Just a quick little update for those that follow this blog:
Effective January 10th, I'll no longer be in the technology industry. I have made the jump over the for non-profit space and will be heading up marketing at Cure International. That said, the focus of my blog remains the same and is exceedingly relevant to my day to day.
Check out Cure.org for more information.
Drop us a quick prayer if you're feeling up to it!
- Matt
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Consistency & Individuality
From time to time, I fill in for our campus pastor on stage at the church. We have about 800 to 1000 people in attendance over the course of two services in a given weekend. On top of that, our church uses a campus model. That basically means that we have several campuses broadcasting the same message to about 10,000 people each week, so consistency in message is important.
Lots of organizations today have a similar issue. They have a large, diverse and disbursed base that they need to communicate a consistent message too. All things considered, that's pretty easy to do with the web these days.
The problem comes in with people. Sure, you can "enforce" every word that comes out of your peoples' mouths but it sounds that way. In sales, the individual style of the rep is often times the factor that wins the deal. Recently, when selecting some new technology to partner with, the style of the rep was what "broke the tie" between two very similar technology choices.
Back to my church for a second. While they place a high value on consistency in message, they place an equally high value on "sounding like yourself". When preparing remarks that I'll use on stage, I'm free to be myself within some guidelines. This makes the message delivery sounds more genuine, which leads people to listen and receive it more effectively. This, of course, leads to greater buy in and continued attendance.
The same principles apply to coaching your sales reps. Give them guidelines, but don't give them exactly what to say. Let your reps be themselves and do what they do best, deliver your message and build relationships with soon-to-be clients.
Lots of organizations today have a similar issue. They have a large, diverse and disbursed base that they need to communicate a consistent message too. All things considered, that's pretty easy to do with the web these days.
The problem comes in with people. Sure, you can "enforce" every word that comes out of your peoples' mouths but it sounds that way. In sales, the individual style of the rep is often times the factor that wins the deal. Recently, when selecting some new technology to partner with, the style of the rep was what "broke the tie" between two very similar technology choices.
Back to my church for a second. While they place a high value on consistency in message, they place an equally high value on "sounding like yourself". When preparing remarks that I'll use on stage, I'm free to be myself within some guidelines. This makes the message delivery sounds more genuine, which leads people to listen and receive it more effectively. This, of course, leads to greater buy in and continued attendance.
The same principles apply to coaching your sales reps. Give them guidelines, but don't give them exactly what to say. Let your reps be themselves and do what they do best, deliver your message and build relationships with soon-to-be clients.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Early and Often
Anyone in the software space has heard the phrase "release early and often".
Many folks regard this as a high risk strategy. With complex systems, early releases can be regarded as careless and even dangerous, so most organizations tend to stay away from the idea.
On the flip side, I've yet to meet a client who didn't want an issue or enhancement addressed quickly. In fact, the happiest clients I have are the ones who believe their provider to be flexible and responsive. They seem to look past issues if they know the provider is ready to fix them quickly and efficiently when they come up.
As it happens, early and often doesn't only apply to software releases (or software in general). Think of early and often as a communication strategy.
Clients feel more engaged when you communicate with them frequently and on a personal level. No not an email that "feels" personal but on a real personal level. Pick up the phone or pen an email directly to a few clients now and again. Let them know what you're thinking, invite them to the table to discuss the future of your organization and do it often. Share your organization's thoughts with them even if they aren't completely polished, you'll be surprised how much you will learn and how little you really know about those you serve. Having conversations with your base doubtless will save you time and money (or read more properly money and money). By talking to them and presenting ideas and thoughts early, you can gauge the response and change course if necessary before wasting.... you guessed it time or money.
Doesn't sound like "traditional" marketing huh? I challenge its likely to be more effective. By communicating early and often you'll forge a sense of partnership while constantly reinforcing your brand's presence.
This strategy isn't meant to espouse carelessness or frivolity, but flexibility and relationship. Clients who feel like partners in your organization's journey are usually in it for the long haul... even if things don't always go according to plan.
Many folks regard this as a high risk strategy. With complex systems, early releases can be regarded as careless and even dangerous, so most organizations tend to stay away from the idea.
On the flip side, I've yet to meet a client who didn't want an issue or enhancement addressed quickly. In fact, the happiest clients I have are the ones who believe their provider to be flexible and responsive. They seem to look past issues if they know the provider is ready to fix them quickly and efficiently when they come up.
As it happens, early and often doesn't only apply to software releases (or software in general). Think of early and often as a communication strategy.
Clients feel more engaged when you communicate with them frequently and on a personal level. No not an email that "feels" personal but on a real personal level. Pick up the phone or pen an email directly to a few clients now and again. Let them know what you're thinking, invite them to the table to discuss the future of your organization and do it often. Share your organization's thoughts with them even if they aren't completely polished, you'll be surprised how much you will learn and how little you really know about those you serve. Having conversations with your base doubtless will save you time and money (or read more properly money and money). By talking to them and presenting ideas and thoughts early, you can gauge the response and change course if necessary before wasting.... you guessed it time or money.
Doesn't sound like "traditional" marketing huh? I challenge its likely to be more effective. By communicating early and often you'll forge a sense of partnership while constantly reinforcing your brand's presence.
This strategy isn't meant to espouse carelessness or frivolity, but flexibility and relationship. Clients who feel like partners in your organization's journey are usually in it for the long haul... even if things don't always go according to plan.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Downgrading from perfection
In today's world what is valued more? How messaging is said or how authentic the message is?
I challenge that being perceived as authentic is more valuable than being polished.
Today, over anything else, customers value relationship. Maybe instead of spending time grooming our images attempting to come close to perfection, people (including customers who, by the way, are people too), would find it easier to relate to business & organizations who are a little less perfect..... just like people.
I challenge that being perceived as authentic is more valuable than being polished.
Today, over anything else, customers value relationship. Maybe instead of spending time grooming our images attempting to come close to perfection, people (including customers who, by the way, are people too), would find it easier to relate to business & organizations who are a little less perfect..... just like people.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Comming Soon....
So,
I have received comment that this blog is horribly out of date. Its pretty much undeniable.
I thought I'd give a brief explanation, I no longer work in the Learning industry.
Ok, so that's a poor excuse no to blog, so, in the next few weeks I'll be re-inventing my blog around my new roles in the world of marketing, sales and customer service!
Stay tuned and thanks!
- Matt
P.S A preview of my next blog: "Meet them where they are! Marketing & selling to a 21st century audience. "
I have received comment that this blog is horribly out of date. Its pretty much undeniable.
I thought I'd give a brief explanation, I no longer work in the Learning industry.
Ok, so that's a poor excuse no to blog, so, in the next few weeks I'll be re-inventing my blog around my new roles in the world of marketing, sales and customer service!
Stay tuned and thanks!
- Matt
P.S A preview of my next blog: "Meet them where they are! Marketing & selling to a 21st century audience. "
Monday, September 15, 2008
Talent Managment vs Talent Development: Human Capital or Human Cattle?
Full disclosure: I used to LOVE the idea of talent management. In fact, I've designed systems that do just that. The question is, do we want to treat employees as cattle by growing them in a controlled environment, making all the decisions for them and never truly encourging them to reach for more or is there a different way?
The basic idea of Talent Management(TM) is to quantify and automate the talent pool in an organization. By and large, TM is meant to inventory your "Human Capital"(HC) and improve the rate of return by "investing" in learning, goal planning and training. This is the first in a multi-part series designed to showcase the value of a Talent Development approach vs. a Talent Management approach to people.
To set a baseline, traditional TM for a typical organization might look like this.
This practice often also involves goal setting and goal management as well, following much the same process, though, often times individuals will both be assigned and self-design their goals.
Over time, an organization can use the information gathered here to fire, hire and promote individuals, plan successions and career paths and determine a model for compensation, or at least that's the thought. The truth is many implementations fail, for reasons such as; time to implement, cost, and most often, poor adoption.
Over all though, the idea and core premise is sound but where are the people in this process? Is this really the best approach for identifying and improving talent?
Perhaps we need to reevaluate our process? Consider the difference between management and development. Perhaps best defined as a contrast between control and growth. Ironically, the goal of good management is growth, however, often times, our desire for control hampers change, thereby impeding growth.
Giving up some control however, can yield unexpected results and tremendous growth.
Consider these scenarios:
You're a director: Annually, one of your managers reviews Tom, you don't know Tom, aside from what he looks like, but you hear he's a solid performer. Year after year, you approve his review of "meets expectations", sign off on his raise and life goes on. Tom continues on doing whatever it is he does.
Enter, crowdsourcing.
Rather than a review, you beginning observing trends in your workplace community. Your employees are constantly interacting with one another online leaving a data trail for you to follow. To your surprise, Tom, that average employee you knew little about, is actually an internal super-connector. His peers rank his suggestions, comments and content as superior and invaluable. On top of that, apparently, he serves as an unofficial conduit, between your department and marketing, fielding most questions about your product! That's a far cry from the Tom you knew as "meets expectations". Shouldn't his manager have known and identified him as a top-performer?
That is one example of a startling discovery you could find by crowd sourcing your Talent Management. Here are some of the hard benefits:
As I mentioned, I'll continue building a case for Talent Development > Talent Management in the near future. Check back soon!
The basic idea of Talent Management(TM) is to quantify and automate the talent pool in an organization. By and large, TM is meant to inventory your "Human Capital"(HC) and improve the rate of return by "investing" in learning, goal planning and training. This is the first in a multi-part series designed to showcase the value of a Talent Development approach vs. a Talent Management approach to people.
To set a baseline, traditional TM for a typical organization might look like this.
- Assign competencies to people describing their desired skill sets and behaviors
- Evaluate each person against their assigned skills and behaviors (read, performance review)
- Identify Gaps where improvement can be made
- Assign some behavior or skill modifying remedy. (i.e, training)
- Rinse and Repeat as necessary. (Usually annually)
This practice often also involves goal setting and goal management as well, following much the same process, though, often times individuals will both be assigned and self-design their goals.
Over time, an organization can use the information gathered here to fire, hire and promote individuals, plan successions and career paths and determine a model for compensation, or at least that's the thought. The truth is many implementations fail, for reasons such as; time to implement, cost, and most often, poor adoption.
Over all though, the idea and core premise is sound but where are the people in this process? Is this really the best approach for identifying and improving talent?
Perhaps we need to reevaluate our process? Consider the difference between management and development. Perhaps best defined as a contrast between control and growth. Ironically, the goal of good management is growth, however, often times, our desire for control hampers change, thereby impeding growth.
Giving up some control however, can yield unexpected results and tremendous growth.
Consider these scenarios:
You're a director: Annually, one of your managers reviews Tom, you don't know Tom, aside from what he looks like, but you hear he's a solid performer. Year after year, you approve his review of "meets expectations", sign off on his raise and life goes on. Tom continues on doing whatever it is he does.
Enter, crowdsourcing.
Rather than a review, you beginning observing trends in your workplace community. Your employees are constantly interacting with one another online leaving a data trail for you to follow. To your surprise, Tom, that average employee you knew little about, is actually an internal super-connector. His peers rank his suggestions, comments and content as superior and invaluable. On top of that, apparently, he serves as an unofficial conduit, between your department and marketing, fielding most questions about your product! That's a far cry from the Tom you knew as "meets expectations". Shouldn't his manager have known and identified him as a top-performer?
That is one example of a startling discovery you could find by crowd sourcing your Talent Management. Here are some of the hard benefits:
- Uncover hidden talent, rising stars, and filter out poor performers
- Assess and catalog talent pools by using a job-folksonomoy. (More on that later)
- Discover blocking factors (like Tom's manager who likely knew but felt threatened by Tom.)
- Save time and money by removing or supplementing a heavy TM process.
- Provide Just In Time learning by giving employees access to content and experts as needed.
As I mentioned, I'll continue building a case for Talent Development > Talent Management in the near future. Check back soon!
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Social Lesson Planning K - 12
So, as my organization and I continue to pioneer the social learning world I have begun reaching out via, no other than, social networks to ascertain the impact of social learning in the real world.
Recently, I have begun thinking about social learning in the class room. No, not the corporate class room or even high school. I'm talking about the elementary class room.
My wife is a teacher. She teaches 2nd grade and has for nearly 5 years. At the end of last year, the district was asking teachers to incorporate more social technology in the class room. In theory, this is a good idea, even second graders can use a forum/message board these days. The objective was to have the kids ask questions to one another with in the classroom. They decided on using a wiki for this. Probably not the most appropriate use of the tool but it did suffice.
Either way, that got me to thinking about teaching, learning and social media in our K-12 sytem. I was watching Kevin Kelly talk about the next 5000 days of the web and how we have moved from connecting web pages to other web pages to connecting data to other data.
Now, this seems like an obvious change, but it got me to thinking about its impacts on K-12 learning. My wife and her small team of 2nd grade teachers share their lesson plans (all created using the Learning Focus Methodology) amongst one another. This is good! Sharing, standardization and reuse are all tenants of Web 2.0 (and consequently Learning 2.0).
So now the What If.
What if, we didn't just provide a shared drive for the district to share lesson plans (in a semi-haphazard way as it were), but we provided a social content management system where teachers could upload plans from around the world on given topics, discuss them and use pieces and parts from each to create the plan they want to use.
Hard Benefits:
I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this.
Recently, I have begun thinking about social learning in the class room. No, not the corporate class room or even high school. I'm talking about the elementary class room.
My wife is a teacher. She teaches 2nd grade and has for nearly 5 years. At the end of last year, the district was asking teachers to incorporate more social technology in the class room. In theory, this is a good idea, even second graders can use a forum/message board these days. The objective was to have the kids ask questions to one another with in the classroom. They decided on using a wiki for this. Probably not the most appropriate use of the tool but it did suffice.
Either way, that got me to thinking about teaching, learning and social media in our K-12 sytem. I was watching Kevin Kelly talk about the next 5000 days of the web and how we have moved from connecting web pages to other web pages to connecting data to other data.
Now, this seems like an obvious change, but it got me to thinking about its impacts on K-12 learning. My wife and her small team of 2nd grade teachers share their lesson plans (all created using the Learning Focus Methodology) amongst one another. This is good! Sharing, standardization and reuse are all tenants of Web 2.0 (and consequently Learning 2.0).
So now the What If.
What if, we didn't just provide a shared drive for the district to share lesson plans (in a semi-haphazard way as it were), but we provided a social content management system where teachers could upload plans from around the world on given topics, discuss them and use pieces and parts from each to create the plan they want to use.
Hard Benefits:
- Enhanced education quality - by allowing discussion, people can communicate and work out small details, share best practice etc.
- Time Savings - by allowing formalized reuse, teachers will save time and therefor have lower stress levels and the district less turn over.
- Money - yes, in all likelihood, this will save districts money! How? They constantly buy new material year after year but if you let teachers find and share what works, they may not have to do that as frequently
I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)