Well, Zack has left the Royals.  What does that mean for them, and is there a meaning for the business world?

Longtime readers know that one of my afflictions is that I happen to be a Kansas City Royals fan.  I remember the glory days of the 70s and 80s, but I have many more memories of mediocrity and failure.  Following in the footsteps of this is yesterday’s news that the Royals have traded 2009 Cy Young Winner Zack Grienke.  After thinking about it for a few minutes, I’m not sorry to see Zacko gone, and it goes along with my business philosophies.

Let’s look – quickly – at Zack’s positives.  He was a pitcher with amazing control and ability, who had the ability – when he wanted to – to dominate hitters.  The trouble is that Zack really didn’t want to all that often.  True, he won the 2009 Cy Young, but 2009 was basically the year that his potential became reality.  Last season, when it became obvious that the Royals were not going to contend, Zack basically quit on the team by going through the motions on too many nights.  I have a lot of trouble with players who complain about their team not winning when they obviously are not giving it what they have in an effort to win.

The trouble was that Zack had a lot of negatives, from the official diagnosis of “anxiety disorder” to the less commonly diagnosed, but just as present, “spoiled brat syndrome.”  The Royals did a lot for Zack.  They drafted him in the first round when other teams projected him as a second or third round pick, and more importantly, when he very nearly walked away from baseball in 2005 (in fact, he did walk away), the Royals handled him with extreme patience and got him needed treatment, continued paying him, and did not penalize his Major League service time; other teams have simply cut bait in these instances.  Had the Royals handled matters differently, there’s a good chance that Zack would have the best curveball of any grocery sacker in Florida. For that, the Royals were rewarded with Zack complaining about how much the team stunk last year, and how much he wanted to be traded.  In fact, last week, he fired his agents in the belief that they had kept him from being traded.

The Royals, of course, could have kept him under contract for 2 more years – but why?  For the record, I’ve looked at the players that the Royals got in return for Zack, and I’m fine with them.  I’m also fine with the fact that they packaged Yuniesky Betancourt into the transaction, along with his too-high salary and too-low production; this is addition by subtraction.

So, let’s talk about what this means for business.  I’ve always felt that, when managing a sales force, it was best to let my team know the rules early.  Two of those rules are:

1.  I evaluate you by PERFORMANCE, not by POTENTIAL.  Potential gives you a honeymoon, but not a marriage.  I have watched a number of companies hang onto salespeople for extended periods based on what they hoped the person could accomplish, instead of looking at what the salesperson was actuallyaccomplishing.  This gets expensive really fast; had the Royals paid Zack the $26 million owed him for the next two seasons, it’s unlikely that they would have received $26 million worth of pitching performance.

2.  If you say “quit,” you just did.  Nonsense like “I’m thinking of leaving,” “I might quit,” or other such BS is, to me, a resignation.  Too many business owners will work to try to rectify problems and turn the salesperson around when these phrases are uttered.  It’s a waste of time.  Once a person starts to think of leaving (and I can back this up from my own experience), enough energy is expended on that decision that the person can no longer perform at top capacity.  That’s why, for me, this is one of those things that there is no coming back from. I’m always open to fixing problems, but come to me as an adult and don’t threaten me.  On two occasions, salespeople have said in a fit of pique, “Well, I quit.”  Two very surprised salespeople had their resignations processed ASAP.  In the sales world, you’re either all the way in or all the way out.

Which circles us back to Zack.  The Royals did the right thing by trading him.  Interviews with other Royals have revealed that his teammates are not exactly crying in their beer over the quit.  You’ll find the same after a malcontent salesperson leaves your company.

And why is it a great article?  Because it uses me as a source, of course!  Seriously, it was a good study on credibility in selling.  I may expand on this issue in a future HotSheet.

Click HERE to read the article.  I think you’ll find the insights very helpful.

Sometimes it helps to be accountable to someone other than yourself.  I’ve always considered myself to be self-motivated, but I’ve tried something new and I’m surprised at how well it’s working for me.

Not too long ago, a friend of mine put out feelers looking for a new “accountability partner.”  After we talked, her definition of an accountability partner is someone from a different industry who meets with you occasionally, provides outside advice, and helps keep you on track.  I decided that I was game, and so now I have an accountability partner – or an “accountabilibuddy.”  (Note on that name – it’s from an episode of “South Park” where kids worked on the buddy system in a camp.)  I heard the name on South Park and now I can’t get it out of my head.  So, my friend is my “accountabilibuddy.”

Kim Hibdon is my buddy’s name; she’s one of the best realtors that I know (if you have a need, you can reach her at kansascitykim.com), a good friend, and someone with great business instincts.  At first, I wasn’t sure what I could gain from her, nor what she could gain from me, but it’s become a very nice partnership.  One thing that we lose when we become entrepreneurs is the accountability of having someone to report to; someone who keeps track of our progress and keeps us on track.  Having an accountability partner addresses this.  Neither one of us wants to come to a meeting with no progress or accomplishments in the past two weeks, so I think each of us works harder to make things happen.

Having a relationship like this also divorces the accountability – and its related occasional kick in the pants – from the boss/subordinate relationship; we can be honest with each other in a way that most people rarely are with their bosses.  Even if you are working for someone else, I would strongly suggest forming this type of a relationship.  You’ll find that the outside input is very helpful.  If you want to go down this road, here are a few hints:

Your accountabilibuddy should be GOOD.  Make sure that your buddy is successful at what they do.  I see some of these relationships that are just two unsuccessful people blowing smoke at each other.  Successful people keep each other successful, motivated, and moving forward.

Pick someone from a different business.  It’s tempting to hook up with someone from the same company, or even the same industry.  Don’t.  One of the things that makes this relationship powerful is the outside perspectives that come from two people who make a living in different ways.

Have an agenda.  We started out with a “state of the business” address, and then worked from there.  We set goals and objectives, and then monitor them from meeting to meeting.  We get together, have a nice lunch, and then review objectives from the last two weeks.

Set short term action items.  We leave each meeting on an action-item. In other words, we set up at least one major accomplishment that needs to be done by our next meeting (if you haven’t guessed already, we meet every two weeks).

Don’t be afraid of the other person.  In our short time together, Kim and I have both applied a gentle kick in the pants to each other to make sure that we’re getting where we need to go.  It’s only through this pressure that we can help each other achieve our objectives.

A relationship like this isn’t easy, but it can be rewarding.  I would encourage all of you to give it a shot.

Pardon me for getting on my soapbox a bit (of course, you’re probably used to it by now), but I’m getting tired of hearing people talk about “creating jobs” who have never created them.

The creation of a lasting, productive, private-sector job is very simple.  A businessperson decides to take a risk because he/she feels that the resulting profit will be worth the risk.  That’s it – simple.  It doesn’t matter whether the person is a manager, a salesperson, or a shipping clerk.  More reward than risk = new employment.  More risk than reward = no new employment.

Businesses increase management staff because they believe that the new manager (for instance, a sales manager) will help make their subordinates productive enough that they will not only pay for the manager, but produce profit beyond simply paying for the manager.

Businesses hire salespeople because they believe that the payout in profit from the rep’s effort will be multiples of the compensation.  Same with shipping clerks, invoice processors, or anyone else in the building.  The size of the business doesn’t matter; no business – no matter how large – employs addtional people without the expectation of an expansion of profits or capabilities in return.

Hence, any “job creation” strategies should seek to reasonably adjust the risk to reward mix in favor of reward.

OK, off the soapbox.

Every now and then I watch Undercover Boss, and the show is getting ever more formulaic.  If I could talk to the producers, I have a few questions:

Question 1:  Why no “undercovering” with the salespeople?

Question 2:  What about the other employees?

See, these episodes always end up following the same formula.  Here’s the basic recipe:

• The “Undercover Boss” goes to work at remote locations of his/her company.
• The “UB” does the lowest jobs on the food chain; production, janitorial, etc.
• The “UB” invariably works with people who have sob stories.  Single parents tend to top the list, but it seems that everyone has a story.  This isn’t meant to put down the people working at those jobs.  Some of them (Julie at UniFirst Oklahoma was very impressive to me) are very sharp and capable people, but none live what we might think of as a complete life without significant trauma.
• The “UB” resolves to make changes to make life easier for the people he worked with.  Some of those changes are good, smart management (better communication of benefits to employees), some are a little more questionable (softening of attendance and tardy policies).  The “UB’s” quest at this point is to not appear hard-hearted to a national TV audience.
• At the close of the show, the “UB” reveals himself to the employees he worked with, and then makes some sort of special individual gesture to reward them and help them overcome their particular economic issues.
• Everyone applauds, there’s some crying, and everyone feels better.

It’s a great TV show, but of course, the company still has to open for business on Monday morning, and I always wonder what the repercussions of the “UB’s” special rewards are.  Let’s look back at my questions, and I’ll present my own answers.

Question 1:  Why no “undercovering” with the salespeople?

I think there’s one big reason for this, and it has to do with the evocation of sympathy for the workers that is such a big part of the show.  Salespeople, by their very nature, are probably perceived as less sympathetic than a production worker, and may be less prone to the type of individual issues that are the meat of the show.  After all, salespeople dress nicely for work, who would believe that they have issues?  It’s too bad, though; I think the show would be very illuminating if the “boss” were to shadow real live salespeople.  I guess that will have to wait until I produce my own show, huh?

Question 2:  What about the other employees?

This is probably the bigger issue to live with.  The company profiled tonight – Unifirst – has over 10,000 employees.  That leaves roughly 9,995 employees that may be just as deserving of special treatment, just as challenged economically, and just as hard working as the people given (tonight) college money, cash to see relatives, a trip to the Super Bowl, and a Hawaiian honeymoon, among other things.  It’s not illogical that some of those people are going to go into work tomorrow morning thinking, “Hey, what about me?”  I wouldn’t want to be one of the plant managers that would have to deal with that issue for the next few weeks.

As always, neat show, but one that ends up being more like a game show crossed with an episode of “Oprah” than anything else.

Corp! Magazine has just published my own take on Social Media and Prospecting.  

If you want the definition of “Hands On,” the Ascuaga family in Reno can help.

As I write this, I’m returning from a training program that was held at John Ascuaga’s Nugget casino in Reno, Nevada.  When the program was booked, I thought that it was interesting that the owner personalized the name; unlike Steve Wynn or Donald Trump, John Ascuaga isn’t exactly a household name.  While I was there, I figured it out.  The management of the hotel is very personalized with Mr. Ascuaga and his family.  I was told that it was likely that John himself would stop in during our meeting and introduce himself and check on how things were going.  This didn’t happen; however, his son (the General Manager) did do so.

To make a long story short, I can definitely recommend the Nugget for business or personal travel.  The rooms were clean, comfortable, and large; the food was excellent and at least as good as the best food I’ve had in Vegas, and the meeting program was run efficiently and well.  I hope to return in the future.

I’ve been quoted in a great article on The Ladders!  Link inside.

Awhile back, I was interviewed for an article on resume’ cover letters for TheLadders.com, a site dedicated to job search help.  Since, in my opinion, jobseeking and selling are two parts of the same thing, I thought it appropriate to link that article here.  Click here to read the article.

Another sports-to-selling analogy comes to life!

Well, last night was chapter 1,079 in my life as a long-suffering Royals fan; a heartbreaking loss to Detroit, 3-1.  But at least I got something out of it.  Here’s the situation:  Rookie Danny Duffy pitched a very nice start, 6 innings, 2 runs.  Going into the bottom of the ninth, Royals were down 3-1, with Alex Gordon and Billy Butler making the first two outs.  With two out and nobody on and Detroit’s closer on the mound, Eric Hosmer drew a walk.  And then Detroit made a choice that could have cost them the game.

They chose not to defend the stolen base against Hosmer; i.e. the first baseman didn’t hold Hosmer on first and the catcher didn’t throw when Hosmer advanced to second.  No big deal, right?  That run doesn’t matter – theoretically – because the tying run (at the plate in the person of Jeff Francoeur) was behind Hosmer.  So, Hosmer took second, on what is called “Defensive indifference.”  Francoeur then hits a sharp grounder to Detroit shortstop Jhonny (yes, I spelled that correctly) Peralta.  Hosmer crosses in front of Peralta, which appeared to distract Peralta enough for the shortstop to bobble the ball.  Francoeur is safe at first.

Then, Francoeur steals second.  Suddenly, the Royals have the tying run in scoring position – and none of it would have happened had Hosmer not taken second.  Had Detroit defended the base against Hosmer, it’s unlikely that he would have attempted to steal – not with the tying run at the plate and two out in the ninth inning.  Because of one instance of Defensive Indifference, Detroit now faced a situation where a sharp single tied a game that had looked very safe.

Of course, because this is the Royals, Mike Moustakas flied out to left, and ended the game.  But that’s not the point.

I see “Sales Indifference” every day.  Salespeople who go in to meet a customer with no objective, no idea, no game plan, and no real way to make a profit out of the call – just going through the motions.  That’s “Sales Indifference.”  Even one call like that can be enough to lose a customer; do it often enough and your customers will leave in droves.

So, do YOU play to win on every call, or could the scorer call “Sales Indifference” on you?

Once in awhile, a business book comes from an unlikely source and makes a big impact.  I have a feeling that this is one such book.

If your very life depended on your business decisions, would you make different decisions than you do? If your subordinates might choose to eliminate you, not only professionally but completely, would you treat them differently? These are some of the questions that employees of one of America’s oldest businesses have to deal with every day. I’m talking of course, about the Mafia – La Cosa Nostra, the Outfit, the Syndicate, whatever you want to call it, it’s the confederation of primarily Italian organized crime families. It was also Louis Ferrante’s employer for a number of years. After going to prison, Ferrante chose to exit the Mafia, and enter the world of “legitimate” business.

The Mafia has fascinated America for decades and has had hundreds of books written about it. However, not one of those books has ever focused on the lessons that the Mafia can teach normal businessmen, until now. Ferrante’s “Mob Rules – What the Mafia Can Teach the Legitimate Businessman” is the first book to apply Mafia management practices to the challenges that businessmen and women face every day – and it’s an extremely effective one.

Behind the violence and crime, the Mafia has been home to numerous incredibly effective businessmen and managers of people, and Ferrante’s time with the organization exposed him to their knowledge and techniques, which he dissects in 88 short chapters. The book is written in small bites with powerful take-aways, and is separated into lessons at three levels: Soldier (employee), Capo (middle management), and Don (boss). At each level there are lessons which can help you maximize your role, most of which are illustrated by Mob stories that run the gamut from the frightening to the hilarious. It’s also very much an in-your-face book with some rough language; those with tender ears and eyes might not apply. The lessons are hard, the examples punchy, and the apologies few – but while Ferrante might ruffle some feathers, he’s exposing you to ways to make money and better your career.

The best bank to put your faith in? The Bank of Favors, according to Ferrante. The power of networking comes through hard and often. History purists might cringe at the comparisons between the leadership styles of George Washington and “Lucky” Luciano – but by the end of the chapter, they’ll find themselves wondering, as Ferrante does, if Luciano studied Washington and sought to emulate his style. The material isn’t just about the Mafia, either; Ferrante draws inspiration from sources as diverse as the ancient Greeks and Romans.

The section for employees provides a lot of great advice about actually working for a living, particularly in our “work as self esteem therapy” world.  The middle management chapters show that the Mafia has just as much corporate politics as any Fortune 500 company, and how to surf those waters.  The “Boss” section has great lessons for leaders both in assertiveness and humility. And there are numerous great examples for those who want to learn how to make great, profitable deals that keep all parties happy.

Meyer Lansky once said of the Mafia, “We’re bigger than U.S. Steel.”  They didn’t get that way by being dummies, and Lansky was perhaps the greatest businessman of all.  This book allows you to learn from the experiences of Lansky, Luciano, Gambino, Capone, and others – and apply those lessons to careers that carry far less personal risk.

Overall, this is definitely a Recommended Read. The short chapters and the liberal use of anecdotes make it an easy read; the lessons taught and the implications for your career make it impactful. Behind the Mob cover is one very serious and effective business book.