The Top Management and Leadership Blogs



Much of what we present in Workpuzzle is gathered and synthesized from multiple sources, including other business blogs.  Earlier this month, in his own blog, Jurgen (yes, one name), compiled an organized list of the top 150 management/leadership blogs in the world. 


To adequately critique the blogs, he “retrieved their Google Page Rank, Bing hit count, Alexa Ranking, Technorati Authority, Twitter Grader, PostRank and FeedBurner count.


So here are the first 50 on Jurgen’s list:

  1. The Blog of Tim Ferriss – Tim Ferris
  2. Leading With Purpose – Michael Hyatt
  3. Anthony Robbins Training Blog – Anthony Robbins
  4. How to Change the World – Guy Kawasaki
  5. Daniel Pink – Daniel H. Pink
  6. Management IQ – Business Week
  7. GTD Times
  8. Life Beyond Code Blog – Rajesh Setty
  9. Dispatches from the New World of Work – Tom Peters
  10. Three Star Leadership Blog – Wally Bock
  11. The Business Blog at Intuitive.com – Dave Taylor
  12. 800 CEO Read Daily Blog – (various)
  13. Leading Blog – Michael McKinney
  14. Great Leadership – Dan McCarthy
  15. Grant McCracken – Grant McCracken
  16. NOOP.NL – Jurgen Appelo
  17. Ramblings from a Glass Half Full – Terry Starbucker
  18. Ask a Manager – Alison Green
  19. John Maxwell on Leadership – John Maxwell
  20. Donald Trump Blog – (various) 
  21. Leadership Team – Orrin Woodward
  22. Robin Sharma Blog – Robin Sharma
  23. N2Growth – Mike Myatt
  24. Sanders Says – Tim Sanders
  25. Chief Happiness Officer – Alexander Krejulf
  26. Execupundit – Michael Wade
  27. Work Matters – Bob Sutton
  28. Life Optimizer – Donald Latumahina
  29. Rosabeth Moss Kanter – Rosabeth Moss Kanter
  30. Trust Matters – Charles Green
  31. The Bing Blog – Stanley Bing
  32. All Things Workplace – Steve Roesler
  33. Positive Organizational Behavior – Bret L. Simmons
  34. WeeklyLeader – (various)
  35. Management Craft – Lisa Haneberg
  36. The Practice of Leadership – George Ambler
  37. The Wayne Dyer Blog – Wayne W. Dyer
  38. Brian Tracy’s Blog – Brian Tracy
  39. Bob Burg’s Blog – Bob Burg
  40. RapidBI – Mike Morrison
  41. Management Excellence – Art Petty
  42. KR Connect – Kevin Roberts
  43. Dale Carnegie Blog – (various)
  44. Leading Questions – Ed Brenegar
  45. CEO Blog – Time Leadership – Jim Estill
  46. Stephen R. Covey – Stephen R. Covey
  47. Curious Cat Management Improvement – John Hunter
  48. Ed Batista – Ed Batista
  49. Learn This – Mike King
  50. Cranky Middle Manager – Wayne Turmel


  • Editor’s Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you’re an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the “comments” link below.  

  • Effective Meetings: Are You Doing It Right?



    Research shows that we are spending more time in meetings than ever before.  What differentiates good meetings from poor meetings?  The answer can separate success from failure.  The experts have empirically looked long and hard at methods for optimizing meetings.  The below research-based suggestions are some of the better strategies that I have encountered.Effective Meetings


    Studies conducted by Robert Perkins Ph.D. of Mercer University, found that leaders who were weak in process skills and focused solely on the content of their agenda, had less success in their overall goals.  In fact, when leaders were unaware that there was more to their meetings than the dimension of content, their meetings were much less satisfying, had higher levels of conflict, and a lack of buy-in.


    On the other hand, leaders who attended to both process and content when facilitating a meeting, generated more successful meetings and outcomes.
     
    So what are process skillsProcess behaviors can be proposing ideas, increasing participation, reducing tension, asking clarifying questions, summarizing, and testing for consensus.  Content behaviors can be giving information, seeking information, telling, and disagreeing/attacking.  One group of researchers found that CEOs who increased participation of their team with regard to strategic decision making, achieved better quality decisions.  The team perceived their leader as much more trustworthy and felt more satisfied and committed to implementation.


    In contrast, leaders who gave their own opinions too frequently or aggressively, or who disagreed directly or attacked the opinions of others, held less successful meetings and had less participant commitment.


    Here are some effective process behaviors and strategies that can help lead the way toward successful meetings:

    1. Reduce Tension:  Conflict is bound to arise.  When it does, the best leaders use humor, especially self-deprecating jokes, to quickly reduce the tension and demonstrate that they aren’t taking themselves too seriously.  Poking fun at ourselves can evolve into a team trend that can be used when things get too heated to instantly lighten the tone.  This takes practice.
    2. Ask questions:  Since the time of Plato and Socrates, the use of questions have intended to engage all members in dialogue.  Decreasing leader dominance is an effective way for teams to encourage the sharing and collaboration of ideas.  Clarifying questions intended to facilitate further discussion bring deeper understanding of problems and creativity in finding solutions.  The opposite shuts everyone down and restricts innovation.
    3. Test for consensus:  A sure way to lessen commitment is to push through self-authorized agendas.  Instead, successful leaders make sure that they block any monopolization and domination of the discussion and bring non-responsive team members into the conversation.

    All of the successful leaders who were studied followed the basics of how to run a meeting, such as routinely preparing agendas, adhering to time constraints (that is my pet peeve), and keeping discussions orderly and on topic.


    Lastly, don’t think that being process-focused will leave you making decisions you can’t live with.  No matter how important it is to show your willingness to share the power and listen respectfully, no successful leader in these studies expressed a willingness to accept a group decision if they disagreed with the direction and predicted an unfavorable outcome.  The leader still holds the accountability of all decisions and everyone is usually understanding of this fact.


    Hope this helps you prepare for your next meeting.




    Editor’s Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you’re an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the “comments” link below.  

    Positive Emotions and the Success of Your Organization



    If you think that positive emotion has nothing to do with the success of organizations and groups, think again…  Some of the most empirically-based research being conducted today around group behavior is on the topic of ratio of positive-to-negative interactions.  With regard to marriage, teams, or even larger groups, highly complex mathematical models are being used to examine and predict group success and failure.  Research has determined specific combinations of ratios of positive-to-negative interactions that contribute to the most effective teams.  This is pretty fascinating stuff. 


    Positive work team Barbara L. Fredrickson, of The University of Michigan and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has been leading this research and has found that over-weighting a group with negative emotion will impact the team, marriage or organization in a drastically negative way.  Success will not come easy, if at all; and if negativity tips too far, there is no recovery.


    Here is how it works:  With ratios favoring negative-to-positive emotions, peoples’ behaviors become much more easily predictable and aimed at survival and status quo.  In the reverse scenario, where positive outweighs negative emotions, people are less predictable and this unpredictability (characteristic of positive states) over time, yields resilience that allows people to flexibly adapt to inevitable crises.


    Fredrickson writes:

    “Within married couples, greater marital happiness is associated with less predictability from moment to moment as spouses interact, and yet, over time, these marriages are the ones most likely
    to last (Gottman, 1994).  Within business teams, higher levels of expressed positivity among group members have been linked to greater behavioral variability within moment-to-moment interactions as well as to long-range indicators of business success (Losada & Heaphy, 2004).  And within organizations, positive experiences have been linked to broader information processing strategies and greater variability in perspectives across organizational members as well as to organizational resilience in the face of threat (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).”

    These researchers have actually found specific ratios that are optimal to success within groups.  I won’t go into detail on these ratios as the equations are far more complex than most of you care to read.  However, I can tell you that a little negativity is good.  Negativity in teams where there is an abundance of positivity is experienced as healthy conflict and challenge that is not meant to be personal.


    The following are some of the rules consistent across teams and groups when it comes to positive-negative ratios: (provided by Fredrickson)

    1. Human flourishing and languishing can be represented by a set of mathematical equations drawn from the Lorenz system.   
    2. Flourishing is associated with dynamics that are nonrepetitive, innovative, highly flexible, and dynamically stable; that is, they represent the complex order of chaos, not the rigidity of limit cycles.
    3. Human flourishing at larger scales (e.g., groups) shows a similar structure and process to human flourishing at smaller scales (e.g., individuals).
    4. Appropriate negativity is a critical ingredient within human flourishing that serves to maintain a grounded system.
    5. The complex dynamics of flourishing first show signs of disintegration at a positivity ratio of 11.6.
    6. Human flourishing is optimal functioning characterized by four key components:
    7. (a) goodness, indexed by happiness, satisfaction, and superior functioning;
      (b) broadened thought–action repertoires and behavioral flexibility;
      (c) growth, indexed by gains in enduring personal and social resources; and
      (d) resilience, indexed by survival and growth in the aftermath of adversity.

    Sounds complex, but really it isn’t.  Most leaders know where their team ratio is leaning.  If it’s positive, keep it that way.  If it’s not, it’s time to change it…




    Editor’s Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you’re an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the “comments” link below.  



     

    The Benefits Of Being Well-liked



    Are you well-liked?  If you are, the odds are pretty good that you have moved up the corporate ladder…or will do so some day.  Now, before you set out to become well-liked, you’d better be careful to know the difference between the authentic well-liked and the false, ingratiating attempts people sometimes make to become well-liked. Ladder of Success


    Here is Dr. James Larsen’s summary of some intriguing research regarding this key ingredient to success:

    “If you consider all the people you know, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, business associates, and social acquaintances, you’ll recognize a few of them as genuinely likable.  You like them, and if you compare lists, you’ll probably find that others like them, too.


    What do you suppose being well-liked can do for a person in business? People become loyal customers because they like you.  Customers forgive mistakes because they like you.  Employees stay with you because they like you.  Bankers lend you money because they like you.  Vendors extend you credit because they like you.  Being well-liked can do a lot for you.


    Would it surprise you to learn that well-liked people intend to be well-liked?  They work at it.  Would it also surprise you to learn that not everyone who works at it is successful?  Some people are positively horrid at it.  Try as they might, their efforts backfire, and the more they try to be well-liked, the more poorly people think of them.  Such people gain a reputation for being obsequious.


    Darren Treadway, from the University of Mississippi, is interested in this question, and he recognized an ideal setting in which to study it:  the relationship between supervisor and subordinate.


    At work, employees want their bosses to like them.  Bosses hold the keys to their success, such as raises, promotions, job assignments, recommendations, lay offs, and so on.  If we assume that nearly all employees try to be well-liked by their supervisors, then the difference between the many who try and the few who succeed must lie either in the skill of their efforts, the perceptions of the supervisors, or both…probably both.  Treadway realized that comparing the efforts of successful and unsuccessful people would yield valuable insights into how well-liked people accomplish the feat, so he conducted a study to explore it.


    Treadway studied 150 retail employees and 37 supervisors.  The employees completed self-report measures of ingratiation (efforts to get others to like them) and measures in interpersonal facilitation (supporting and encouraging co-workers and helping others ‘get along,’ also known as ‘political skill.’  Supervisors supplied recent performance review documents, and they completed measures of employees’ ingratiation attempts toward them and employees’ performance in the area of interpersonal facilitation- Political skill.  Treadway found a most interesting pattern of results.


    For employees who scored low on political skill, the rest of the findings weren’t very good.  As they increased their ingratiation efforts, supervisors noticed the increase, and it backfired.  Supervisors rated them lower on interpersonal facilitation.


    For employees who scored high on political skill, the rest of the findings were much better.  As they increased their ingratiation efforts, supervisors did not notice the increase.  In fact, supervisors didn’t notice any ingratiation efforts at all.  Instead, supervisors recognized these efforts as increased interpersonal facilitation – a good thing.  They were trying to help everyone ‘get along.’  The difference was political skill, and Treadway explains it this way.


    Political skill exerts a powerful influence on the perception of ingratiation.  It effectively masks the intent of the person.  Instead of trying to be well-liked, people appear to be trying to help others get along, an altruistic intent.  Supervisors had a high regard for such employees.  They liked them, and political skill was the key.


    ‘Politically skilled individuals convey a sense of personal security and calm self-confidence that attracts others and gives them a feeling of comfort,’ says Treadway.  It is comprised of four components:

    1. Social astuteness – Politically skilled people are keen and insightful observers of others and of themselves. They accurately interpret their own behavior as well as others in social situations.
    2. Interpersonal influence – Politically skilled people are flexible, adapting their own behaviors as situations change, and as they do so, they try to influence the thoughts and actions of others. They strike bargains, negotiate, and offer quid pro quos. Because of this, other people experience politically skilled people as very influential.
    3. Networking – Politically skilled people develop networks of people… friendships, alliances, and coalitions. They typically network with people possessing valuable assets, like organizational rank, decision authority, expertise, or resources.
    4. Apparent sincerity – Politically skilled people possess high levels of authenticity, sincerity, and genuineness. They appear to be honest, open, and forthright. ‘This dimension of political skill strikes at the heart of whether ingratiation efforts will be successful because it focuses attention on the perceived intentions of the person,’ says Treadway. Forming perceptions of intent is a labeling process carried out by the target of the ingratiation attempt, and it is crucial to the outcome.

    Treadway believes that apparent sincerity is the most important component of ingratiation success, and he believes people can increase their skills in this area.  So the next time you compliment someone, smile at someone, openly support the ideas and/or values of someone, or appear modest, you should mean it.  Any self-serving intent should be invisible.  If you don’t really mean it, then you’d better appear as if you do.  Treadway’s study demonstrated the fine line between appearing obsequious and interpersonal facilitation.  Make sure you are on the right side of this line.”

    What strikes me as interesting, is that this discussion parallels everything we have said about relationship credibility.  People can always tell the difference between those who are in it for themselves only or are in it for the greater whole. 


    Reference:  Treadway, Darren, Gerald Ferris, Allison Duke, Garry Adams, and Jason Thatcher (2007) The Moderating Role of Subordinate Political Skill on Supervisors’ Impressions of Subordinate Ingratiation and Ratings of Subordinate Interpersonal Facilitation.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 848-855. www.businesspsych.org




    Editor’s Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you’re an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the “comments” link below.  

    Determination: Who’s Going to Make It?



    A WorkPuzzle reader and business owner recently forwarded me an article as a follow-up to one of our discussions.  While I found the content of this article interesting and compelling, I didn’t see, at the time, how it applied to the primary issues our clients face…until this week.  Paul Graham
     
    The “light went on” in my head following some discussions I had this week with the owners of two prominent real estate companies in the Midwest.  These discussions had a common thread…both conversations centered around a passion for figuring out what makes a new hire successful in a real estate company. 


    Part of what we do in our work with our clients is break down the hiring process into definable pieces that can each be bench-marked, measured, and improved over time.  Based on the above discussions, it has become apparent that we need to gain a better understanding of the mentality of each candidate who is considering entering the real estate industry.  


    Those who are successful in real estate have an “I’m going into business for myself” mentality.  With this as a baseline, it would seem that those who are successful at starting businesses would have similar characteristics to those who are successful in real estate.  It only makes sense that the hiring process should include identifying what the characteristics of successful business owners are, so that an attempt can be made to identify these characteristics among the candidates being engaged and interviewed.


    Have you ever put any thought into what makes an entrepreneur successful?  This is a complex and wide-reaching topic that you could spend years studying.  But, for today’s discussion, let’s concentrate on just one characteristic—determination.  People who are successful at starting businesses have an above average level of determination.  What does that mean, and how would you recognized this during an interview?  The following essay by Paul Graham does a great job of addressing the topic:


    “The Anatomy of Determination”
    -by Paul Graham

    “Like all investors, we spend a lot of time trying to learn how to predict which startups will succeed.  We probably spend more time thinking about it than most, because we invest the earliest.  Prediction is usually all we have to rely on.


    We learned quickly that the most important predictor of success is determination.  At first we thought it might be intelligence.  Everyone likes to believe that’s what makes startups succeed.  It makes a better story that a company won because its founders were so smart.  The PR people and reporters who spread such stories probably believe them themselves.  But while it certainly helps to be smart, it’s not the deciding factor.  There are plenty of people as smart as Bill Gates who achieve nothing.


    In most domains, talent is overrated compared to determination—partly because it makes a better story, partly because it gives onlookers an excuse for being lazy, and partly because after a while determination starts to look like talent.


    I can’t think of any field in which determination is overrated, but the relative importance of determination and talent probably do vary somewhat.  Talent probably matters more in types of work that are purer, in the sense that one is solving mostly a single type of problem instead of many different types.  I suspect determination would not take you as far in math as it would in, say, organized crime.


    I don’t mean to suggest by this comparison that types of work that depend more on talent are always more admirable.  Most people would agree it’s more admirable to be good at math than memorizing long strings of digits, even though the latter depends more on natural ability.


    Perhaps one reason people believe startup founders win by being smarter is that intelligence does matter more in technology startups than it used to in earlier types of companies.  You probably do need to be a bit smarter to dominate Internet search than you had to be to dominate railroads or hotels or newspapers.  And that’s probably an ongoing trend.  But even in the highest of high tech industries, success still depends more on determination than brains.


    If determination is so important, can we isolate its components?  Are some more important than others?  Are there some you can cultivate?


    The simplest form of determination is sheer willfulness.  When you want something, you must have it, no matter what.


    A good deal of willfulness must be inborn, because it’s common to see families where one sibling has much more of it than another.  Circumstances can alter it, but at the high end of the scale, nature seems to be more important than nurture.  Bad circumstances can break the spirit of a strong-willed person, but I don’t think there’s much you can do to make a weak-willed person stronger-willed.


    Being strong-willed is not enough, however.  You also have to be hard on yourself.  Someone who was strong-willed but self-indulgent would not be called determined.  Determination implies your willfulness is balanced by discipline.


    That word balance is a significant one.  The more willful you are, the more disciplined you have to be.  The stronger your will, the less anyone will be able to argue with you except yourself.  And someone has to argue with you, because everyone has base impulses, and if you have more will than discipline you’ll just give into them and end up on a local maximum like drug addiction.


    We can imagine will and discipline as two fingers squeezing a slippery melon seed.  The harder they squeeze, the further the seed flies, but they must both squeeze equally or the seed spins off sideways.


    If this is true it has interesting implications, because discipline can be cultivated, and in fact does tend to vary quite a lot in the course of an individual’s life.  If determination is effectively the product of will and discipline, then you can become more determined by being more disciplined.


    Another consequence of the melon seed model is that the more willful you are, the more dangerous it is to be undisciplined.  There seem to be plenty of examples to confirm that.  In some very energetic people’s lives you see something like wing flutter, where they alternate between doing great work and doing absolutely nothing.  Externally this would look a lot like bipolar disorder.


    The melon seed model is inaccurate in at least one respect, however:  it’s static.  In fact the dangers of indiscipline increase with temptation.  Which means, interestingly, that determination tends to erode itself.  If you’re sufficiently determined to achieve great things, this will probably increase the number of temptations around you.  Unless you become proportionally more disciplined, willfulness will then get the upper hand, and your achievement will revert to the mean.


    That’s why Julius Caesar thought thin men so dangerous.  They weren’t tempted by the minor perquisites of power.


    The melon seed model implies it’s possible to be too disciplined.  Is it?  I think there probably are people whose willfulness is crushed down by excessive discipline, and who would achieve more if they weren’t so hard on themselves. One reason the young sometimes succeed where the old fail is that they don’t realize how incompetent they are.  This lets them do a kind of deficit spending. When they first start working on something, they overrate their achievements. But that gives them confidence to keep working, and their performance improves. Whereas someone clearer-eyed would see their initial incompetence for what it was, and perhaps be discouraged from continuing.


    There’s one other major component of determination:  ambition.  If willfulness and discipline are what get you to your destination, ambition is how you choose it.


    I don’t know if it’s exactly right to say that ambition is a component of determination, but they’re not entirely orthogonal.  It would seem a misnomer if someone said they were very determined to do something trivially easy.


    And fortunately ambition seems to be quite malleable; there’s a lot you can do to increase it.  Most people don’t know how ambitious to be, especially when they’re young.  They don’t know what’s hard, or what they’re capable of.  And this problem is exacerbated by having few peers.  Ambitious people are rare, so if everyone is mixed together randomly, as they tend to be early in people’s lives, then the ambitious ones won’t have many ambitious peers.  When you take people like this and put them together with other ambitious people, they bloom like dying plants given water.  Probably most ambitious people are starved for the sort of encouragement they’d get from ambitious peers, whatever their age.


    Achievements also tend to increase your ambition.  With each step you gain confidence to stretch further next time.


    So here in sum is how determination seems to work:  it consists of willfulness balanced with discipline, aimed by ambition.  And fortunately at least two of these three qualities can be cultivated.  You may be able to increase your strength of will somewhat; you can definitely learn self-discipline; and almost everyone is practically malnourished when it comes to ambition.


    I feel like I understand determination a bit better now.  But only a bit:  willfulness, discipline, and ambition are all concepts almost as complicated as determination.


    Note too that determination and talent are not the whole story.  There’s a third factor in achievement:  how much you like the work.  If you really love working on something, you don’t need determination to drive you; it’s what you’d do anyway.  But most types of work have aspects one doesn’t like, because most types of work consist of doing things for other people, and it’s very unlikely that the tasks imposed by their needs will happen to align exactly with what you want to do.


    Indeed, if you want to create the most wealth, the way to do it is to focus more on their needs than your interests, and make up the difference with determination.”

    I know this is a long essay, but hopefully you’ve taken the time to digest the information.  Start looking for determination (as Paul Graham defines it) in the candidates you interview.  If you don’t see a track record of determination in a person’s life, there is a good chance they would struggle starting a business.  They would also likely struggle as a real estate agent. 


    More essays:  http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html




    Editor’s Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you’re an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the “comments” link below. 

    Why Invent What You Can Copy? – Part 2



    Last week, we discussed the advantages of copying the ideas of your competitors and quickly integrating them into your business.  While true innovation will always be important, we’re learning that the imitators are often the ones who reap the rewards of new ideas.  Here’s a quick case study on how this has recently worked with Ford Motor Company.


    Have You Talked to a Ford—Lately?  While this probably won’t become the new slogan for Ford, it would be the most descriptive thing to say concerning what the company is now focused on.  The next generation of Ford’s Sync technology will turn its cars into rolling, talking, socially networked, cloud-connected super-machines. 


    Fast Company reports:

    “By almost any measure, Ford’s in-car Sync communications platform, introduced in partnership with Microsoft in January 2007, has been a huge success, largely because Sync enabled Fords to do something dramatic.  Where once driving entailed a kind of social disappearance, Sync was a breakthrough because it allowed you to move seamlessly from the connected world contained in your phone to an equally connected one inside your car — without touching a single button.”

    Alan Mulally, Ford’s CEO, puts it this way:

    “Look, it’s cool to connect.  But it’s past cool, it’s a reason to buy.  Tech is why people are going to buy Ford!  We’re going to be the coolest, most useful app you’ve ever had, seamlessly keeping you connected.”

    Mulally remembers that when he took the CEO job in 2006 as an outsider (he previously worked at Boeing), there were many developmental initiatives that he reviewed.  He surprised everyone when he pointed out Sync (then a prototype) as the “future to the company.”  


    Did his strategy work?  You bet.  In 2009, while his competition stalled, Ford made a $2.7 billion profit; by early 2010, the company had earned “car of the year” and “truck of the year” awards from the auto press and its stock price rose 700% from its 52-week low.


    I would encourage you to read more about how Ford has implemented its Sync strategy—it’s a very interesting story that is full of many lessons that can likely be applied to your business.  One lesson that can be applied to our discussion today—where do you think that Ford got the idea for Sync?  That’s right—they copied it from General Motors, their largest competitor.  


    In 1996, GM introduced an innovation called OnStar.  By 2001, GM was pulling in hundreds of millions in revenue from this feature.  Ford noticed and went to work on copying GM’s innovation.  Granted, they didn’t move very fast, but they eventually got the job done.  And, when they did introduce Sync, they were able to improve upon GM’s idea significantly.  Mulally attributes the success to keeping an open mind about new ideas.  As he puts it…

    “The ‘not invented here’ syndrome kills all kinds of good ideas.”

    The same principle can be applied to recruiting.  Take the topic of agent (or employee) referrals in the real estate industry… There is not a real estate company in business today that cannot attribute some of its highest quality and successful hires to agent referrals.  One company, Keller Williams, has focused on this concept to the degree of building their whole business model around it. 


    You may say to yourself, “I don’t like the marketing approach Keller Williams uses, and the way they execute their agent referral system is not something I’d want to imitate.”  That’s fine.  But remember, successful imitators build upon the innovations of others.  I don’t particularly like OnStar (I have it in my car and don’t subscribe to the service), but I find the Ford Sync system very interesting and potentially very useful.  The bottom line?  If you’re a real estate company trying to recruit new agents without a compelling agent referral strategy, you’re operating at a disadvantage.


    There are hundreds of ideas in many different industries that can be copied and adapted to your business.  Start looking for ideas that you can copy and build upon to make your business more successful. 




    Editor’s Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you’re an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the “comments” link below.