While recently talking to a friend, I learned that she likes to put maple syrup on mashed potatoes. She says she loves the mixture of the salty and sweet flavors. Another friend then chimed in and said her Saturday morning routine is not complete unless she has pizza for breakfast.
Breakfast is called the most important meal of the day and it seems like it can be the most varied too. Some are traditionalists and have something like eggs and toast while others start their day with a diet soda. My breakfast choices have mellowed a bit over the years, become more traditional, and probably more nutritious. As a young lad, I was very picky about what I ate for my first meal of the day. This was highlighted by an ongoing aversion to jelly and a restaurant once serving me a hamburger for breakfast when no other options would suffice.
The thing that strikes me as interesting is that so many of us have unusual breakfast habits but to us, they all seem normal. Having leftover Chinese food first thing seems a lot more normal to me than eating a doughnut or getting a breakfast sandwich from a fast food restaurant.
This is another example of how our perception of a situation really colors our perception of it. There really isn't one "right breakfast" that towers above all others. Ultimately, no matter how weird your choices may be, if they work for you, then ultimately that's all that matters. Perhaps it would be useful to use a similar lens when considering other differences in life.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Can I Save the US Postal Service?
If you like questions, then you'll love today's Postal Service. During a visit to a branch, I was asked several questions including:
Do you want to buy some stamps?
Do you want buy delivery confirmation?
Do you want insurance?
Do you want to send it overnight? (This cracked me up as I was sending a letter about 30 minutes down the road.)
I've read the stories of how the Post Office is billions of dollars in debt and am sympathetic to the need to bring in more revenue. But I found that the efforts to raise more revenue a bit amateurish. Here's why:
Myself and the others in line ahead of me were asked the same questions. No doubt the clerks are following a script but none of us were mailing the same kind of thing. Does a cookie cutter approach really serve the customer's needs? After hearing the people in front of me be asked if they want to buy stamps, I think I would have realized whether I needed to buy them or not before I reached the counter.
It seems that the Postal Service is following a model based on selling people things that they don't realize that they need. But the way the questions are structured, they'll only get a "yes" or a "no" answer. Why not engage the customer in a dialogue. Let's say I'm sending a package overseas. Wouldn't it be better to say, "Gee, that package is going a long way away and will go through a lot of hands. Would it be useful to find out when your package has arrived?" In this example you're looking to sell people on the benefits of a service by making them realize how it will make their life better. You're selling peace of mind.
The Post Office needs to offer specials like any other business. When I go to the concession stand at a movie theater, I'm asked whether I would like to double the size of my drink or popcorn for just a dollar more. Why can't the Post Office bundle it's products into special deals. Make it easy for people to want to invest more.
No doubt there are current regulations or time honored practices that would prevent my ideas from being used. But for agency that's $10,000,000,000 dollars in debt, maybe it's time to try some new things.
Do you want to buy some stamps?
Do you want buy delivery confirmation?
Do you want insurance?
Do you want to send it overnight? (This cracked me up as I was sending a letter about 30 minutes down the road.)
I've read the stories of how the Post Office is billions of dollars in debt and am sympathetic to the need to bring in more revenue. But I found that the efforts to raise more revenue a bit amateurish. Here's why:
Myself and the others in line ahead of me were asked the same questions. No doubt the clerks are following a script but none of us were mailing the same kind of thing. Does a cookie cutter approach really serve the customer's needs? After hearing the people in front of me be asked if they want to buy stamps, I think I would have realized whether I needed to buy them or not before I reached the counter.
It seems that the Postal Service is following a model based on selling people things that they don't realize that they need. But the way the questions are structured, they'll only get a "yes" or a "no" answer. Why not engage the customer in a dialogue. Let's say I'm sending a package overseas. Wouldn't it be better to say, "Gee, that package is going a long way away and will go through a lot of hands. Would it be useful to find out when your package has arrived?" In this example you're looking to sell people on the benefits of a service by making them realize how it will make their life better. You're selling peace of mind.
The Post Office needs to offer specials like any other business. When I go to the concession stand at a movie theater, I'm asked whether I would like to double the size of my drink or popcorn for just a dollar more. Why can't the Post Office bundle it's products into special deals. Make it easy for people to want to invest more.
No doubt there are current regulations or time honored practices that would prevent my ideas from being used. But for agency that's $10,000,000,000 dollars in debt, maybe it's time to try some new things.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Why Many Leaders Fail...
Whether you're the CEO or a supervisor, how effective is your leadership style? When asked that question, many leaders will respond by saying something like, "I know that I'm a tough boss. That's my style and I'm sticking to it" or "I'm a people person and I get the most out of my staff by being understanding."
In both examples, the leaders could be making a mistake. Too often a leadership style is only seen as being about the leaders and not the employee. Employees are seen as needing to be "broken," like a horse, to a particular style. When people don't change in the desired way, a lot of time is spent on trying to fix them.
Instead you may find it more effective to ask yourself whether your leadership techniques are getting you the results that you want. If ruling with an iron fist isn't working then try a few more pats on the back. And vice versa. Keep in mind that this process is not about you but rather it's about generating a positive outcome. As a leader it can be very easy to lose sight of this and instead take staff performance personally. That kind of thinking can create a very antagonistic situation and can isolate you from your team.
College football coaches change their leadership styles all the time. They can't be as demanding of a freshman heavy squad as they would if their team is full of experienced seniors. But in both cases, the ultimate goal is winning the game and getting the most out of the team.
In a perfect world, leaders would be able to install a staff that perfectly fits their style. But most of the time, you inherit employees and you become a part of their existing work culture. In the past, those who didn't fit your style would eventually leave the organization for a better environment. It's a different story in today's economy, where downsizing and cutbacks have people staying in their current jobs because they don't have anywhere else to go.
Isn't it better to focus on maximizing the talents of the team you have in place? Adjusting your style to fit their needs will not only boost productivity but save you from the hassle and expense of hiring and training someone new.
In both examples, the leaders could be making a mistake. Too often a leadership style is only seen as being about the leaders and not the employee. Employees are seen as needing to be "broken," like a horse, to a particular style. When people don't change in the desired way, a lot of time is spent on trying to fix them.
Instead you may find it more effective to ask yourself whether your leadership techniques are getting you the results that you want. If ruling with an iron fist isn't working then try a few more pats on the back. And vice versa. Keep in mind that this process is not about you but rather it's about generating a positive outcome. As a leader it can be very easy to lose sight of this and instead take staff performance personally. That kind of thinking can create a very antagonistic situation and can isolate you from your team.
College football coaches change their leadership styles all the time. They can't be as demanding of a freshman heavy squad as they would if their team is full of experienced seniors. But in both cases, the ultimate goal is winning the game and getting the most out of the team.
In a perfect world, leaders would be able to install a staff that perfectly fits their style. But most of the time, you inherit employees and you become a part of their existing work culture. In the past, those who didn't fit your style would eventually leave the organization for a better environment. It's a different story in today's economy, where downsizing and cutbacks have people staying in their current jobs because they don't have anywhere else to go.
Isn't it better to focus on maximizing the talents of the team you have in place? Adjusting your style to fit their needs will not only boost productivity but save you from the hassle and expense of hiring and training someone new.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Change and the Channel...
Recently, I saw some 20 year old sports highlights on TV. I immediately noticed that the athletes were not as muscular as they are today. But even more surprising was the fact that the TV image was so uncluttered.
Back then, the were very few onscreen graphics. The corner of the screen didn't show the score of the game, the time remaining in the contest, as well as other scores from around the league. It was perhaps a bit more like watching the game from the stadium.
Today some might say we receive too much information while watching sporting contest. Quite a few NFL fans turn their dens into Mission Control centers where they can watch multiple games from anywhere in the country. For them, watching a game is about enjoying multiple contests simultaneously, monitoring the players who are in their fantasy league, and interacting with other fans through social media.
While part of me may miss the days of yesteryear where our appetite for information could be easily satisfied, it would feel weird to go back to the way things used to be. Like many forms of change, we don't notice how it can happen gradually as well as how adaptive we can be to new ideas. Think about this, the next time you're asked to take on something new and different in your life.
Back then, the were very few onscreen graphics. The corner of the screen didn't show the score of the game, the time remaining in the contest, as well as other scores from around the league. It was perhaps a bit more like watching the game from the stadium.
Today some might say we receive too much information while watching sporting contest. Quite a few NFL fans turn their dens into Mission Control centers where they can watch multiple games from anywhere in the country. For them, watching a game is about enjoying multiple contests simultaneously, monitoring the players who are in their fantasy league, and interacting with other fans through social media.
While part of me may miss the days of yesteryear where our appetite for information could be easily satisfied, it would feel weird to go back to the way things used to be. Like many forms of change, we don't notice how it can happen gradually as well as how adaptive we can be to new ideas. Think about this, the next time you're asked to take on something new and different in your life.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Should Lance Armstrong Be Worried?
As a cancer survivor, I've proudly worn a LiveStrong bracelet since they first came out in 2004. I admire the work Lance Armstrong and his foundation have done to raise more funds for cancer research as well give those dealing with cancer a chance to come together as a community, both online and in person. More than 70 million of the wrist bands have been sold. It truly was the start of a movement that has take on a life of its own.So it's been with great surprise that during the past year I've been asked the same question by many who point at the bracelet and say, "Hey, what is that about?" When I explain what it is and what it means, some people remember what I'm talking about. But a lot seem totally surprised that such a program exists.
While the bracelets probably peaked in popularity back in 2004 or 2005, they are still worn by a lot of people today. Perhaps those who don't know what they are have been fortunate enough to have never been touched by cancer. At the same time, I have an awareness of a lot of things in our culture (like Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers) that really don't interest or appeal to me.
And it worries me if they learned about LiveStrong years ago and have since forgotten about it. Has our culture developed such a short attention span that we forget significant branding and slogans in the space of five years? Perhaps what bothers me most is the idea that awareness of cancer as a problem may be fading at a time when it is still affecting countless people.
What the Supermarkets Don't Know...
I've noticed a lot of cloth bags being sold in supermarkets, which is a nice environmental trend. Hopefully it can cut down on the amount of paper or plastic bags being used. Usually I see the branded cloth bags being sold for a dollar each. That likely makes it a pretty high profit item for the stores.
Think about it: The bags probably cost a few pennies to produce and take up very little space. They're not all that big so it's likely that a family would end up buying several of them.
This got me to thinking whether the cloth bags are being marketed properly. Should a store make a customer pay a buck to walk around with a bag featuring its logo? Perhaps the supermarkets could require consumers to do something in order to get one of the bags for free. Every time you spend $50, you get a bag. It could build store loyalty, give people a reason to go above a pre-selected price point, and perhaps get some people to start using the cloth bags who otherwise wouldn't have paid for them.
What's in it for the stores to change their business model? Besides the environmental reasons, the more cloth bags that are given away (while supplies last), the less paper and plastic ones the store has to purchase, ship, and store. The grocery store also gets some free advertising and perhaps some increased brand loyalty. Would I shop at Albertsons if my cloth bags says, Publix?
Think about it: The bags probably cost a few pennies to produce and take up very little space. They're not all that big so it's likely that a family would end up buying several of them.
This got me to thinking whether the cloth bags are being marketed properly. Should a store make a customer pay a buck to walk around with a bag featuring its logo? Perhaps the supermarkets could require consumers to do something in order to get one of the bags for free. Every time you spend $50, you get a bag. It could build store loyalty, give people a reason to go above a pre-selected price point, and perhaps get some people to start using the cloth bags who otherwise wouldn't have paid for them.
What's in it for the stores to change their business model? Besides the environmental reasons, the more cloth bags that are given away (while supplies last), the less paper and plastic ones the store has to purchase, ship, and store. The grocery store also gets some free advertising and perhaps some increased brand loyalty. Would I shop at Albertsons if my cloth bags says, Publix?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
