them tell me not to worry about it when it comes up in conversation — as they say, they write checks to people for a living, which makes them instantly interesting to many!)  When I write a guest post for Fred, as I do once in a while, I realize he must average 100+ comments per post.  Now that’s a community.

OnlyOnce has a good solid readership, and at least a handful of really active readers who are more or less like-minded entrepreneurs.  But alas, not more than a handful.  Of this handful, Daniel Clough (who I’ve never met in person – he is in the online gaming space in a UK-based company, I believe) is one of the more regular readers and commenters and also writes his own, very thoughtful blog.  Daniel wrote a great post last week on the topic of hiring from the outside vs. promoting from within.  As I commented on his blog, I couldn’t have written it better myself.  It’s an important topic, and Daniel’s parsing of it is excellent.

(This is the second post in the series… the first one When to Hire your first Chief Marketing Officer is here).

Whether you have someone in your company that can level up to greatness or you need to bring in a CMO, the characteristics and skills of a great CMO you should aspire to include some of the following.

A great CMO understands that the marketing budget starts with drivers and business results and works backwards in a modular way to spend, not the other way around. Yes, they will get some resources but rather than spend that money to fill in the gaps on their team to make the Marketing function strong or powerful, they’ll look at the business needs and drivers. They understand what the business needs to achieve — the sales plan — then what the funnel looks like. With that information a great CMO will then know what marketing levers they can pull to both optimize the funnel and make sure the funnel is full.  So, they build the plan in a modular way. By doing that, if the budget needs to be trimmed, they can ask the right questions and easily trim. If you start the other way—if you start by looking at the budget and filling gaps and needs, you can get into a situation where you’re looking for ways to keep people busy, shifting them to where they’re needed but where they might not have skills to make an immediate impact, or you’re always scrambling to keep up with developments in sales and the funnel that you didn’t see. A great CMO will always start with the drivers and business needs and be conservative with resources and a modular approach helps to do that.

A second characteristic of a great CMO is that they make spend decisions based on a deep understanding of data, not on a hunch or because “that’s what’s always worked.”   Even in traditional B2C businesses that make heavy use of traditional non-addressable media (like print, outdoor, radio, and TV) – even in those businesses, today everything can be tested and measured to some degree.  A strong CMO is one who starts every answer with “let’s look at the data,”and if the data doesn’t exist, they’ll create metrics and measures to approximate an answer.

A great CMO will behave like a CEO in terms of being able to orchestrate the different pieces and parts of their organization.  Just as a CEO has to manage a litany of disparate functions, so too do CMOs have to manage a litany of disparate channels, they have to manage up and down the organization, and sideways, too.  Gone are the days when CMOs were either “brand or direct” or “online or offline.”  Today, the average CMO has to be able to manage 20+ different channels.  The level of complexity and number of points of failure for the job has exploded.  A great CMO handles this with the fluidity that the CEO handles moving from a Sales Pipeline meeting to a Product Roadmapping exercise. 

The final characteristic of a great CMO is that they get away from their ivory tower–they spend time in-market and in-product, not just time looking at data, budgets, and reports.  Given all the responsibilities around multi-channel orchestration, systems, budgeting, and execution in general, it can be very easy for a CMO to operate 100% from behind the desk.  The great ones want — need — to be out in the field, attending sales calls, partner meetings, events, serving as executive sponsor on some key accounts; in general, collecting primary data on the company’s products and brand.

 A great CMO can be cultivated from within your company and it’s not necessary to look outside, but regardless of how you get a CMO, the great ones will have the characteristics and traits listed here.

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

How Deliverability is Like SEO and SEM for Email

I admit this is an imperfect analogy, and I’m sure many of my colleagues in the email industry are going to blanch at a comparison to search, but the reality is that email deliverability is still not well understood — and search engines are.  I hope that I can make a comparison here that will help you better understand what it really means to work on deliverability – they same way you understand what it means to work on search.

But before we get to that, let’s start with the language around deliverability which is still muddled.  I’d like to encourage everyone in the email industry to rally around more precise meanings.  Specifically I’d like propose that we start to use the term “inbox placement rate” or IPR, for short.  I think this better explains what marketers mean when they say “delivered” – because anywhere other than the inbox is not going to generate the kind of response that marketers need.  The problem with the term “delivered” is that it is usually used to mean “didn’t bounce.”  While that is a good metric to track, it does not tell you where the email lands.  Inbox placement rate, by contrast, is pretty straightforward: how much of the email you sent landed in the inbox of our customers and prospects?

Now let’s come back to how achieving a high inbox placement rate is like search.  If you run a web site, you certainly understand what SEO and SEM are, you care deeply about both, and you spend money on both to get them right.  Whether “organic” or “paid,” you want your site to show up as high as possible on the page at Google, Yahoo, Bing, whatever.  Both SEO and SEM drive success in your business, though in different ways.

The inbox is different and a far more fragmented place than search engines, but if you run an email program, you need to worry both about your “organic” inbox placement and your “paid” inbox placement.  If you are prone to loving acronyms you could call them OIP and PIP.

What’s the difference between the two?

With organic inbox placement, you are using technology and analytics to manage your email reputation, the underpinning of deliverability.  You are testing, tracking, and monitoring your outbound email.  Seeing where it lands – in the inbox, in the junk mail folder, or nowhere?  You are doing all this to optimize your inbox placement rate (IPR) — just as you work to optimize your page rank on search engines.  One of the ways you do this is by monitoring your email reputation (Sender Score) as a proxy for how likely you are to have your email filtered or blocked.  The more you manage all of these factors, the greater likelihood you will be placed in inboxes everywhere.

With paid inbox placement, you first have to qualify by having a strong email reputation.  Then you use payment to ensure inbox placement, and frequently other benefits like functioning images and links or access to rich media.  With this paid model, there’s no guarantee to inbox placement (don’t let anyone tell you otherwise), just like there’s no guarantee that you’ll be in the #1 position via paid search if someone outbids you.  But by paying, you are radically increasing the odds of inbox placement as well as adding other benefits.  There is one critical difference from search here, which is that you need good organic inbox placement in order to gain access to PIP.  You can’t just pay to play.

Like SEO, some organic deliverability work can and must be done in-house, but frequently it’s better to outsource to companies like Return Path to save costs and time, and to gain specific expertise.  Like SEM, paid deliverability inherently means you are working with third parties like our Return Path Certification program. 

As I said, it’s an imperfect analogy, but hopefully can help you better understand the strategies and services that are available to help you make the most of every email you send.

Peter Principle, Applied to Management

My Management by Chameleon Post from a couple weeks ago generated more comments than usual, and an entertaining email thread among my friends and former staff from MovieFone.  One comment that came off-blog is worth summarizing and addressing:

There are those of us who should not manage, whose personalities don’t work in a management context, and there is nothing wrong with not managing.  Also, there promotion to management by merit has always been a curiosity to me. If I am good at my job, why does it mean that I would be good at managing people who do my job? In other words, a good ‘line worker’ doth not a good manager make. I’d prefer to see people adept at being team leads be hired in, to manage, then promotion of someone ill-fitted for such a position be appointed from within. This latter happens far to often, to the detriment of many teams and companies.

For those of you not familiar with the Peter Principle, the Wikipedia definition is useful, but the short of it is that “people are promoted to their level of incompetence, when they stop getting promoted…so in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.”

Back when I worked in management consulting, I always used to wonder how it was that all the senior people spent all their time selling business.  They hadn’t been trained to sell business.  And a lot of the people great at executing complex analysis and client cases hated selling. Or look at the challenge the other way around:  should a company take its best sales people and turn them into sales managers?

We’ve had numerous examples over the years at Return Path of people who are great at their jobs but make terrible, or at least less great, managers.  The problem with promoting someone into a management role mistakenly isn’t only that you’re taking one of your best producers off “the line.”  The problem is that those roles are coveted because they almost always come with higher comp and more status; and if a promotion backfires, it generally (though not always) dooms the employment relationship.  People don’t like admitting failure, people don’t like “moving backward,” and comp is almost always an issue.

What can be done about this?  We have tried over the years to create a culture where being a senior individual contributor can be just as challenging, fun, rewarding, impactful, and well compensated as being a manager, including getting promotions of a different sort.  But there are limits to this.  One obvious one is at the highest levels of an organization, there can only be one or two people like this (at most) by definition.  A CEO can only have so many direct reports.  But another limit is societal. Most OTHER companies define success as span of control.  You get a funny look if you apply for a job with 15 years of experience and a $100k+ salary yet have never managed anyone before.  After all, the conventional wisdom mistakenly goes, how can you have a big impact on the business if all you do is your own work?

The fact is that management is a different skill.  It needs to be learned, studied, practiced, and reviewed as much as any other line of work.  In most ways, it’s even more critical to have competent and superstar managers, since they impact others all day long.  Obviously, people can be grown or trained into being managers, but the principle of my commenter – and “Peter” – is spot on:  just because you are good at one job doesn’t mean you should be promoted to the next one.

I’m not sure there’s a good answer to this challenge, but I welcome any thoughts on it here.