Keenan 411

Jim Keenan is Vice President of Sales Strategy and Operations with a Global Technology Company, an Enterprise 2.0/Web 2.0 Connector, an Entrepreneur still trying to get it right, and a PSIA Certified Ski Instructor for Vail Resorts. Husband to Big E and father to four great kids. In a nut shell, I'm a Sales Guy. Life is good!

Coachability

Everyone has their own philosophy on hiring and what they determine to be the key skills in an employee.  The one that is most important to me is coachability.

Coachability is how flexible someone is.  It’s how well they respond to criticism, critique, new ways of doing things, and fresh ideas.   Coachability is a persons ability to grow through others leadership, direction, and insight.

Only 50% of sales people met their quota in 2009.  (source: Bridge Group’s 2010 inside sales metrics survey) I have to believe that many non sales people also missed their objectives and goals in 09.  I’m sure some of this can be attributed to the economy, but I also believe much of it is a leadership and people issue.

The only way to turn around an underperforming company, team or organization is through the people.  We only have two options when it comes to people; get new ones, or bring up the existing.   I prefer the second and that’s why I put so much emphasis on finding and hiring coachable people.

Coachable people embrace new ideas.  They are open and actively seek out criticism and critique.  They are often focused on personal development and growth.   Coachable people tend to be more secure.  They are less attached to the status-quo and see change as necessary and good.

Relationships with coachable employees are different too.  They are rooted in discussion, assessment and evaluation.  Relationships with coachable people are less hierarchical in nature.  I’ve found them to look and feel more like partners rather than supervisor, subordinate.   I’ve found when managing less coachable empolyees the conversations tend to be more combative, data driven, and defensive, as less coachable employees are very sensitive to criticism, and change.  They are often insecure and look to defend their position rather than explore new opportunities for growth.  Less coachable relationships are more hierarchical.  They are more top down.   I find it hard to work with less coachable people.

Coachabilty is a softskill.  It’s hard to measure.   But I know it when I see it.  Coachability is at the core of change.  It is at the core of growth.  It is at the core of personal interaction.  It is critical to development.   Coachable people bring a flexibility and openness to situations that enhances success.  I like to look at it like being a coach for a tennis or golf pro.  Imagine how difficult it would be to get Andre Agassi or Tiger Woods to win if they weren’t coachable.  Imagine every time you suggested a change in Tiger’s swing he argued or pushed back.  Imagine letting Andre know his performance in the first round of Wimbledon was awful and that he wasn’t playing well, and he’d complain to “HR”.

The coachable get that being pushed, challenged, and coached is the key to their success.  They actively seek it out and surround themselves with coaches that don’t let them get complacent.  I believe the same thing holds true in the business world.

There are a lot of brilliant, talented, experienced, people out there.  People with amazing skills who can get things done.  But for me, more important than experience, talent, and brilliance is their ability to adapt and grow and the coachable are far more capable of growing and adapting.

Business changes faster than it ever did.  Companies are no longer entitled to a 100 year span on top.  Microsoft, less than 30 years old is now loosing to Apple.  Google, only 10 years old is being challenged by Facebook.   Adaptability is the new success trait.   To be adaptable you have to be flexible and a team of coachable engineers, sales people, product people, marketers and more is at the core of that flexibility.

For me, hiring coachable people has been the difference between success and failure.   What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Google Shouldn’t Copy Facebook – Google Me #Fail

Michael Arrington TechCrunch founder, has a post up today where he suggests that Google needs to copy Facebook, or clone it to be exact.

They need to raise the white flag and just copy Facebook right down to the details. Otherwise the war is over before Google even got to the battlefield. -Michael Arrington

Arrington’s argument is Facebook is making inroads on Googles self serve ad business and if Google wants to compete they need to play Facebook’s game better than Facebook. Arrington suggests it’s not improbable by 2015 Facebook and Google could be running neck and neck. I’m not sure I agree or disagree with Arrington’s 2015 prognostication, but what I am pretty sure is, Google’s not going to stem any Facebook tide by cloning them.

The reason Arrington’s plan won’t work is because of the simple rule of sales — there needs to be user value. There is no value to users in cloning Facebook.

Google needs a horse in the social networking race to be able to defend itself against Facebook over the long run. And the only way they’re going to be able to compete effectively is to just clone the darn thing.

The value in social networks IS the network. It won’t matter how many new features or bells and whistles Google can add on top of the “clone”.   They won’t make a lick of difference without the network.

Yes, Facebook blew up in a crowded social networking space. They took MySpace out of the game. The difference between then and now is that social media was in the growth stage of the product or business life-cycle. Millions and millions of people were still deciding if social networking was for them. They were the late majority. This late majority were our Mom’s, Dad’s, Grandparents, business professionals etc. Feeling Myspace was too juvenile this late majority chose Facebook.  Facebook took social networking mainstream.

Social networking has now entered the mature stage. Only late, late majority and the laggards remain. This means that Google has to convince Facebook users to switch and that ain’t gonna happen for a clone with a few extra features. The value is the network. No network, no value. There will need to be a seminal event or trigger to drive the switch.

The main value in Facebook is everyone  expects everyone they know or once knew to be on the site. Switching to a site where this doesn’t exist and then wait for their friends to show up is going to take a lot more than clone with improved privacy settings and an easy export tool.

Arrington is thinking like a technologist.  Clone and offer a few cool new features and functions and it will sell. Unfortunately, like almost every other sale, features and functions don’t sell, value does.  In this case the value is the network and Google can’t control that.

The other challenge Arrington misses, is users are more than engaged, they are INVESTED.  They have invested time and in some cases money in followers, pages, applications, games and more.  Users will not just simply walk away from that level of investment and start over for a clone.

I think Google needs to think like a start-up and innovate.  Don’t clone, but get ahead of Facebook. There is always a next something. There was Friendster, then there was Myspace, then there was Facebook, then there was Twitter, then there was Foursquare, what’s next? That is what Google should be focused on. Not trying to be Facebook. That is so 2007.

Google — build a new network, don’t try to steal someone else’s. It’s much easier.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bing; 2000-Late, Not 3008

binglogo_lgBing may be a great search engine. But, I don’t think it’s good enough to make of a difference in search. Never mind usurp Google’s strangle hold. Microsoft feels there is tremendous amounts of money to be made from search. So they bet on Bing. The problem is they’ve just built another mouse trap. Even if it’s a “better” mouse trap, it’s still just another mousetrap. Is Google perfect? I can’t tell you that, but what I can tell you is it works just fine for me and just about everyone else I know. There is no latent, pent up demand in me that says, “fuck; I wish someone would just create a better search engine, this sucks”. I have no “problem” with Google. And, that IS a problem for Bing.

If you are going to get me to leave for something different, not new, but DIFFERENT, I have to have a problem with the current product. If I don’t have a problem, the only way you’ll get me to switch is if your different product is so much better I just can’t believe I was able to live with out it. It can’t be a little different, or a lot different, but unbelievable different if you’re going to get me to switch. Bing ain’t unbelievably different.

There’s tons of money in search. I get Microsoft wants a piece of it, but skating to the puck is not the way to get it. Microsoft needed to change search, they needed to skate to where the puck was going. MS has not done well with search to date, with 98% of their current Live Search traffic coming passively from MSN. In hopes to change things, MS is gonna spend mad money on advertising to get the word out. I don’t think this is going to work. It just looks and feels like more of the same, like a better mousetrap.

Too many companies make the mistake of skating to the puck by making better mouse traps and expecting it to make a splash, save the company or take market share. Skating to the puck and better mouse traps are maintenance moves. It keeps you in the game, it keeps you relevant, it doesn’t change the playing field. It’s not disruptive.

To be disruptive, to be truly game changing you have to skate to where the puck is going. You have to look ahead. To skate to where the puck is going, you have to have your head up. When you have your head up and are looking down ice, you aren’t looking at what is happening now but rather formulating where everything that’s happening now is going.

If Microsoft had been skating to where the puck is going, I’m convinced Bing would look completely different. If Microsoft had been skating with their heads up, Bing would be search 3008 not search 2000-late.

To be disruptive, keep your head!

Keep Up With Me:


Categories

  • Asset of The Future (23)
  • Business Performance (112)
  • Career Development (32)
  • Customer Service (37)
  • Economy (10)
  • Enterprise 2.0 (22)
  • Entrepreneur (14)
  • Hiring/Firing (20)
  • Leadership (94)
  • Marketing (17)
  • My Reading Quotes (8)
  • Personal Brand (26)
  • Personal Development (68)
  • Politics (10)
  • Random (46)
  • Sales Process (68)
  • Skiing (4)
  • Strategy (2)
  • Sunday Morning Blog (18)
  • TalkShoe Events (5)
  • Technology and Products (6)
  • The Chase (100)
  • Uncategorized (46)
  • Web 2.0/Social Networking (72)
  • What I Think! (127)