What The World Needs Now

Healthy Trust in Customer-Vendor Relationships

lfsolis — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:50:54 +0000

: How long are you open?

Aristotle believed that Ethos, the trust of a speaker, was characterized by three attributes: the intelligence of the speaker (correctness of opinions, or competence), the character of the speaker (reliability – a competence factor, and honesty – a measure of intentions), and the goodwill of the speaker (favorable intentions towards the listener).

Has anything really changed in 2,400 years?

Customer-Vendor relationships are often riddled with distrust. Customers believe (and project?) they are paying too much, giving too much, working too hard and receiving too little. Vendors can be heard saying that they are paid too little, give too much, work too hard with no recognition and that they are driving most results. What would Aristotle say? One answer might be that unexamined organizations may make difficult partners.

Brought forward to 2011, Aristotle’s guidebook suggests that Trust in Customer-Vendor relationships is a matter of three factors (distilled from his work in The Rhetoric):

- the capabilities or competencies of each firm

- the dominant organizational culture

- the point of view (I simplify it down to Abundance vs. Scarcity thinking) about working relationships

Across 26 years in Innovation and Enterprise Transformation work, I’ve seen a bit when it comes to Customer-Vendor relationships. Some organizations ignore Trust as a key business factor; many pay inconsistent heed, and most are rather fickle on how they treat employees, partners and sometimes even shareholders.

Whether the deal is large, small or business-defining, Aristotle’s definition recommends that hard work is required to achieve Healthy Trust in Customer-Vendor relationships. One should not assume it. Time will not improve it. Rather, careful due diligence, discussions and across-the-table teamwork can invoke Trust in any situation if:

each firm understands its own capabilities or competencies, the gaps, and what possible partners might offer to create larger, faster wins
each firm understands its own cultures (values, norms and behaviors), and what kinds of firms they are best able to work with or serve to achieve outrageous outcomes
each firm understands its own values with respect to opening up to, being vulnerable to, relying on and being assisted by another firm, to achieve more with less (leverage)

How often do you or your organization ask “is this a partner or firm that I best align with in terms of capabilities, culture and intentions?”, to achieve business or social objectives? I suggest this question is rarely asked. Instead, most of the time, we focus on the likelihood that this partner or vendor is

the best total lowest cost price for the solution offered (Aristotle, what do you think? pass the sniff test?)
a firm we can most manage or dominate so that we have leverage (what happened to vulnerability? to openness?)
the best in-class firm in the category, thus, one we must do business with to get unfair advantage

Aristotelian customers often win the game or the race over the medium-to-long term period. Those that bring Trust to the table in their vendor relationships create abundant partnerships, versus guarded customers that seek to exploit or manage vendors because dollars and end-benefits are scarce in their mindset. I have seen this first-hand numerous times. The COO of Standard Pacific Homes embraces a supply chain partnership model that, to this day, attracts many of the industry’s most creative trades and innovative materials suppliers, breaking from the common tradition of seeking to exploit every vendor for incremental profits. Financial giant Chubb insurance (guided by a visionary Innovation leader) develops new services and solutions in close tandem with its broker channel partners, understanding that winning new Chubb solutions will also put dollars into the pockets of enterprising partners. And heavy machinery leader John Deere went so far as to launch a prize-based campaign to reward vendors who helped it redesign tractor components so that the total product would be more sustainable and green.

These firms have embraced ETHOS and not just the profit principle. And, predictably, they win more than their competitors. How ready are you for Healthy Trust in your customer-vendor relationships?

Can’t Innovate WITHOUT It…Trust

lfsolis — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:37:21 +0000

What roles does Trust play in your organization’s innovation success?

We asked our guests at Innovation Leaders Forum in Washington DC (June 2011) to share their insights with each other. There were some predictable ideas (earned slowly, lost fast; or, it starts at the top), there were a few controversial suggestions (distrust may actually trigger innovation), yet all guests shared the conclusion that Trust plays a critical role in enterprise innovation initiatives. Below I recap an array of the most thought-provoking contributions, starting with Team one:

Because CHANGE is required for Innovation to evolve and succeed, management should anticipate that many team members will confront risks, fears and emotional challenges that are best dealt with in a safe, trustworthy environment
To achieve organization or team Trust, what is most needed is a sense of equal commitment from all, diversity and inclusion, and candid feedback for validation or course correction (most participants believe that time famine or culture often stands in the way of quality feedback)
What most undermines Trust in innovation initiatives is criticism, lack of energy, and lack of recognition between team mates or management leaders

Big takeaway? Innovation IS Change. As is true in our personal lives, our corporate personas demand that Trust be taken quite seriously in how we work, communicate, give and receive feedback. How often are you personally satisfied with the trust hygiene of your organization or projects? Most participants expressed dissatisfaction in this dimension.

A second team focused on Failure. In their perspective a healthy trust-based environment will exude a willingness to accept, understand and learn from Failure. One participant went so fas as to request that innovation processes be characterized by a perception of justice, namely, that they benefit from constant communication, transparency and explicit rules for decision-making. Just this week at an innovation project kick-off meeting our CEO client experienced the proverbial Aha! moment when he observed that Innovation at his enterprise would be much more successful if they “rethought the rewards, penalties and consequences of Failure”. In recent years the organization has been unable to achieve strategic or breakthrough innovations, with most projects representing mild incremental efforts. When we explored this subject further with our CEO client, he depicted an R&D and innovation setting where only quick wins with a high certainty of success have been rewarded. Projects with greater ambitions, and their participants, had been viewed with considerable distrust as wasteful or mis-directed.

Our third team coined the phrase “Can’t Innovate Without It” which I decided to use as the post caption. However, while it is easy to observe that Trust is essential, this group contributed some distinctions which are worth mentioning:

At internet speed on a major new Innovation initiative, Trust may be harder to achieve (I very much concur with this valuable insight; occasionally, it is quite important to slow down the initiative to permit Trust to develop in a deep and sustainable manner)
Bi-lateral trust is a must: management and leaders must seek to trust participants and the crowd, and likewise, the crowd and participants must trust management
And lastly, it was observed that there is no substitute for deep, established trust in an innovation team or organization, because rich collaboration required for innovation requires authentic trust

So what is the Trust hygiene of your innovation organization? Is it an asset, liability, or a changing dynamic? I’d very much like to hear from you.

Why You Should Upgrade from a Pilot to a Prototype, NOW!

lfsolis — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:24:39 +0000

Test Drive This

It could be about semantics. Or not. A pilot is not a prototype. It is my strong belief that innovation success derives from prototype initiatives that are carefully planned, properly funded or staffed, and supported from beginning to end by senior executives seeking breakthrough bounties.

So what is a pilot? Websters’ Dictionary under definition #5 says “a television show produced and filmed or taped as a sample of a proposed series.”

Now let’s check out Prototype: “a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction.”

In my 25+ years of enterprise transformation work I have witnessed countless unsuccessful Pilots of technology, software, business process or re-engineering solutions. What’s the pattern? What explains the failure frequency?

I believe the answer lies in the very definition of a Pilot. A pilot tests a value or benefit assertion. A pilot is intended to prove out — to validate – an expected or anticipated outcome. Little room is afforded for the new, for experimentation or Design. In short some of the failure attributes are:

insufficient planning or mapping towards desired benefits; perhaps no explicit Value Proposition
a short performance run-way (30-60 days)
possibly, inadequate executive sponsorship or commitment
under-funding of the project, under the thesis that a Pilot should be free

Innovation is NOT free. A free pilot is worth precisely what was paid for it, and often less (when all costs are factored in).

Prototypes are another world for me. They are the better pathway to innovation. A prototype compels an organization to invest in the design of an end-state experience that is most likely to achieve sought-after benefits, then create and operate an experiment to seek to reach that end-state. Prototypes are rife with “experimentation” mindset. Some outcomes or benefits may be a complete surprise; others may roughly align with expectations. It is less a matter of validation and more a matter of creating new possibilities.

In sharp contrast to a Pilot, a Prototype is characterized by:

substantial up-front planning to contemplate a desired end-state, and all steps/jobs to get there
a longer, safer performance run-way (100 days or more)
transparent executive sponsorship towards attainment of a large “prize”
because IT matters, proper funding and resources are assured

Indeed the distinctions are subtle if not slight. But they do matter. Because Innovation is a business process capability, I will always advocate a thoughtful, deliberate approach to Innovation experimentation versus the quick, easy, arguably free and often failure-proned Pilot approach.

It’s your choice. It’s your career. It’s your shareholder’s capital. Make the right decision!

Luis Solis is President of Imaginatik plc, a global leader in innovation management technology solutions comprised of hosted software, consulting and program management for measurable Innovation benefits. Imaginatik hosts its next Innovation Leaders Forum at the NYSE on February 16, 2011. For more information, contact alyssa_lapine@imaginatik.com.

Why Fast Trust?

lfsolis — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:31:21 +0000

"I see you

I am curious about the counter-intuitive. Which is how the notion of Fast Trust found me. For years I have been drilled on how “trust takes forever to gain, but is lost in one second of poor judgment”. No doubt this is a true pattern.

However, I wondered, is this the only pattern? Even if Trust can be damaged in an instant, might it be possible to authentically accelerate – by design with proper intentions – trust formation when it is most needed?

I think so.

After 2 years of study, experiments and many case studies on thesis, I genuinely believe that certain highly effective leaders, change agents, collaborators — even parents — have mastered Fast Trust fundamentals, even if they are only aware of it sometimes.

Examples help. Perhaps they persuade.

Scott, COO of a $4B revenue manufacturing enterprise: when you meet Scott, you encounter a centered man who shakes your hand firmly, has a confident tone, and looks right into your eyes with a vulnerable yet open expression. His lexicon exudes abundance. Within 5-10 minutes!!!! (not hours; not days) you conclude that you can trust this man…better yet…that you will trust this man to work with you to solve important problems…you will even trust him with personal facets of your life. Why? He mastered Fast Trust.

Jenna’s eyes see through me…and probably you. She’s deeply aware of herself. Accordingly, you intuit her right away. No games. She’s transparent. She’s also making a huge difference for her clients and friends due to her honed “truth telling” capabilities. A truth teller commands nothing less of you. Jenna achieves trust in a fraction of the time most of us do. Clients, strangers and new friends want to “share” right away. This is Fast Trust in action.

Giles makes it clear when you meet him that his integrity, ethics and commitment to results stand above any financial gain you might seek to entice him with. He steps into dicey corporate turn-around situations. In such settings, time works against you. Giles usually has one week to size up a team, decide who stays on the bus and who gets off, and align with 1-3 individuals who can assist him to achieve a rapid turn-around before new blood is attracted. Whether he knows it or not, Giles practices Fast Trust principles all of the time….which is why he is so successful. Tradition trust formation patterns would not serve him well enough.

Previous posts have articulated the Fast Trust principles. I will not repeat them here now. However, I do wish to clarify that Fast Trust is quite different from a con job technique to take advantage of someone. Fast Trust is about total TRUST….a consensual 2-way relationship where vulnerability, giving, empathy, extreme listening and clear intentions and commitments result in better, faster outcomes than would otherwise be possible.

In my work with business leaders, executives and managers I have been overwhelmed with surprise at how uncomfortable the subject of Trust makes them. It’s a very difficult subject to discuss. Perhaps this is a cultural icon of the USA; trust is addressed in very different ways in Europe for sure.

Yet it remains true that all exceptional moments in human relations are characterized by the presence of Trust. It’s your choice. Basic experiences without Trust; exceptional ones with Fast Trust.

Trust is Everything in Innovation

lfsolis — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:20:35 +0000

Got my back?

How relevant is Trust in enterprise innovation? Let’s piece together an answer with the help of some field research.

Three of five executives at the recent Front End of Innovation Summit in Boston shared one reason for attending: “I am looking for ways to create a culture of innovation…we are just not there yet!”

Eli Lilly’s CEO John Lechleiter recently set forth a compelling case for why America’s innovation gap is broadening, and some powerful ideas about how to address the Gap. Among the key reasons for “the gap”: extreme innovation entails risk-taking, mid-to-long term experimentation periods, and knowledge sharing.

In recent research where I conducted a survey on the role of Trust in innovation, more than 72% of respondents rated “trust issues” as a major obstacle to the free flow of intellectual capital at their organizations. In other words, for numerous reasons from compensation and job security to scarcity thinking and retribution, some of our best innovators have decided to check out rather than pitch in.

What’s going on here?

Just as Nation’s hunker down during global crises, so do many of us choose to hoard our ideas, projects and power when the personal going gets tough.

We need more CEOs like John Lechleiter who recognize that the enemy is us! To innovate, organizations require an innovation-hospitable ecosystem with Trust at its core. Here are five reasons why making your organization Trust Rich is the essential key to incremental or radical innovation:

#1 Trust drives sharing: in an environment where innovation players are sure that their contributions will be appreciated or acknowledged, more sharing occurs….by more diverse actors

#2 Trust fuels access: because many of the very best ideas in any organization reside on PC drives (indeed, KM has yet to eradicate the shared or personal idea repository) or in our heads, trust is the most effective, least cost way to access potentially valuable contributions

#3 Trust yields abundance: all of us in the innovation world know that abundance/quantity of the “right” stuff multiplies the probability of innovation success

#4 Trust makes ‘accidents’ frequent: the possibilities for radical Aha! innovation are limitless in a safe, criticism-free environment based on trust…leading to more collaborative efforts to solve problems in novel ways

#5 Trust equals speed: when you trust your team-mates (how many hours does it take for these two fellas above to agree on their next move???), speed is available….frankly, it is your competitive edge.

I continue to believe that an organization’s capacity to breed, leverage, if not protect Trust, is the single most important success factor for enterprise innovation.

Where is your organization on the Trust issue, on its capacity to foment and protect Trust, for the benefit of productive innovation initiatives?

The future belongs to those enterprises that have discarded the scarcity thinking models of yesterday. The future winners listen to each other, share with each other, collaborate with each other…and dramatically accelerate their organic capacity to innovate products, services and business models. This is courageous stuff. But then again, perhaps we should expect more from our CEOs.

Who will you be?

The Fast Lane to AHA! Experiences

lfsolis — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:10:09 +0000

All of us covet the Aha!…an unexpected insight that solves a long-standing pressing problem, or offers an elegant alternative to how you currently view an important (to you) situation.

I think I See Something Bright!

But while we all want AHAs, is it possible to organize yourself, your team or your entire organization to step-up the AHA quotient on a daily or frequent basis?

For a long time I have thought the answer is yes. I just lacked the answer to how. Then somewhere in between a recent meeting with some terrific innovators in Houston and 10,000 flying miles listening to tunes on my iPhone, I achieved an AHA of my own.

The answer lies, is modeled, in the Genius Mix application of iTunes. Let me explain. Stay with me carefully…I truly believe there is something here.

Some recent “small world” research by Melissa Schilling of NYC posits that AHAs in human communities occur when a few conditions are satisfied:

i) an atypical association in a community results in a “shortcut” in an individual’s network of representations;

ii) this atypical association (linkage, path or connection) is forged through a random recombination process or through a directed search; and

iii) the magnitude of the AHA is a function of the unexpectedness of the connection, plus the size and density of [idea clusters] that are brought into closer proximity.

Translation into the real world: you’ve organized your iTunes music library into artist, genre, even event clusters called playlists. I have. For numerous reasons I carefully (sometimes less so) forged clusters from selected certain songs and artists. Good so far. Individually I like each song. But what would happen if I could relate these songs – recombine them or sequence them – in such a new way that I could see the possibility for new, better clusters that exceed anything I would have created on my own. Or what if someone else could randomly do this for me. Might I learn something new from a reconstructed, invented playlist?

iTunes Genius Mixes is a terrific metaphor for this intentional AHA creation strategy. Try it sometime. In ways random, and in ways intentional using search capabilities, Genius creates thematic mixes from your entire music library…transcending my playlist definitions or logic. I become the owner of a brand new music playground for fresh inspiration.

Are you with me? And what is the relevance to enterprise innovation, web2.0/SaaS platforms, breakthrough ideation and velocity in product and service development in our New Normal economy? Stay tuned (or iTune if you wish) for more in my next blog post.

For now, here’s what I discovered using Genius: unlikely relationships emerged between artists, songs and genre buckets. It just would not have occurred to me to group music this way. I truly enjoyed songs I had “lost” for years. Some songs sparkled within the new playlist context. Others that I like – that I prefer from habit – were not present, sparking my curiosity. In general, my attention span surged….because I am listening to something new, fresh and unexpected. And I am just getting started…because I am digesting all of this as I fly to San Diego for the start of a 9-day road-trip. Lots of windshield time ahead to dig into some new sequences. And opportunities to spot AHA experiences along the way.

Trust vs. Touch: What is your Facebook Reality?

lfsolis — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:22:17 +0000

What's Trust Got To Do With It?

A few months ago one of my CEO clients pounced his chest about the number of Facebook friends he possessed, stating: “you see…people trust me, so they choose to be my friend. That’s why I have so many of them.” His friends number more than 1,000. You may know that the average for most user groups is somewhere between 130-150 friends. Does this make him more trustworthy?

His remark has stayed with me for months, raising a big question for me: is Facebook about trust, or touch? Yes, I have reviewed the research which supports the proposition that most people (never all) use truthful personal Profiles on Facebook, to a much greater degree than one might think. However, an honest profile Trust does not make.

Even if one’s profile is truthful, what about comments? context? what is with-held? sourcing?

A great deal of Facebook activity is about staying in touch, asking to be touched, or maintaining an active role within a friend or acquaintance network that has value to you or me. Just because we are Facebook friends, I ask, does it mean that one is compelled to:

truth-tell?
call out fiction or near fiction?
expose myself in important, vulnerable ways so that you can get closer to me?
accurately portray my present state of mind, heart or soul so that you can better interact with me?
help you get clearer about your truth and current state?

These are questions for each of us to answer for ourselves. Sadly, I have a niece with a habit of posting provocative, pithy Facebook statements that attract a great deal of favorable feedback (comments) from her friends. Here’s her trick: she posts lyrics, and does not say she is posting lyrics. Nor does she say these pithy word strings belong to her. I sense you get where I am going here: she’s touching many, but her trust quotient leaves a great deal to be desired.

I say Facebook is about Touch. Trust is altogether another matter. As Gordon Geccko taught us many years ago, “if you want a friend, get a dog”.

Building Trust: “I See You” vs. “I Am Out Of Here”!

lfsolis — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:45:47 +0000

Avatar vs. Payton Manning….the Two Big Messages of early 2010. Which is your leadership model?

"I See You"

I Thought I Saw You

Which one of these experiences means more to you, which one guides you more on your personal journey as a leader, change architect or personal heroe?

For those of you who have seen Avatar fewer than three times, the Na’Vi mantra “I see you” (yes, for you Yogis, it possesses a parallel meaning to Namaste) means something like “I see myself in you…or I see all of you, your soul…your essence and being.” It is a haunting aspect of the movie for me. There are a few scenes invoking “I See You”…at it might be easy to confuse them for romantic moments but really they are more spiritual than romantic. They are moments of great power….a glimpse of what is possible when one really connects with another person with no hidden agendas, totally transparent, and desiring to serve the Good in and of that person.
Now to football, arguably America’s unifying religion. It is easy to forget Peyton’s demi-god status until about 830pm or so when he was intercepted. Some pundits described him as the greatest QB of all time. Tall. Great looking. Christian? One would think so. The model of a corporate leader….decisive, hard-working, strong on prep and even better on execution. Our boys should grow up to be Peytons. Our daughters should marry Peytons.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves, aren’t we? Peyton Manning was just too pre-occupied on Sunday to congratulate his nemesis Drew Brees and the New Orleans Saints when the game closed out, instead, he just left the field with no hand-shakes, no eye-to-eye contact…no connection. He’s a champion; he has the rings. Where’s the character?

You decide: is this a true winner? Is this a someone worthy of our adulation or respect? Here’s what he did not see: Tracy Porter poised to intercept the one throw which was tantamount to the only game mistake Peyton made. Check in on your Trust compass…how much do you trust this guy when he does this? When he cannot celebrate with the souls and essence of his competitors?

In my work with clients among the Fortune 200, some folks work very hard to “see you”…..to see each other…to get at the very essence of how to deliver Innovation success in a resistant organization. They live to the highest ethics levels. They celebrate when they win; they huddle and regroup together when they do not, reach out for advice and direction, and try again.

But this is not always the case.

Some, like Peyton Manning, view the “win” as the only end in the game. It is not about character. It is not about Team. It is about “do I win today or lose today…it is about me!!!”. They engage in dishonest, unethical conduct on the premise that few will notice….and even fewer will object. I must win. Damn the others. I need not have moral fibre….it slows me down.

All of us have this choice. Do we build great companies of giving, creative “givers” or do we seek to realize our own small “wins” that fulfill or FILL the personality, leader ‘gaps’ in our personal genome?

Which is it for you?

It cannot be both? It must be one or the other. So, who are you…are you Na’Vi or Manning?

Method D: Favre Leads With Heart; Fast Trust Follows

lfsolis — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:56:31 +0000

This insight really is not about the game of football. It could have been any day, any place with 65,000 live witnesses and millions seeing the same human interaction on media streaming. That it involved Brett Favre is but a mere distraction. In truth, it could have taken place in substance in your last team meeting, community function or local sporting event.

Setting: Vikings versus Steelers, Sunday October 25, 2009

Actors: QB Brett Favre, two teams of athletes, Sidney Rice, coaching staff, plus many gazing eyeballs

Incident: Desperate to close a widening score gap that would seal a Viking loss, Favre hurls a 45 yard pass during the 4th quarter to receiver Sidney Rice. Reminiscent of dangerous “hits” that have been banned in the game, Rice catches the ball but is simultaneously sandwiched between two defensive players who hit Rice running at full speed. Predictably, Rice drops the ball, collapsing to the ground.

The Fast Trust Moment: I was stunned by what I saw next. The usually glib commentators were at a loss for words. Most people probably missed it….because few of us have a lens for this type of human behavior. Brett Favre ran 45 yards down the field to comfort Sidney Rice…hand on shoulder…asking him if he needed help off the field…”hang in there mate…sorry to put you in that position.”

Working with many CEOs and senior management teams, I can count on less that one hand the number of Favre-type leadership moments I have witnessed or learned about. It happens so rarely. Colleagues, employees, investors and vendors are put at great risk…virtually sandwiched by forces they cannot anticipate or manage…and no-one steps up the human factor to sincerely lend a helping hand. We’re all too busy. We rarely expose ourselves to being so human.

I have tried to imagine the locker-room chat after the game when this hit-and-care incident was discussed. Let me see. What might receivers say next time Favre asks for difficult patterns, for commitment, for going beyond the ordinary? I think there should be many volunteers. What do you think?

The lesson to me is very clear: when it matters…when you care about deep, authentic Fast Trust with people and partners who are helping you change your organization or achieve big outcomes, run down the field….fast…and be human enough to offer real help. Fast Trust will follow!