Category: Leadership

As I spend time with family and enjoy the holiday, in my spare thoughts, I think about how the initial spark of much of my work started this time six years ago. I was going to build a personal website for a relative as a Christmas gift. Of course, I tried to find something already in the market. The problem was there was not a service with all the functionality I needed – a multi-dimensional resume, portfolio, online identity, so my solution was to build a personal website platform. Within a month, I had a 10-page business plan (which approached 100 pages by the end of the year). Within three months, I had a demonstrable concept. For the first couple of years, I was working fourteen-hour days developing, writing, and building awareness of this new concept.

I think the lesson is new innovative concepts do not require applying the Scientific Method, but can come from simply recognizing an opportunity and working extremely hard to seize it.

To differentiate the personal website platform I was constructing, I first conceived Skills-Based Approach℠ – a methodology centered on the development of a skill set throughout education, higher education, and a career. A personal website supports each of the stages. Skills are now becoming a focal point of education and higher education reform and policy.

The last two years I have been laser focused in applying Skills-Based Approach as standalone website and mobile applications. This year I built two supporting apps: Skills Label℠ and Skill Syllabi℠. In addition, I have assembled a considerable following in social media, a blog, and given webinars and presentations on the micro (for individuals) and macro (for community and workforce development) benefits of Skills-Based Approach.

I think the lesson is sometimes coming up with new ideas has a snowball effect. Once you get past the initial inertia (something like writer’s block), it becomes easier to come up with new ideas and processes. Sometimes you have enough ideas where you must choose which ones to allocate your time and resources.

I had much of my vision established in these two concepts and a personal branding concept within three years. For the ensuing three years, I have continued to evolve the underlying foundation of these core concepts. I become animated when I talk about my vision; I am passionate about my vision.

I think the lesson is it takes considerable to time to come up with a true vision. (This is my one argument against a serial entrepreneur and my frustration in competing against a large company.) Sometimes you add concepts that add breadth, sometimes you add ideas that add depth to your vision. There is nothing wrong in being repetitive with your core premises; it shows you have conviction.

Some people are social, some people are less social. There is a lot of chatter about all leaders having rock star participation in social media. But there are a lot of smart people who have vision, without social skills. Think of all the hacker introverts. They think, design, and build concepts. Aren’t they leaders too? Yes, in their own way. (In my opinion, you build a team with social and visionary leaders – elevate the collective intelligence of the team. Guess I also think a team is comprised of leaders – a flat hierarchy. A leader’s role is defined by his or her strengths.)

Some gripes I have about this rally cry that everything must be social:

There are elements of a popularity contest. Gaining attention in social media requires posturing. Those who have a large number of followers exert significant influence. Some of these influencers do not necessarily have the best idea or insights, but are highly likeable. Popularity is valuable. Good ideas are valuable.

‘Being social’ is a time consuming process. It requires finding content, networking, conversing, etc.. Building an audience takes many years of hard work. Is ‘being social’ always worth the investment in time and resources? Spend time where you make the biggest ROI for the company.

Status still has a major impact on how content is consumed. ‘Rock stars’ in social media have high Klout scores; some companies are willing to pay them to endorse their products. It can be frustrating to get your ideas out because of the competition for an audience. Leave broadcasting ideas to those who are skilled at making an impact with an audience.

I do think there are aspects of social that are good for all of us.

Building connections and relationships is nurturing. Obviously, this is huge. Social media facilitates the process of building and maintaining relationships; of course, some are deeper than others. It can be reaffirming when your connections share a similar sentiment.

Getting a personal boost (nudge) when you need it. You can jump on social media at any time of the day and immediately participate in a conversation or chat.

It is exhilarating when you get engagement from an audience. This is true especially when you are the primary source of the content. A back and forth conversation nailing down a concept collectively is also rewarding.

You can build a network from scratch and reach an audience (if you want to). Social media is a platform to get your ideas out to a target audience.

In a recent HBR article From the Knowledge Economy to the Human Economy, the author talks about how companies must commit to humanity. Yes a valid point, we should embrace being social and connected – what makes us human. Still we must continue investing in deep and critical thinking. Otherwise, we might fall into the trap of following the herd and disregard the necessary thinking to truly evolve in a meaningful way (which also contributes to humanity). Moving forward is not all about being social and gaining consensus, it’s also about improving ideas.

A sequence in starting a business might be to: come up with ‘that idea’, create a MVP (minimum viable product), get funding, and hire talent. These actions still happen, but the notion of hiring talent is much, much deeper. Acquiring talent (like actualizing ideas) should be an integral part of a company strategy.

Hiring is not simply a formality. It is about building a relationship between management and employees with trust as the foundation. Getting talent is a high stakes competition for most companies, especially in technology industries. The velocity at which new services are introduced combined with a huge advantage in being a ‘first mover’ makes the acquisition of talent of huge strategic importance. Leadership cannot sit on a concept.

Back in the late 90s’, I remember reading about what Sass Institute did for their employees: free meals, help with menial tasks, programs after work, etc. Sass pioneered this commitment of providing a holistic lifestyle for its employees. Now we hear about all the amazing things technology companies do for their employees in Silicon Valley. It is a requirement because of the fierce competition to attract and retain talent. Why would a company incur all this extra expense? Talent is critical for the success of this type of company.

I read the book The Alliance: Managing Talent In The Networked Age written by Reid Hoffman (a cofounder of LinkedIn), Ben Casnocha, and Chris Yeh. They share a model for an employee and employer relationship called an ‘alliance’, more specifically a ‘tour of duty’. It is an implied contract (ethically and morally, but not legally binding) between management and each of its workers. It lasts for a defined period of time (2 – 3 years). At the end of the period, there is renegotiation of the terms of employment – enter into another tour of duty with the company or leave for another company. While employed, there are clear expectations for a manager and an employee. Everything is discussed in conversations.

There are many advantages of this approach. First, there is a mutually beneficial relationship between managers and their employees. Employees know their employer is investing in their future, outside the confines of an employment arrangement. Second, there is clarity in expectations. Third, employees are empowered and thrive. They have latitude in choosing their own projects and become ‘intrapreneurs”; there is a better chance they share new ideas to make the company and its products better. Fourth, it puts employees on the ‘fast track’ to start making a contribution. From the beginning, employees know what they are supposed to be doing throughout their ‘tour of duty’. Finally, it handles the huge ambiguity of an employee’s tenure (and all the behind-the-scenes maneuvering caused by uncertainty).

This last point is significant from the point of view of an employee and an employer. As an employee, you only start looking for jobs as the end of a ‘tour of duty’ nears (if necessary). So you concentrate on your current role and expect a smooth transition if you decide to leave at the end of your tenure. As an employer, you have an engaged employee who does not quit in the middle of a project.

I think this concept of a ‘tour of duty’ is a direct, honest way to manage talent in this fast-paced work environment. (Within a ‘tour of duty’, I still think the context of performance reviews should be based on a Skills-Based Approach; it is a precise way to lay out career development and expectations.)

Build a reputation with your company that attracts talent like a magnet. With a strong online presence, talented individuals learn about your culture and mission and want to work for you – a way of pulling talent to you. If you are starting out, much of creating buzz should be directed at bringing in talent. Professionals find and even suggest positions, then apply to them all based on their own initiative.

I suggest reading The Alliance: Managing Talent In The Networked Age to learn more about ‘an alliance’ and ‘tour of duty’.