Putting your demands on the table at the last minute is traditionally a successful negotiating strategy. It's at the last minute that people are focused, that the stakes are higher and that you're the most likely to extract concessions.
There are two problems with this as a tactic, though. The first is that the professional negotiator on the other side has precisely the same tactic, so it's hard to use it productively.
More important, though, is the notion that maybe, just maybe, both sides are in it for the long haul. If the relationship has to persist, if you are in this for more than this one go round, it's essential to recognize that brinksmanship costs both sides. It makes the pie smaller and it makes it more difficult for you to build something going forward.
Professional, long-term negotiations by adults should avoid the last minute out of principle. It's foolishly selfish, because it hurts both sides, thus requiring you to take even more off the table in order to benefit.
Either you negotiate to make the whole bigger, to have both sides benefit–or you negotiate to have the other side lose. Winning by punishing the other side isn't a particularly long lasting or satisfying strategy.
June 16, 2011
Funny how umbrage is always taken, but rarely given.
"I can't believe the item they sent me was navy blue! I ordered light blue! I will never, ever buy from them again and I will tell all my friends."
Like little kids begging mom for a treat after a skinned knee, the newly empowered consumer feels compelled to share every slight, no matter how small or how imagined.
The thing is, consumers are complaining to the wrong companies about the wrong things.
Organizations that shut out consumers, politicians that don't listen, companies that are willfully isolated–these folks aren't the ones that get yelled at. So we yell at the few companies that are actually trying and actually listening, rewarding their goodwill with a good public flogging.
It's the long-term ripoffs, the business models built on misleading people and the subtle but serious health and financial threats we ought to be whining about instead.
But, apparently, it's more fun to concentrate on the trivial and give it a good loud vent.
June 15, 2011
By request, here's a grab bag of books you might not have read yet.
PS congratulations to my friend Steve on the publication of The Profession.
June 14, 2011
Not computer programming, which is important, but content programming.
Someone decides what to put on the radio after that song you just heard. Someone realizes that Conan needs to do more than just tell standup. Someone decides that if every tweet is just like the tweet you just sent, it's boring.
We're all programmers now. We all have to decide what to post next, what to point to next, what to launch next. Is there a skill in dreaming up Must-See Thursday nights, or in establishing a season of Shakespeare or even in deciding what's on the special list at the restaurant? I think there is.
Yes, you must do great work. You also need to figure out how to program for your audience, even if the audience is only one person.
An organization uses structure and resources and power to make things happen. Organizations hire people, issue policies, buy things, erect buildings, earn market share and get things done. Your company is probably an organization.
A movement has an emotional heart. A movement might use an organization, but it can replace systems and people if they disappear. Movements are more likely to cause widespread change, and they require leaders, not managers. The internet, it turns out, is a movement, and every time someone tries to own it, they fail.
A philosophy can survive things that might wipe out a movement and that would decimate an organization. A philosophy can skip a generation or two. It is often interpreted, and is more likely to break into autonomous groups, to morph and split and then reunite. Industrialism was a philosophy.
The trouble kicks in when you think you have one and you actually have the other.
June 13, 2011
If you only show up when you want something, we'll catch on.
If you only learn the minimum amount necessary to get over the next hurdle, you'll fall behind.
If these short term choices leave you focused on the urgent, you'll almost never get around to doing the important.
A professional salesperson refuses to engage in the short-cycle of cold call/sell/move on. An urgent plea from the boss before the end of the quarter isn't enough reason to abandon your consistent approach. That's because cold calls are painful and rarely lead to sales. The professional salesperson realizes that closing a sale and then moving on wastes an opportunity for both you and the person you're working with.
A flustered programmer who grabs the relevant library without understanding its context or the role of the libraries around it will be in the same urgent state in just another few days.
The politician who only shows up when it's time to raise money, probably won't.
We remember what you did when you didn't need us so urgently.
If you're going to make a career of it (and of course, if you want to excel, you will), that means taking the time to understand the texture of your field. It means investing, perhaps overinvesting, in relationships long before it's in your interest to do so.
When it comes down to decisions that matter, your town, every town, is far more likely to support the one who has moved in, put down roots and contributed than it is to rush to whatever bright shiny object shows up for a few days before moving on.
June 12, 2011
The goal isn't to get money from a VC, just as the goal isn't to get into Harvard. Those are stepping stones, filters that some successful people have made their way through.
If you alter your plans and your approach and your vision in order to grab that imprimatur, understand that it might get in the way of the real point of the exercise, which is to build an organization that makes a difference.
I don't care so much how much money you raised, or who you raised it from. I care a lot about who your customers are and why (or if) they're happy.
Groupthink is almost always a sign of trouble, and it's particularly dangerous when it revolves around what gets funded, and why.
June 11, 2011
A shortcut to customer and co-worker intimacy is to respond in real time. A phone call is more human than an email, a personal meeting has more impact than a letter.
On the other hand, when you do your work on someone else's schedule, your productivity plummets, because you are responding to the urgent, not the important, and your rhythm is shot.
The shortcut analysis, it seems to me, is to sort by how important it is that your interactions be intimate. If it's not vitally important that you increase the energy and realism of the relationship, then insert a buffer. Build blocks of time to do serious work, work that's not interrupted by people who need to hear from you in real time, right now.
On the other hand, for interactions when only a hug or a smile will do, allocate the time and the schedule to be present.
Confusing the two is getting easier than ever, and it's killing your ability to do great work.
June 10, 2011
Three years ago this week, I posted this checklist, in the naive hope that it would eliminate (or perhaps merely reduce) the ridiculous CC-to-all emails about the carpool, the fake-charity forwards, the ALL CAPS yelling and the stupid PR spam.
A guy can hope, can't he?
Feel free to send this to those that need to read it:
Before you hit send on that next email, perhaps you should run down this list, just to be sure:
- Is it going to just one person? (If yes, jump to #10)
- Since it's going to a group, have I thought about who is on my list?
- Are they blind copied?
- Did every person on the list really and truly opt in? Not like sort of, but really ask for it?
- So that means that if I didn't send it to them, they'd complain about not getting it?
- See #5. If they wouldn't complain, take them off!
- That means, for example, that sending bulk email to a list of bloggers just cause they have blogs is not okay.
- Aside: the definition of permission marketing: Anticipated, personal and relevant messages delivered to people who actually want to get them. Nowhere does it say anything about you and your needs as a sender. Probably none of my business, but I'm just letting you know how I feel. (And how your prospects feel).
- Is the email from a real person? If it is, will hitting reply get a note back to that person? (if not, change it please).
- Have I corresponded with this person before?
- Really? They've written back? (if no, reconsider email).
- If it is a cold-call email, and I'm sure it's welcome, and I'm sure it's not spam, then don't apologize. If I need to apologize, then yes, it's spam, and I'll get the brand-hurt I deserve.
- Am I angry? (If so, save as draft and come back to the note in one hour).
- Could I do this note better with a phone call?
- Am I blind-ccing my boss? If so, what will happen if the recipient finds out?
- Is there anything in this email I don't want the attorney general, the media or my boss seeing? (If so, hit delete).
- Is any portion of the email in all caps? (If so, consider changing it.)
- Is it in black type at a normal size?
- Do I have my contact info at the bottom? (If not, consider adding it).
- Have I included the line, "Please save the planet. Don't print this email"? (If so, please delete the line and consider a job as a forest ranger or flight attendant).
- Could this email be shorter?
- Is there anyone copied on this email who could be left off the list?
- Have I attached any files that are very big? (If so, google something like 'send big files' and consider your options.)
- Have I attached any files that would work better in PDF format?
- Are there any 🙂 or other emoticons involved? (If so, reconsider).
- Am I forwarding someone else's mail? (If so, will they be happy when they find out?)
- Am I forwarding something about religion (mine or someone else's)? (If so, delete).
- Am I forwarding something about a virus or worldwide charity effort or other potential hoax? (If so, visit snopes and check to see if it's 'actually true).
- Did I hit 'reply all'? If so, am I glad I did? Does every person on the list need to see it?
- Am I quoting back the original text in a helpful way? (Sending an email that says, in its entirety, "yes," is not helpful).
- If this email is to someone like Seth, did I check to make sure I know the difference between its and it's? Just wondering.
- If this is a press release, am I really sure that the recipient is going to be delighted to get it? Or am I taking advantage of the asymmetrical nature of email–free to send, expensive investment of time to read or delete?
- Are there any little animated creatures in the footer of this email? Adorable kittens? Endangered species of any kind?
- Bonus: Is there a long legal disclaimer at the bottom of my email? Why?
- Bonus: Does the subject line make it easy to understand what's to come and likely it will get filed properly?
- If I had to pay 42 cents to send this email, would I?
Chris Anderson has come up with his own list as well.
June 9, 2011
Not all disasters can be avoided.
Not all disasters are fatal.
If you accept these two truths, your approach to risk will change. If you build a disaster-tolerant nation or project or lifestyle, you will be more willing to challenge the fates and won't hide out.
The disaster-tolerant approach means that you can focus on the upside of risk instead of obsessing about the worst possible outcome. And once you do that, the upside is more likely to occur.
If your hard drive has backups, you don't have to be as careful in buying hard drives. It's okay if a cheap one breaks. If your portfolio of artistic or financial endeavors isn't wrapped up in one project or one gallery, it's okay to do something a bit more daring, because one critic can't cripple you.
That outcome you were so afraid of isn't so bad, and once you realize you can tolerate it, it's (amazingly, perversely and ironically) less likely to happen.
