On-line networking: Friend or foe?

Dear Clients and Colleagues:

By way of personal testimony, I'm going to address a growing issue in the on-line marketplace, or more specifically business networking.

A trusted friend recently introduced a former colleague facing an inflection point. This person wasn't looking for immediate change per se; he wanted an objective framework for asking questions -- in a safe environment. Rather than immediately gather background, I held off looking him up on-line until meeting in person. Granted this modus operandi may be a little different since my business relies more heavily on one-to-one communication and relationship building vs. the one-to-many approach.

We are rapidly moving, okay, have moved into a world where lots of loose connections, or those known as Facebook friends, now rule the roost. The marketplace is largely responsible for this trend so far be it for anyone to become indignant about what amounts to a mostly positive trend when taking into account the trend's overall value.

Back to the previous story. If I had chosen to go on Linked In or Facebook to profile this person, then chances are details would have been gathered in typical form. By the same token the exercise also would have fed natural biases that naturally inform meeting someone for the first time. Flip this example around and several examples leap to mind where a prospective client profiled us and decided what we did wasn't for them -- without having a personal conversation.

Forgive the rapid fire question, but for crying out loud, have we lost that much human capacity that we're going to fear meeting someone new in business so much that we're going to profile inside and out prior to ever laying eyes on that person? Cynics may say yes that's been going on in the on-line dating world so what's the big deal. I am not one of those cynics --at least not on this topic.

Please join in an exercise of creative constraint when it comes to on-line social networking. Meeting new people with a blank slate that removes bias has more potential to open new doors and lead to new places of value, something that is needed right now across all sectors. Key search terms only go so far.

Put the personal back into (social) networking, in other words, or at the very least show profiling restraint so more game changing possibilities can present themselves. The fear of something new can never supercede the need to find something new. Thank you,

JG

Fate or Coincidence?

The death of former Penn State Coach Joe Paterno, or JoePa to die hard fans, has created its share of second guessing surrounding what amounts now to a tainted legacy. Barely noted deep within the obituaries lies an interesting fact that draws parallels with another former coaching legend, Paul "Bear" Bryant, the famed Alabama coach. Both men died shortly after coaching their last game; Bryant's passing came one month after his last game while Paterno died three months after coaching finale. Interestingly enough both icons played the University of Illinois in their final official games. Bryant tends to get a pass but for the record did exhibit rogue behavior by betting on games. Widely known at the time, it wasn't reported at length publicly -- or at least it didn't catch Twitter fire. Different time, different era.

This coincidence points back to history's most famous death pairing when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, the nation's 50th birthday. On parallel paths their entire lives, Adams gave rise to Jefferson by having him write the Declaration of Independence ("John Adams," David McCullough.) Adams could have done it himself but knew Jefferson was a more eloquent writer and known figure. Adams also is reportedly to have spoken Jefferson's name moments prior to his death. As an aside, both men were widowed and did not remarry.

These iconic examples point back to those that we all have known who have worked in jobs for so long that their personal identities have suffered when the job changed or went away. We all have known examples of retirees who once they hung up the coat were done with working or learning new things. Our message is simple: Don't be one of these people. Pursue a calling, work hard at your job -- whatever it may be -- and be present and available to family and friends. Oh, and keep the faith, too.

If you can think of any other interesting famous death pairings, please leave a comment below. Thanks for reading,

JG

# # #

Yahoo: Nothing ever changes when it comes to brand name executive search

Yahoo's recent CEO appointment, picked nicely from PayPal, and the subsequent decision to revamp the company's board underscores how little things change when it comes to how big companies recruit and select talent.

First, the CEO appointment. This decision was obviously needed following the blow-up of the former CEO, Carol Bartz, who basically told her board to f*&% off. So naturally the board goes and gets what's perceived as a softer spoken yet tough operator with a 'Boston accent' as the WSJ headline read last week. The new office holder pledges very little beyond the basics so not to create undue expectations, which are already through the roof anyway. In his defense, that's exactly how to handle the situation.

Then directly following the appointment it's learned that someone has hired a search firm to help revamp the board since it's reportedly learned that Chairman Cliff Bostock would like to move on. Of course no one talks on the record so this is learned through "people close to the matter" or however it's termed now. This dovetails nicely with the CEO appointment.

Everything looks and appears to be picture perfect, right? Much like HP, a big brand name company has taken what it believes to be the appropriate action to impact change. There's only one slight problem. These moves are precisely the same ones that have always been made in these situations with possibly the exception of remaking a board after a CEO hire (although admittedly that's pretty common too.) Yahoo remains standing without a clear strategic direction and soon there will be a new cast of pending characters to sort out vision and strategy. Whether it's former CEO, Carol Bartz, or one of the four other CEOs over the past five years, putting in similar leaders in the same way will always yield the same thing, which may ultimately resemble the definition of insanity. The succession experts can be heard groaning from a mile away.

Then again if everyone is convinced and compensated to do the same thing over and over then why should anything change?

As a side note of disclosure, I used to work for the search firm named to handle the board revamping. No internal sources even know who is doing the work or aren't willing to confirm the obvious, which further compounds the mystery. When everyone wants to be on the inside and very few are, it's nearly impossible to know precisely what's going on. Hence the palace intrique in major brand name situations, another unchanging paradigm.

Anyone up for doing the same thing over and over in 2012 and getting handsomely rewarded?

# # #

Republican candidates usher in post-branding era

Don't look now but the BCS championship-like race for the Republican presidential nomination is ushering in the post-branding era. What does that mean? The traditional methods of branding, such as communicating a consistent message over time, have been replaced by pressure to get to the core faster than ever before anyone changes their minds. Audiences no longer matter as much as loyal followers, which takes more effort than sending out Tweets every hour. Performance and organization trump buzz for now or at least until buzz forms -- then all bets are off. Here are some other observations along similar lines:

1. Voters aren't as nuanced as the candidates think they are. But they still shop with a value-driven vengeance. It makes less difference whether you're a Tea Partier than it does someone who can hold sway without extremism overcoming sound principles. Rick Santorum's emergence in Iowa as the evangelical darling occurred AFTER caucus goers decided that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman weren't as appealing. It wasn't sleeveless sweaters that garnered 25 percent of the vote; it was good 'ole fashioned hard work and retail appeal. Think Walmart before they got fancy with the new marketing regime.

2. None of the candidates have captured the essence of the Republican brand, which may be a good thing. Without an anointed presumptive winner in traditional party form no one in the field represents an A-player. The now perceived front runners are old names trying to reinvent themselves into something new. Think of the remaining field as brand extensions, or in the world of laundry detergent, lots of Cheer and generic names vs. the go to Tide. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are hardly new exciting figures in the same image as Barack Obama in 2008. The media love a darling, but to date, no one can or will claim the mantle. This leads to an unfortunate formula: Little differentiation + known quantities = snooze fest.

Here's hoping Monday night's BCS championship game doesn't suffer the same fate!

# # #

Hardly coincidental

The re-ascendancy of Starbuck's CEO Howard Schultz to Fortune magazine's top executive ranking comes as no surprise. His company, or should we say the existing one he was hired into and then proceeded to re-invent, is a household name and just completed a record year of revenues and profits. It seems as though customers are still willing to pay five bucks for a latte even in these "most uncertain times."

What's revealing about the Schultz story, however, isn't so much about dollars and cents although record performance plays a leading role. It's more about Schultz's ability to straddle the growing fence between political crusader, community activist and business steward. These skills have increasingly grown in demand as large companies navigate an era defined by big government, regulation and environmental accountability. Schultz and Starbuck's have been at the forefront of this trend. Their continuing stamp of success reveals a few undeniable truths for leaders and businesses alike, mainly:

1.) Having a point of view about the issues impacting your business matters more than ever. When Congress and the president nearly ground government to a halt last summer over the debt ceiling, Schultz came out swinging, calling for a boycott on contributions to office holders and candidates alike who espoused obstructionist views. This was classic POVing at its highest form. Pro-active, controversial and lone wolf in tone and content. During a time when most companies are playing both sides of the aisle with contributions, Schultz made the calculation that it was in no one's interest to maintain the status quo. He of course didn't have to make this stand but did so because he evidently believed in the action. If more leaders and companies would follow suit maybe more of the "change we believe in" could occur? The recent more reactive response to immigration by Chipotle CEO Monty Moran partially qualifies although admittedly espousing a POV on an issue after an offense can be perceived as spin.

2.) Being willing to take a stand on unpopular but proper business practices, even when it represents great cost, can make a difference over time. This used to be called investing in a business. Despite high costs of doing so, Starbuck's still provides health care coverage to its part-time and full-time employees. Schultz has continually gone on record saying that will never change. The rewards come in the form of employee loyalty and lower turnover, which results in more consistent service, which leads to higher revenues and profits. Again more companies and leaders would be well served to track this line without solely focusing on short-term financials as a primary outcome. Easier said than done. But necessary.

Click here for the original Fortune magazine profile if you didn't already have the pleasure of reading over the holidays: http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/17/starbucks-howard-schultz-business-person-year/

Thanks for viewing. Happy New Year,

JG