Getting to Yes: Sales, Sex and Parliament Hill

 

 

Objections are inevitable but should never be seen as a door slamming closed in your face.

 

There's no small irony that we're hearing about the awkward backroom sexual interactions of Parliamentarians at the same time they're making decisions about sex work.

One other piece to add to the mix, though - ABC.  That is, Always Be Closing - the mantra of the salesperson.  This concept of always being on the hustle is the narrative spine of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, which is the system we have right now.  You have to push to get what you want.  No doesn't mean no, no is simply an invitation to probe further and get to yes.

 

Ever heard of Getting to Yes: How To Negotiate Agreement Without Giving In?  Ever hear of senior executive suggesting female employees need to be coming all the way to them and demanding promotions instead of expecting their work to be recognized on its own merits?

 

How about "kids these days, they're lazy, they aren't trying hard enough to get jobs, they want everything handed to them." ?

 

As the economy tightens and as the people at the top consciously or unconsciously start to reap the benefits of being kings and queen's of the hill, there's an increasing amount of pressure on everyone else to do the heavy lifting.  Which inevitably means sales.

 

Michael Hlinka is one of those that teaches young students to hustle, to set real-world expectations and fully admits that he abuses the perks of his position because he can.  The implication of what he says is "my position shouldn't exist as it does" but the lesson taught is "I get to there, my troubles are over." 

 

Don't take no for an answer.  Hustle.  Be aggressive in your sales.  It's all about completing the transaction - Always Be Closing.

 

After an interlude in the bathroom to collect her wits, she re-entered the bedroom with the intent of finishing her drink and leaving. But Pacetti pulled her onto the bed. They had sexual intercourse. She then left.

 

Good for Pacetti, right?  He kept at it; intro at the bar, convinced her to go back to his place, drinks, clarified intent, closed the deal.  Transaction made.

 

Maybe the lead was weak, but he got it done.  High fives in the locker room, or the boardroom for stuff like that.

 

That's not exactly how we want to look at sex, though, is it?  If anything, Bill C-36 suggests we think sex should be an act between an engaged couple and that sex-as-exchange is morally wrong.

 

Of course, sex and sales are completely different things, right?  We fully expect rational-actor adults to realize there's a difference between "it's just business" when hard-selling people for cash or votes but something sociological when it comes to reproduction.

 

But where are the examples of these rational actors?  If anything, the evidence suggests that the aggressively successful people are more, not less likely to act the same way in their professional lives as they do in their personal lives.  Of even worse, having recognized a veneer of civility helps make it easier for people to give them what they want.

 

Ghomeshi shocked a nation (more because we enjoy the notion of being shocked than any actual surprise that a celebrity would act inappropriately).  #beenrapedneverreported started uncomfortable conversations about male sexual aggression towards women while touching on the dearth of EQ there is at all levels of society (but perhaps excessively so at the top of competitive fields like politics).

 

Now, there's this. 

 

Shelia Copps kneed her attacker in the groin; a pretty clear indication that advances weren't appreciated.  I would suggest that Ms. Copps has more balls than many of the men on Parliament Hill and it's not a reasonable expectation for every woman to be as aggressively self-defensive as that.

 

Pacetti pushed for what he wanted and created favourable conditions (his place, his booze) to get it.  Is that much different than looking for a majority government to push through omnibus bills with?  Is it any different from a youth seeking work setting their sights on a job they want and doing whatever they can to land it?

 

Which could very well be what Alexandara Constantinidis did.  Or Michael Sona did, and proudly so.  Or Sebastien Togneri did, because that was the example he had to emulate.

 

Frankly, anyone who's scored successive wins in politics has played this game.  Adjusting policies to win votes, attacking opponents to reduce their votes or a whole host of less polite tactics are all part of getting to yes at the ballot box.

 

We have tried to silo our actions for messaging purposes, because that's how messaging works.  We have ignored what troubles us and focused on low-hanging fruit, because that's how quick wins get amassed.  Yet as a consequence to all this, we have waded into a tangled, messy reality that we're trying to mask with a veneer of civility that is rapidly flaking off.

 

There are no individuals who bear the blame; there are no innocents.  We will never get out of this sticky mess of cultural dissonance without asking some hard questions of ourselves, our environments and our expectations of life, of work, and of society.

 

We have to grow past a functional fixedness on short-term wins and start discussing actual solutions.  This can't happen if we focus on transactions - we need to engage in relationships.  That means moving beyond the WE want THIS from THEM framing into something more #howmightwe move forward together?

 

If ever there was a time to commit sociology, it's now.  Right now.

 

 

The NBCs of Closing: From Transaction to Relationship

Remember Always Be Closing?  Make the deal, focus on the transaction, get them to sign on the line which is dotted, period?

That's so yesterday.  We're moving on from that.  

Traditionalists and tough sales folk will scoff, brush off what they see as a fad and go on being Don Draper or Wolves of Wall Street.  Everyone else, though, is paying attention to this bit of wisdom:

Never Be Closing.  NBC.

Why, you ask?  Isn't the whole point to make a sale and move on?

Nope.  Making one sale is about pushing for an end-game; the pressure is on to do business, whatever the cost.  You will cheat, lie, bully, beg, whatever it takes to cross that line - but what then?

Especially in the days of social media, your reputation precedes you.  If you're a bridge-burning ass, people will know.  They will care, too - because, by association, working with you will leave a taint on their brand.

That means the day of Gordon Gecko is coming to a close.  What comes next, well - read the other half of that famous Art of War quote to see.

Why Cars Should Be Considered Hes

I'm not saying we would be better off without an auto industry.  But we would certainly be better off without taxing our own industries every year to pay off Detroit's extortionists.

The Harper Government is not fond of unions.  They block growth, demand the world and generally impede success through aggressive obstinance - right?

The auto industry, clearly, is a different matter.  They simply do a good job of selling their value to the Canadian economy.  Squeaky wheels and grease, so to speak.

This sounds oddly familiar:

"The women don't come as often to complain.  The men do, so my experience is a little different in that I do think that more men put a fuss up about money than women."  - John Tory

The auto industry is subsidized beyond it's actual contributions to the economy, because they put up more of a fuss about money.  They complain, they threaten, they spend time, effort and money advocating for themselves - and as such, get more.

But is this overall a good thing for the Canadian economy?  Are we greasing the wheels at the expense of our economic chassis?  By heavily investing in traditional manufacturing, are Canadian governments impeding our national ability to innovate and growth into new opportunities?

Well, no - because if those new opportunities were so great and bountiful, clearly someone would be aggressively selling them to the laissez-faire purse string holders.  These innovators, social and otherwise, would be aggressively pitching, attending fundraisers, golfing and otherwise strategically hobknobbing with our socio-economic influencers.  That's the way the capitalist system works, right?

"More women need to invest the time in any capacity available to them to strengthen their relationships with colleagues."

By doing things like going out for drinks after work, weekend golf tourneys, all that kind of thing.

Which is kind of hard to do if you have kids.

It's sad how many competent, even excellent women I know in fields ranging from community consultations to government relations who are almost apologetic when they get pregnant, because they know it's going to place a burden on their employers.

Worse still is knowing how many working mothers (who don't make enough to afford nannies) simply can't go drinking after work or play golf on the weekends, because it's just accepted that they're primary caregivers - even when they are full-time employed.

To sum up, women who take responsibility for both work and family are punished because they aren't pushing themselves while men who take the time to sell themselves get the raise and the corner office.

Conversely, men who "act maternally" by taking responsibility for family and firm, putting the interests of both before self are marginalized.  They aren't man enough, you see - they don't complain enough or drink enough or go to the links enough.

I laugh when I hear people like Michael Hlinka talk about how employers reward value as a matter of principle.  We've got a very primitive notion of what value is.

But so what as along as the economy keeps rolling as it always has, I suppose...

John Tory: Competition vs Accomplishment

There's been quite a lot of writing recently about how the reason women make less money than men is because they don't negotiate the same way as men.  Men adopt an active negotiating posture and women don't.

I will say, when I've had to negotiate, I will say to you the number of men who came to negotiate with me were much higher than women.  Women don't come as often to complain, the men do.

If you're maybe kinda sorta contemplating a bid for higher office, this was about as clever as thing to say as that time Mitt Romney talked about having binders full of women.

From a behavioural perspective, however, there's something really interesting to be mined in this.

Tory makes a point; men do tend to be more selfishly aggressive than women (in that the average man is more aggressive than the average woman, not that selfish aggressiveness or passiveness are unique to each gender).

It's not a uniquely human thing; across mammalian species, males tend to be flashier in their appearance and more likely to fight with each other for status and dominance (which largely reads as increased access to women).  

Physical features like the peacock's tail and the deer's antlers are biological testament to this. 

Now think about this in a social context for a second.  We automatically assume that aggressively standing up for one's interests is a good thing, be it the better cut of meat or the corner office.   Competitive men are more likely to get what they want, therefore making them better investments.  

Right?

In nature, the more competitive male gets the resources, gets the female and passes on its genes.  In theory, the socially more aggressive male will make more sales and be of greater value to their employer; this aggression gets rewarded through higher wages and corner offices.  Eventually, they and the companies that employ them become too big to fail, right? 

Not really, no.  Aggressive, alpha salesmen are selling brand more than they are product, ignoring or downloading risk to people less important or competitive than they are.  They fail all the time - the higher up they get, the more people there are carrying the risk for them.

Aggressive sales isn't always a good thing, especially when the product or service isn't that great.  The focus shifts from being about the quality of a product and more about tearing down competitors - kinda like political attack ads. 

Look at Julian Fantino's attack on veterans and unions or Rob Ford's dogged defense of his record as the best mayor in the history of cities.

The other thing about an aggressive focus on winning is that, by the very nature of competition, success of one comes at the expense of someone else.  What happens when your competitors don't cave so easily?  Syria provides a great example of how badly this approach can turn out.

War has traditionally been the province of men not because they're tough enough to fight, but because on the whole, fighting comes more naturally to them. 

The ability to sell products/services of lower quality, the drive to push down competitors and aggression as a default - these might be great skills to have in a sales environment, but they're also a recipe for stagnation and failure.  Feudalism, Wall Street collapses and the hollowing out of democratic politics are all examples of where elbows-up aggression gets us.  

How many brutal women dictators can you name?  Exactly.

History is the story of humankind moving in the opposite direction, towards increased social-emotional fluency, collaboration and a focus on results rather than sales pitches.  It should come as no surprise that, as women have become more fully empowered and integrated into society, we've become less violent, more sophisticated, more balanced and even more innovative.

The last is key, especially in fields like politics.  If you think that policy development is a social equivalent to natural selection, with the best ideas already in existence needing only tough salesmen to ensure the best policy genes are carried on, fine.  But what if the solutions at hand aren't up to the challenges of the day?

Reproduction isn't about carrying one person's genes forward - it's about getting the best blend of each. 

Smart policy (admittedly, a rare commodity) works the same way.  It blends perspectives and approaches to create the best adapted and flexible end product.

If you're so focused on winning and selling what you have that you can't view alternative perspectives as anything but competition, you're losing the ability to incorporate, grow and build partnerships.  You may grow big and strong, but as a result you lose the ability to adapt and, as the world change, you become as irrelevant as horses and bayonets (or for that matter, coal plants).

Smart companies have recognized that it pays to be adaptable and to work with employees to ensure they have the tools, accommodation and compensation they need to succeed rather than wait for their workers to come to them.  

That way it's the best talent, not the most aggressive negotiators, who rise up the ranks and keep the organization competitive in an evolving landscape.

It doesn't sound to me like John Tory spent much time seeking out, understanding and supporting the best talent in his teams.  Like far too many bosses, he played the laissez-faire game, hoarding his money until someone came and aggressively convinced him to part with it.

As such, he represents traditional models of leadership that are proven less effective, especially in economies that are heavily dependent on innovation.  It's a shame, really, because he understands how destructive a winner-take-all approach can be to sound decisions getting made.

It's probably true that women are less likely to spend their time demanding more from their bosses; by the same token, it's equally likely that women leaders are more likely to do the right thing and empower their employees so they can spend more time working than negotiating.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather a leader that supports the team than individuals focused on taking what they can get.  

Something I think John Tory should be familiar with.

On Accountability and Doing Jobs Well

So the next time you see an IBC letter to the editor, column, ad or video, remember the IBC is a lobby group doing what it can to further the agenda of its members.

That's its job.  And it does it very well.

Absolutely true.  Anybody can lobby government over issues or bugaboos.  We're all equal, right?  It just happens that the best lobbyists are highly strategic, connected and know exactly the right buttons to push.  Much like the Political Parties they cut their teeth in, these super-lobbyists build coalitions of support, identify and mitigate potential threats and spin like crazy to get what they want.  That's why they get paid the big bucks.

The minister cannot be held responsible [for this].  However she must require that a thorough assessment of the situation be done, including an undertaking on behalf of anybody who may have been hurt and whether there is a counselling plan and/or legal consequence in place for the offender.

Not responsible for the actions of staff, but responsible for getting a thorough understanding of consequences and planning for fallout accordingly.  Gotcha.  So from whom do they get that thorough understanding again?

Don't worry about it.  Just have a glass of milk instead - it does the body good, doncha know.

Employees Are Not One Night Stands

HR is becoming a big pain in the neck for employers.  They have bottom lines to meet, work to get done - they want to quickly get the talent they need, pass on work (or vague concepts that can be crystalized into work and sales - hence the "hiring talent" piece) and move on.  There's a growing frustration with these apparently needy, cheeky millennials that expect clarity of direction, recognition for work done and meaningful engagement in a company's decision-making and implementation.

Um, no.  That's not how the real world works.

In the real world, bosses are in charge and new hires have to work damned hard to prove their worth. This means overtime, grunt-assignments and developing the capacity to intuit the boss' needs without them having to waste time explaining it to you.  If you can't manage this, well, that's why the new hires are on contracts only - they can be quickly canned and replaced.

You see, bosses don't have time to hand-hold or train new staff; they've got some significant sustainability issues due to the massive uncertainty around the global economy and their own sector. Partisan wars are making the policy landscape unpredictable, it's hard to know what may be a good investment or a bad one.  In a lot of cases, the solution appears to be hunker down and weather the storm.

Which brings us back to HR.  

Hiring can be a lot like speed-dating - you read a bunch of CVs, buy a couple of kids some coffee and bring on the one who seems like the best fit (skills and personality) for your shop.  If it doesn't work, well, they're only on contract; you tell um it's not going to work out, send them on their way and move on.  And on.  And on.

The more you do this, though, you begin skewering your view of what a potential hire is all about.  Are they trying to tell you what you want to hear to get the job, or are they equally interviewing you to see if there's a fit?  Is their priority to grow in a role and maximize their potential, use you to pad their CV or do they just want to make some money?  We'll get to the money-focused piece later.

Employment isn't a transaction; to say labour-for-money is the entirety of the process is like saying that food is strictly about sustenance (or romantic relationships are strictly about sex).  If you get enough value out of bread-and-water, fine, but in a competitive, evolving marketplace I'm gonna hazard a guess and say you've probably realized you need to branch out a bit.

The employer/employee relationship is not transactional - it's multi-dimensional with a whole host of factors including management style, clarity of communication, flow and even work design impacting the productivity, health and creativity of your employees.  All of this, in turn, impacts the adaptability and responsiveness of your team.

It is absolutely true that millenials have different expectations from work than their parents did - but then, the sorts of opportunities and challenges they face aren't the same as those their parents dealt with.  

This generation will live longer and work longer than the previous one.  As the CPP discussion rages on, there's less and less sense that retirement is even an option.  Besides, if you want to make money and make a difference, you're not looking at 9-to-5 jobs, either.  

There's an expectation on the side of youth that they'll have to blog, tweet and instagram about their day jobs, take calls at random hours and spend more time at networking and other related events.  They'll be thinking about their work and the value they can add while they're out with their friends, riding on the subway or shopping.

They want more from their employers, but their instinctively prepared to give more, too.  They're not looking at employers as pay cheques, but parts of their expanding network and future plans for growth.

Here's the big irony - bosses who either don't recognize the need to change and are fighting to hold the line or those who recognize that something's gotta give and are reducing their focus on HR so they can spend more energy on exploring new business avenues are missing the point.

If you hire well and commit to your staff, you can build a lasting relationship with them that will add value to what you do now and down the road.  Like any relationship, you should not expect employees to be constantly in agreement with you or to understand everything you say immediately; the reverse is equally true.  The goal isn't simplicity or one-way message flow, it's about complimentary capabilities and healthy friction that results in innovation.

Yes, there are certain basic skills you will want to look for in filling positions, but your focus should be more on the people than what they bring to the table on paper.  Understand clearly what you're hiring them for and what your expectations are (or perhaps even make the expectations development part of the hiring process) and plan accordingly.  If you, as a leader, go in looking to empower your future hires to reach their goals through adding value to their company (instead of a linear focus on what they can do for you) you'll be surprised what they'll be prepared to do for you in return.

All it takes is commitment.

Now back to the money-focus.

We have an increasingly laissez-faire culture that puts more pressure on front-line workers to be all things to all people - they need to follow instructions, intuit direction from unclear messaging, give regular (but simple) updates without expecting the same in return, have to find clients, pitch to clients, close deals and implement the work.  If they can't do all that, well, someone else can.

The same is being taught to students/new graduates - the ability to sell is the most important skill you can develop.  You need to sell yourself to employers, make them understand why they should hire you. Always Be Closing, etc.  To understand how foolish an approach this is, you need to have some understanding of behavioural economics.

Selling is not the same as accomplishing.  It never has been, nor will it ever be.  When you're focus in on selling, you're trying to portray confidence and incite a sense of urgency.  You have a problem, I have the solution, nobody else does.

That's what politicians do.  They overstate their capacity and undermine their opponents, then create a sense of urgency pushing you to donate to them or vote for their candidate.  Attention, Interest, Decision, Action.  So, how well and universally do politicians perform?  When does the selling game stop?

It doesn't.  Errors get downloaded, spun or ignored.  Wins are taken credit for where involvements was minimal and blown up to be larger than they are.  Problems that don't look like they have clear, communicable wins to them are simply overlooked.

It's not dead - it's resting.

Selling is about controlling the narrative, keeping up appearances and making a profit - which is not what accomplishment is about.  Accomplishment is collaborative, iterative and focused on the long-term, not the quick-hit.

We have sales-driven politics that are failing to address structural problems, but doing a great job on advertising.  We have firms across the board who are investing more in superlatives than they are in innovation or HR.

With all this selling going on, we're falling behind the curve.  Other jurisdictions are spending less time on preening and more on rolling up their sleeves.  It's time we catch up and start realizing that nobody buys the spin any more - they want to see results.

Death of the Salesman

"The notion of death is so mysterious and enormous that, in many cases, it seems easier just to lock it away, although it has a way of escaping and sneaking up on our peripheral vision."

 

Be it sales, politics or tying the knot, it's recognized that the best way to motivate action is to apply pressure.  Act now, or lose your chance!  Don't let someone else beat you to it!

 

Death is a pretty definitive pressure point; we can deny it or ignore it, but we can't escape it.  The more we can sense death (of the body, a tradition, our reputation, our party) hovering around us, the stronger becomes the urge to react.  Those reactions tend to be more focused on the short-term; instinct, after all, is momentary - it doesn't plan ahead.

 

Of course death, like most of the truths we cling to, depends on one's point-of-view.  When you see yourself as part of something larger - a system, as if you will - the end of you begins to matter less than what you leave behind.  Instead of worry about what happens to us, we can consciously decide what to do with the time that is given us.

 

When you're not worried about outracing the bear, even at the expense of your friends, you realize that when we turn and face that fear together, we're stronger.  That's when you stop consuming life through products and services sold to you and start to live it yourself.  Pressure is the best recognized motivator - that doesn't mean there isn't something better.

 

Selfishness merely outruns the bear, but must keep on running; it's altruism that defeats fear entirely.

Politics vs Policy: Huner or Farmer?

 

What happens when you get a political strategist to design policy?

 

Worth asking, as it's something we've seen a lot of over the past years aqt the federal, provincial and municipal levels.    

 

With that in mind, read the following: 

Salesperson: Hunter or Farmer?

by Mike on May 19, 2011

 

I’m from New York, although I’ve been in St. Louis for 19 years and have lost most of the accent and some of the harsh edges. But I still like to make extreme statements – the kind that would fit as a headline for the New York Post. And I’ve learned from many consulting engagements, it’s often necessary to make extreme declarative statements to wake up the client and help swing the pendulum back toward the center.

 

The single biggest problem I see contributing to lack of new business development success is the hybrid hunter-farmer sales role.

There. I’ve said it. And I feel better already. After just five months back at full-time sales consulting, I can share without reservation that the typical blended part new business hunter, part account manager sales position is killing the NewSales acquisition efforts of many companies.

I know. You’re not supposed to point out the problem unless you are ready to share the solution. Well, this issue is big and hairy, and there isn’t a simple fix or canned solution. But the problem is so massive and so pervasive that it’s worth opening up the dialogue even if I can’t wave the magic consultant’s wand and pull a neat and pretty answer out of my hat.

 

There are precious few true hunters, but an abundance of account manager-farmers. Take a look at your sales team. How many legit A-player rainmakers do you have? If yours is like the typical company I see, the answer is between 10% and 20% of your team. Most likely, it’s closer to 10%. So…let me ask: if you have so few true new business killers, why do you task them with account management responsibility that dilutes their hunting effort? What’s the opportunity cost of having your best fisherman cleaning, cooking, setting the table, doing dishes? Before responding with your pat answer or the company line, answer this: are you hitting your fish-catching goals? Honestly, I am tired of hearing how important all these other “sales” functions are. Stated simply, if you are not hitting your new business acquisition numbers, isn’t it fair to examine how much real time and focused effort is actually dedicated to the cause?

 

No one defaults to prospecting. No one. Show me one blended-role salesperson who is ignoring the needs of an important existing account to focus on new business development (prospecting) and I’ll show 10,000 salespeople doing the opposite. Finding a successful part-time prospector salesperson is as rare as seeing Halley’s Comet racing across the night sky.

 

Yes, I am being extreme – intentionally. Sure, there are rare cases when super-gifted and disciplined humans end up on our sales teams. And these freaks of nature have both the gifts and skills to love on and penetrate existing customers, yet know when to carve out dedicated prospecting time, possess the drive and technique to get in front of strangers, and thrive hunting for new business. And every single sales leader reading this post would pay the moon to have just one person like that in their organization!

 

Questions to ponder:

1. When was the last time you took a hard look at the account management/service burden that is placed on your supposed new business sales team?
2. Is your sales compensation structured in such a way that a dollar sold to an existing account pays the same commission as a dollar sold to a new account? Year after year?
3. If you’re falling short of the desired level of new business acquisition, have you considered studying how salespeople are actually spending their time? I fear you may be shocked about the ACTUAL amount of time dedicated to prospecting by salespeople with hybrid hunter-farmer responsibility.

 

Show, Don't Tell: The Magic of Weta Workshops

 

I love great story telling.  Most of us do.  When we know we're in the hands of a great story teller, we feel comfortable going back to them again and again, knowing that each tale they tell will be filled with the same passion they won us over with in the first place.

 

Which is why I love Weta Workshops so much, too.  They love what they do.  They clearly enjoy sharing what they do - the visual stories they create, but also the loving effort that goes into building those stories.  They love it so much they can't help but add value to every project they undertake.

 

Like any great story, though, Weta's love of behind-the-scenes featurettes does more than just bring a bit more if their magic to light; it also gives us confidence in their passion for story telling.

 

It's brilliant marketing, this.

 

Animation for the Hobbit

 

A Single Dream

 

Inside the Workshop

 

Show Reel

Political Sales - Know Your Audience

 

In selling, the character trait of patience is at least as important as, and probably more important than, chutzpah. Customers are more likely to buy from people who have the ability to listen and to empathize than from people who are obsessed with closing a deal.

 

You can see politics as competition - destroying your opposition - or you can see it as sales.  You can agitate voters into voting against, but only in the absence of meaning.  What earns the people's trust, though, isn't knowing what you stand against, but what you stand for. 

 

Naturally, people want to know you stand for them.  Voters are always more likely to buy from and come back to the Party that listens to and empathizes with them.