Blue Sky Budget or Negotiated Settlement?

Well it is that time again, budgeting starts for the next year and I was reminded of an article that I read that described budgets as one of two approaches.

1. Blue Sky - Reaching for the stars here - what could you do if you had no boundaries?

OR

2. Negotiated Settlement - The boss wants 25% and you want 10% so you settle on 15%.

The problem with both of these is neither one seems entirely rooted in reality. If you set a blue sky budget and then the organization can't ( or won't) deliver the amunition to fight the battle ( new products, more people, technical or marketing resources) then it ends up being an empty shell of a number that there is no reasonable chance to hit.

But if you choose the negotiated settlement route, you are accused of sandbagging or possibly underperforming ( or worse - just plain lazy).

Both are problematic at best but perhaps the solution lies halfway in between both approaches? I'm working on ones now and I have to dream big but also temper that with what is achievable ( will I have the resources?) against the backdrop of the market.

Time will tell.

marketing VS Sales?

Recently I was finishing a strategic review where we are delving deeply into a particular market.  This task involved the review of the market, identifying trends and things all the way up to beginning to develop sales plans from the opportunities.

What I discovered was a tremendous disconnect between our strategic marketing folks and the sales folks - what a car wreck.

So I set about benchmarking this little divide and found that it exists almost everywhere. That struck me as very unusual as I feel sales and marketing are two very close departments.  In some companies, they are the same department.

I'll be researching this issue more in the weeks to come.  Right now I'm reading "On Marketing" - great stuff.  

Career Development Roadblock?

I was always certain that a good manager was supposed to be a "Roadblock Remover" for their team. In the functional things that a team must do ( grow sales, develop products or whatever) this seems very straightforward. Unfortunately when it comes to careers, it is much more difficult.



For example, to achieve a certain career goal, often one must be very good at what they do. Unfortunately this creates the problem of now that the person is so good, why would I want to let them go on to something else? I found this has happened to me several times in the past.



I don't want that to happen to my team. In fact, I would consider it fantastic if those on my team could grow, develop and move on to head up teams of their own someday. Hopefully I can continue to remove roadblocks for them ( those that want to move on). I don't want to end up as the "Roadblock" for my team!

People ultimately want to get certain things out of a career. There are times where the company must come first - but if that is always the case then "my career" really isn't mine anymore.

Stay or go? Don't know............

Rules for a Turn-Around - (the Drucker Suggestions)

I'm reading "The Daily Drucker" for 2008. It is 365 days of various comments, suggestions and introspective things from the late Peter F.Drucker.

Here is what he says about Turn-Around efforts (I seem to be drawn to them)

1. Abandonment of the things that do not work, the things that have never worked, the things that have outlived their usefulness and their capacity to contribute.

2. Concentration on the things that do work, the things that produce results, the things that improve the organization's ability to perform.

3. Analysis of the half-successes, the half-failures.

Drucker, P. (2004) The Daily Drucker. New York: Harper Business.


I see these as pretty self evident. Unfortunately organizations seem to hang on to the battles of yesterday, the memories of the past and all the meetings and organizational structure that go with it!

I'll post more on this subject later.

Development Plan - Critical or Waste of Time?

Currently I'm working on some career development items and I kept bumping into the fact that we have no formal long-term career development plan proceedure. This really surprised me because I always created my own ( what I wanted to do and how I would achieve it). So I set out to do some research on the subject.

There is quite a lot of information out there on the subject but all was pretty "over the top". I finally settled on creating my own format again based off these ideas. It seems many companies have job rotation programs or "experienced commercial leadership program" formats for a select few. But none of these answer the question of what happens to a person who is eventually identified as having potential but is not a part of any such formal job rotation program (none exist at my company)?

So I began sketching out this plan and it really opened my eyes to the dirty little secret these days. Once you get someone good on your team you don't want to promote them ( so that they go on to someone else's team!). Companies are so tapped for people in this era of downsizing that nobody wants to give up their best people. I experienced this firsthand. Well, I'm going out on a limb here because holding someone back can't be good for the business - I've just got to put this person on a faster track. The company will benefit even if I have to work without them. I've heard people continually preach that "you invest all this time in them and then they go and leave". I am convinced that some people deserve even more investment. Companies shouldn't look at it as money wasted but rather money invested ( and returned while that person works here). Ultimately if your company stinks and the person moves on - who is the bad guy? He or she for moving on or you for not improving your company to make it attractive to talented workers?

That is a tremendous risk but ultimately in a knowledge-intensive industry like mine ( engineered / formulated chemical systems ) people are the assets that generate all the return! Products don't invent themselves nor do they make or sell themselves. People do. Good people.

I'm banking on it........I'll post more on the subject when I get it finished.

Is the world flat?

I'm trying to get back into the posting routine but things keep tearning me away. I've been traveling a great deal for work and working my way through some good books and podcasts while at my second home ( that would be in airports!).

These days I'm reading Thomas L. Friedman's book "The World Is Flat". It is pretty good and since I work for a global chemical company, I can really relate to many of the trends. Since my market segment focuses on the prototype and design fields, I see the power that technology has given to people in this decentralized world we live in.

In fact, I work in virtual teams with people I've never actually met ( or met only once or twice perhaps). That is going to be the "Norm" as far as I can see for the future. In fact, my MBA classmates all connect virtually as well.

I think technology as a "flattener" is completely underrated by most companies. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for all of us?

Marketing or Sales-Marketing Hybrid Role?

Pure marketing or marketing-sales hybrid?

Which is more valuable to a business today? I think both have value especially as the complexity of the product increases and the technical detail as well. Unfortunately the marketing - sales hybrid type of role has to balance near-term commercial pursuits ( such as this quarter's numbers!) with the longer-term actions such as a marketing campaign or a series of press releases.

I've struggled with this over time because both positions add value, just in a different way. I see it in a framework where the sales and marketing work together. Unfortunately each can act as an "island" or "silo" where activities take place in a solitary bubble.