Has "Passion" Jumped the Shark?

First of all, happy holidays and New Year to all. 2007 was an exciting year for us and we are looking forward to a great but challenging 2008 as we look to see where this economy takes us. I"m not going to get into my predictions on the economy because there are many far better paid prognosticators who will get 2008 wrong, so I'll leave it to them and get on to my post.

For some context as to the title of this post, "jump the shark" is a term that denotes the point when something has reached its pinnacle and is now about to begin to decline. The term comes from a Happy Days episode when Fonzie literally jumped the shark tank with his motorcycle. This was the climax for Happy Days and the show went downhill from there. There is actually a whole website dedicated to "jump the shark" moments - be sure to check it out.

As any of you who know the Vann Group know, passion is something we talk about quite frequently. Its one of the core tenets of Collins Hedgehog Concept. We preach it as part of our strategic planning process and even have a section on our website dedicated to our passion and the passion we look for in choosing the companies we work with. So you can imagine how much it pains me to even begin to contemplate the thought that term "passion" has joined the lexicon of business terms and concepts that have jumped the shark.

Two recent news/stories have led me to consider whether or not passion has lost its meaning. The first was this story about Bill Parcells, who announced in his inaugural press conference with the Miami Dolphins announced that he would only be drafting players who have passion. Yikes! If Parcells is talking about passion the term has had to lose its meaning. After all, the Tuna has only ever had a passion about his next job, certainly not for building organizational culture that survives for the longterm. From the context in which we apply "passion", Parcells in the antonym!

The second story was in Sunday's Boston Globe Magazine and entitled Married to the Job. The article is about romantic relationships and dedication to work (yes, Amanda was sympathetic to the story!). Beyond that what caught my eye it has a paragraph about passion that really hit home and made me consider whether or not passion has jumped the shark. Here is the key paragraph from the article:

"Consider: Some 978 of Monster.com's Massachusetts job listings have "passion" as a keyword. Companies want people who are passionate about investigating insurance claims, selling motorcycles, thwarting shoplifters, and replenishing the stock on the shelves of a discount clothing store. My favorite, placed by a restaurant chain, requires that all candidates demonstrate "a passion for casual dining." Do they rent rooms by the hour for that?"

So 978 job listings have the word passion in the description - amazing! Have that many companies gotten the religion of passion or has passion become just another buzzword that we are randomly applying because it sounds good to use? From a business sense has the word lost its meaning? Or alternatively, has it become a qualifier - as in you need a masters, 3-5 years experience and the ability to demonstrate passion about casual dining? I'm not sure, but what I do know is that once a word or phrase becomes ubiquitous it: 1) loses its value and 2) has a backlash against its use.

I would hate to see this happen to passion because much like the term "love" or "six figure bonus" when properly applied it communicates a powerful feeling. To have it watered down would be extremely disappointing because of what it does imply and what we believe. However, as I continue to assess whether or not passion has jumped the shark I've begun looking for other terms that I can use to communicate the principles of passion in the event I find that yes, passion is on the 2008 in/out list. So far, I'm not having any luck, as the thesaurus does not provide much help. Any suggestions you can provide would be greatly appreciated!

Lastly, I'm leaving for a European business trip on Friday, so look for a couple of posts in the next week or so as I will finally be able to catch up on my business reading.

Tattletale Ethics

Cindy, you know by tattling on your friends, you're really just tattling on yourself. By tattling on your friends, you're just telling them that you're a tattletale. Now is that the tale you want to tell?

Mike Brady

Now Mike Brady may not be Peter Drucker, but he does provide an interesting point in management advice – nobody likes a tattletale. We may think of a tattling as a childhood obsession but it has some real implications in the world of business. After all, many of us know something unsavory about a competitor or fellow employee or have had an experience with someone that exposes behaviors/traits/responses that do not match the public persona that the individual/company has presented. We would love to announce it to the world, but we rarely do.

Why it tattling not tolerated by us? Is it the so-called “honor amongst thieves”? Is it our own perception that we are taking the highroad and not resorting to negative behavior? Or, is it because all of our lives we have had the words of Mike Brady reinforced – nobody likes a tattletale?

Take the case of Mr. Eric Mangini of the New York Jets. No need to go into the details as they are on display in every sports section today, but Mangini became a tattler this year when he turned into the league one of his peers – Bill Belicheck for videotaping signals of the Jets and other teams in the league. The initial outcry in the press and throughout the league was shame on Belicheck and the Patriots for cheating.

Yet, as time started to drift, there seems to be a bit of a directional shift. The comments in the press are not about what a brave and noble thing it was for Mangini to come forward, but consternation for his betrayal of: 1) the coaching fraternity (as Jimmy Johnson notes in USA Today, he did it and everybody else does it to a degree); 2) his mentor who brought him along from an intern to a head coach; and 3) the New England franchise and the Kraft family who were loyal to him and provided him the opportunity that led to his job.

Today, the press isn’t moralizing about how the Patriots cheating betrayed the spirit and integrity of the game. Instead there are segments of the media and the blogosphere that are talking about how untrustworthy Mangini is and how New England is going to use this as motivation to destroy the Jets. The anticipation of perhaps the greatest single game demolition in the history of football is being gleefully cheered by the masses. Mangini and the Jets have gone from protectors of the integrity of the game to the main course for the lions (err Patriots) at the Coliseum. Apparently, Mike Brady was right – tattling just tells your friends you are a tattletale.

Is there an ethical obligation to be a tattletale? One can argue that no significant harm was being done. Mangini could have easily adjusted his signals and could have informally made it known to his peers to look out for this when playing the Patriots. Tattling is an option, but not the only one. Did Mangini create a greater sin in his peers and the publics’ eyes because the nature of his actions made it very clear that in tattling he was only doing so to hurt a competitor and conceivably gain an advantage? If so, does this mean that tattling is only acceptable when there is nothing to gain in doing so? In essence, should we only tolerate tattling when it is for the public good?

It is commonly accepted that the messenger is usually the one who pays for delivering the news. One would assume that a man with the nickname “Mangenius” would have known this. Apparently, he decided otherwise or that the gain achieved from outing the Patriots as cheaters would outweigh the cost. In making his decision Mangini has learned that there are consequences to tattling.

Right or wrong, in tattling Mangini has opened himself up to public scrutiny. Whether he is cheating or not, his ethics and motivations are being questioned and criticized on a far more fundamental level. After all, people can understand the motivation of a cheater – the motivation of a tattler is not easily understood.

As business owners and managers we have to make difficult decisions everyday and this situation teaches some fundamental points of leadership. We live in a complex world and decisions need to be considered from every angle not just what is right and wrong. We need to take into account all the impacts of a decision especially when they involve ethics. Ethics seem to be a fuzzy thing and when calculating the impact of a decision on our business and our employees we need to recognize that what we perceive is right isn’t universal especially when the decision is going to be a public one. In the business world being “right” from an ethics standpoint has very little to do with the final outcome.

I don’t know what Mangini was thinking when he blew the whistle on Belicheck but it’s likely he didn’t consider the full impact the decision would have on his team or his own personal reputation. Whether anyone involved will admit it or not, one has to assume that it has had a negative impact on his team. Time spent answering questions about “camera-gate” take away preparation time and focus. Worse, perhaps he lost some of his locker room because not everyone agrees with his stance. After all, how willing are they going to be to give their all to someone who betrayed and publicly humiliated their mentor? If so, it has a direct impact on their ability to perform.

Whether or not tattling was the right decision is a call only Mangini can make. In hindsight maybe he makes the decision again or maybe he realizes that the gain wasn’t worth the price. At the very least, I hope he can sleep well at night. When it comes to ethical decisions that is all you can really hope for.

Whoops!

I just noticed that the previous post was published uncompleted - apparently blogger decided I was done writing! I've finished the post so it doesn't stop in the middle of a sentence. Sorry about that. Look for another post in the next couple of days - the topic "Tattle Tell"

Some Odds & Ends

Clearly its been a while since I've last posted. I wish I could blame it on the holidays or the weather or even Dick Cheney, but alas, its all my fault. Yes, I'm taking the fall for my inability to maintain my blog site - clearly there is a discipline to this that I have not yet grasped. With that being said, I've been busy grabbing some miscellaneous insights into the world of business these days.

Last week I attended a rather enlightening credit union conference in Hawaii (go ahead sneer, the weather wasn't that good) and took along my family. That means Amanda and I took our nearly 1 year old daughter Abigail on a series of flights that covered almost 5,000 miles and 14 hours. At the time, I couldn't decide if I was just dumb or plain stupid! Amazingly enough, Abby is a fantastic traveler (she has already been to 10 states!) and was great on the plane so it was a great trip.

Anyways, I wasn't initially impressed with the conference proceedings, but as they soaked in, I was glad I went as I gleamed a number of insights. First, I should note that the keynote speaker was Charles Fishman of "the Wal-Mart Effect" fame. After hearing him speak and reading the book, I can say that he provided some fresh insights into Wal-Mart but certainly didn't provide the level of analysis on how smaller companies can compete with behemoths who have commoditized industries (paging Jim Collins). During his talk, Mr. Fishman spoke rather passionately about how challenging banking with Wachovia was and how wonderful it was to deal with his credit union. Mr. Fishman, in his discussion made it clear that the key to competing was to provide an unmatched level of customer service. However, it was very clear that despite numerous customer service problems his primary financial institution was Wachovia rather than the CU that served him so well.

During the Q&A I inquired as to why his PFI was Wachovia rather than his CU. His response was extremely enlightening. His CU was far away and despite moving to a new area he chose Wachovia with its many locations, great online banking and very competitive rate structure over finding a CU near his residence. Despite superior customer service, rates and convenience were so important to him that he didn't even bother looking into a credit union! What this proved is that while customers may scream about customer service a significant portion of any of our customers are just like Mr. Fishman - its the speed, convenience and price of the transaction that drives their decision - not customer service.

This clearly doesn't include every potential customer, but based on my reading of his book, I would have to say that it would be safe to assume that at least 1/3 of customers fit this mold. This means that at any given time at least 1/3 of your customers are ready to change their patronage of your business if someone faster, easier and cheaper catches their eye. Unless our plan is to compete in this type of red ocean this reality is extremely discouraging. However, the insight also provides a bit of a direction for building a Blue Ocean Strategy (yes we can help with that) if you desire to break away from servicing this element of the market.

Essentially, if can quickly conclude that at least 1/3 of the market of customers is not your customer you only have to worry about what the other 2/3rd's of the market wants. With some careful and thoughtful analysis you will probably determine that at least another 1/3 of the market is probably not your likely customer as well. This means that perhaps only 1/3 of the potential buyers of your product/service are your likely customer. I know this sounds strange, but take a look at your customer base today - what percentage do you consider truly loyal to you?

Recognizing that your market is a fraction of the size you thought it was can be strangely liberating as it allows you to truly identify who your ideal customer is and what it is that they want and need. With that knowledge you can then match it up against your core competencies to see where the gaps are and take steps to minimize them. In doing so, you will make your company more competitive and therefore more attractive to the customer you truly want as your customer.