It’s OK to say “I don’t know”

Posted on March 31, 2015 by Content in Context

Thanks to the example set by our media-groomed politicians, it seems that nobody is willing to admit when they don’t know the answer to something. Rather than reveal a gap in their knowledge, they prefer to fudge their way to a non-committal, irrelevant or even incorrect response, by trotting out a favourite policy slogan or party catchphrase. Wouldn’t it be refreshing (and more honest) if they just said “I don’t know”, and then figured out how to find the appropriate answer?

Image by: Alexander Henning Drachmann

In previous posts, I have commented on my frustrations at poor customer service, and in particular, the inadequate customer service training given to front-line staff. My latest run-in with poor customer service training came at my local supermarket. Owing to an innocent misunderstanding at the checkout, I asked the checkout assistant to reverse the payment on my credit card payment and debit it instead from the cash balance on my store loyalty card.

“No, that’s not possible”, I was told. “It’s already gone through on your credit card. You’ll have to use the loyalty card next time.”

“Surely,” I replied, “it’s a very simple process to reverse the transaction, and process it again?”

My request was further denied as being “impossible”. Eventually, the checkout assistant admitted that she “didn’t know” how to do it, so she would need to ask her supervisor to do it. “Fine,” I replied, and suggested she could have said this in the first place.

Problem was, the supervisor had no idea either. “I’ll have to re-process your transaction by scanning and reversing each item individually, and then put them through again.” By this time, I was wondering why I chose to shop here, and seriously considering why I would ever do so again.

“There must be an easier way,” I suggested. “I can’t be the first customer to have had this issue.” After further hesitation and prevarication, the supervisor said she would have to ask her manager to show her how to do it, as she herself didn’t know the process.

Turns out, it took one transaction code to reverse the credit card payment, and then reprocess it on the loyalty card – and without having to re-scan my shopping.

I don’t blame the checkout assistant, as clearly she hadn’t been trained how to do it (although she should have admitted as much in the first place). I’m a little surprised that the supervisor didn’t know either (how did she get promoted?). But the real blame must lie with the manager (or his manager) for not making sure the staff working under him knew the process, or knew who could perform the transaction.

To me, leadership (in politics, in business and in the service industry) is about making sure people know how to do their job, that they have the right tools and information to perform their duties, and that they know what is expected of them in the role. In cases where they may not know the answer, then it’s better to admit “I don’t know, but I’ll find the answer”, rather than fumbling the issue.

Next week: Updates on Apple Health, AusPost, eTaskr and Slow School of Business

Personal vs Public: Rethinking Privacy

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Content in Context

An incident I recently witnessed in my neighbourhood has caused to me to rethink how we should be defining “privacy”. Data protection is one thing, but when our privacy can be compromised via the direct connection between the digital and analog worlds, all the cyber security in the world doesn’t protect us against unwanted nuisance, intrusion or even invasion of our personal space.

Scenario

As I was walking along the street, I saw another pedestrian stop outside a house, and from the pavement, use her smart phone to take a photograph through the open bedroom window. Regardless of who was inside, and irrespective of what they were doing (assuming nothing illegal was occurring), I would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.

For example, it would be very easy to share the picture via social media, along with date and location data. From there, it could be possible to search land registries and other public records to ascertain the identity of the owners and/or occupants. And with a little more effort, you might have enough information to stalk or even cyber-bully them.

Privacy Law

Photographing people on private property (e.g., in their home) from public property (e.g., on the street outside) is not an offence, although photographers must not cause a nuisance nor interfere with the occupants’ right of quiet enjoyment. Our current privacy laws largely exclude this breach of privacy (unless it relates to disclosure of personal data by a regulated entity). Even rules about the use of drones are driven by safety rather than privacy concerns.

Since the late 1990’s, and the advent of spam and internet hacking, there have been court decisions that update the law of trespass to include what could be defined as “digital trespass”, although some judges have since tried to limit such actions to instances where actual harm or damage has been inflicted on the plaintiff. (Interestingly, in Australia, an act of trespass does not have to be “intentional”, merely “negligent”.)

Apart from economic and financial loss that can arise from internet fraud and identity theft, invasion of privacy via public disclosure of personal data could lead to personal embarrassment, damage to reputation or even ostracism. (In legal terms emotional stress falls within “pain and suffering”).

Data Protection Law

The Australian Privacy Principles contained within the 1988 Privacy Act apply to government agencies, private companies with annual turnover of $3m or more, and any organisations trading in personal data, dealing with credit information or providing health services. There are specific provisions relating to the use and misuse of government-derived identifiers such as medical records and tax file numbers.

The main purpose of the privacy legislation is to protect “sensitive” information, and to prevent such data being used unlawfully to identify specific individuals. At a minimum, this means keeping personal data such as dates of birth, financial records or hospital files in a secure format.

Some Practical Definitions

The following are not legal definitions, but hopefully offer a practical framework to understand how we might categorise such data, and manage our obligations towards it:

“Confidential”

Secret information that must not be disclosed to anyone unless there is a legal obligation or permission to do so. (There are also specific issues and exceptions relating to “classified information”, public interest matters, whistleblower protection and Freedom of Information requests.)

“Private”

Information which is not for public or general consumption, although the data itself may not be “confidential”. May still be subject to legal protection or rights, such as the right of adopted children to discover the identity of their birth parents, or the right of someone not to be identified as a lottery winner.

“Personal”

Data that relates to, or can specifically identify a particular individual. An increasing issue for Big Data, because data that otherwise resides in separate locations can now be re-connected using triangulation techniques – scrape enough websites and drill down into enough databases, and you could probably find my shoe size.

“Public”

Anything that has been published, or easily discoverable through open search or public database retrieval (but, for example, does not include my past transactions on eBay unless I have chosen to disclose them to other users). My date of birth may be a matter of record, but unless you have authorised access to the relevant database or registry, you won’t be able to discover it and you certainly shouldn’t disclose it without my permission.

Copyright Law

One further dimension to the debate is copyright law – the ownership and related rights associated with any creative works, including photographs. All original content is copyright (except those works deemed to be in the “public domain”), and nearly all copyright vests with the person who created the work (unless they have legally assigned their copyright, or the material was created in the course of their employment).

In the scenario described above, the photographer would hold copyright in the picture they took. However, if the photograph included the image of an artwork or even a framed letter hanging on the wall, they could not reproduce the photograph without the permission of the person who owned the copyright in those original works. In some (limited) situations, a photograph of a building may be subject to the architect’s copyright in the design.

Curiosity is not enough justification to share

My personal view on all this is that unless there is a compelling reason to make something public, protecting our personal privacy takes precedent over the need to post, share or upload pictures of other people in their private residence, especially any images taken without the occupants’ knowledge or permission.

Just to clarify, I’m not referring to surveillance and monitoring by the security services and law enforcement agencies, for which there are understandable motives (and appropriate safeguards).

I’m saying that if we showed a little more respect for each others’ personal space and privacy (particularly within our homes, not just in cyberspace) then we might show a little more consideration to our neighbours and fellow citizens.

Next week: It’s OK to say “I don’t know”

Help! I need to get some perspective….

Posted on March 17, 2015 by Content in Context

At a recent professional networking event, I found myself in conversation with a business owner and tech entrepreneur. As I was describing my work, he suddenly asked, “Do you mentor your clients, because my business partner and I could use some help?”

I was somewhat surprised by the question, because although I see my role primarily as a business consultant and coach, it hadn’t occurred to me that what I did included mentoring, even though it’s probably in the mix of services and support I offer. And from experience, working with business partners can sometimes be likened to relationship counselling….

To be clear, though, I see that there are distinct differences between consulting, coaching, mentoring and counselling – even though the boundaries may at times be blurred.*

The one thing I believe they have in common is that they each bring external perspective, especially when there may be a need for fresh thinking, such as a new take on current processes, or simply a circuit breaker when businesses get in a rut or hit a road block.

Here’s what I regard as the essential and unique qualities of each of these roles:

Consultant

At its simplest, consulting can be described as initiating the dialogue between an organization and itself. When it concerns a review of ongoing operations, or a strategic initiative, most organisations call in consultants because they want an outsider’s view – not because they don’t know what they are doing, or can’t think for themselves.

As external consultants, we have the privilege to be invited into a client’s organisation; and our obligation to the client is to tell them what we really think, not what we think they want to hear. Our purpose is to capture the relevant information and “play it back” to the client to make sure we have understood what we have heard, whilst adding our honest interpretation of the data, along with some informed recommendations for action (which, of course, the client is free to disregard).

Our key contribution is to highlight inconsistencies or ambiguity in the data, to ensure that the client has considered all possible options, and to point out relevant external factors that the client may not be aware of. Above all, as a consultant I try to bring insights as well as perspective – what one person I have worked with described as “pure gold”.

Coach

The most effective coaches are those who can help clients identify specific goals, the steps required to achieve them, and then support them through the process. While business coaches can work with groups or teams, they are more suited to one-on-one relationships, to ensure they are keeping the client accountable for their own progress.

Many business coaches see their primary role as helping the client develop a strategic plan, and then making sure they stick to it, sometimes by telling them what to do. Whereas executive coaches may hone in on a particular aspect of an individual’s performance, to sharpen their skills and to make them more effective in their role; or in the case of a career coach, help them achieve a career change.

In some cases, a coach is similar to an instructor, and aims to help the client improve a skill or competency in pursuit of better outcomes and results. As a coach, I know the best work I do is when I get feedback like, “You’ve helped us to do in three weeks what it would have taken us three months!”

Mentor

Mentoring is mainly about helping the client to become the person they aspire to be. More so than coaching, mentoring is most effective in a one-on-one relationship, and unlike coaching may not be linked to specific or time-based goals. A mentor may bring deep domain knowledge and experience, but doesn’t instruct the client or tell them what to do. Instead, a mentor may ask, “So, what are you going to do about it?” when the client raises an issue or a problem.

While a coach may focus on “doing”, a mentor may be seen as helping to develop certain behaviours or attitudes. Although the mentor is also there to provide some external perspective, in some ways their role is to hold up a mirror so that the client can reflect on what they (and others) can see.

In some situations, a mentor can provide a role model, so long as this is not about following someone we admire, and more about self leadership. More importantly, a mentor can act as an advocate, which is significant for entrepreneurs, business owners, CEO’s and senior executives, for whom it can be “lonely at the top”.

The best mentoring probably happens when the “process” is invisible – and the dialogue happens in the moment. I know from experience that my role as a mentor has had most impact when I hear my words or ideas being expressed by others – not as plagiarism, flattery, imitation or even sycophancy, but because the mentee has taken on board what I have said, and made it their own.

Counsellor

Counselling could be defined as the dialogue around change and transformation, although it is different to mentoring in that it can address cognitive perspectives, as well as behavioral issues.

We are familiar with the role of change managers, but without engaging the organisation on the need for change, their work can become process-driven (and a thankless task). It’s much better to foster an open dialogue about the broader context and opportunity for change, which can open up new possibilities for transformation. Ideally, this approach can take some of the fear out of the change program, as well as creating a sustainable change model.

I have known some managers to use counselling techniques to resolve operational issues within their teams, because it can be an effective way to get to the bottom of a problem without apportioning blame and without being judgemental.

Counselling can cross the line into “giving advice”, which is not always helpful if clients are not receptive, or if it means clients don’t learn to think or decide for themselves. I once trained and worked as a counsellor in helping people resolve personal, employment, financial and legal problems. The key requirements of the role were helping the client to see that there may be a number of different solutions (without telling them which one to choose), and to uncover the underlying issues (rather than dealing only with the presenting problem).

The best counselling provides clients with a sense of empowerment, backed by a clear understanding of their responsibilities, and an appreciation for the consequences of choosing one course of action over another.

Putting it all together

As mentioned earlier, despite their differences, the roles of consultant, coach, mentor and counsellor can overlap – and there’s nothing wrong with this, as long as practitioners and their clients understand when and how the positions may alternate between one state and the next. Ultimately, it will depend on both the circumstances of the situation, and what is appropriate to the clients’ needs.

Note:

* There is a particular tendency to use the terms “coach” and “mentor” interchangeably, even though they are quite separate. For a good summary of the differences, see this recent article.

AngelCube15 – has your #startup got what it takes?

Posted on March 10, 2015 by Content in Context

Startup Victoria‘s first Lean Startup meeting of the year heralded the launch of AngelCube‘s 2015 accelerator program (#AC15), for which applications are now open. A good opportunity to check in with previous successful applicants, and find out if your startup is made of the right stuff.

The info evening was hosted by inspire9, and supported by PwC, and Nathan from AngelCube kicked off proceedings by giving a run down on the accelerator program, the application process, and the type of startups that are more likely to be accepted.

What does the program offer?

A 3-month intensive learning and development experience
$20k in funding (in return for 10% of the business)
Co-working facilities
Working with Lean methodology (focus on Product-Market fit)
Access to great mentors and advisers, and early-stage investors
Participation in a fundraising roadshow (including time in the US)

There is an application form via AngelList, and the closing date is May 10 (but the sooner you can submit the better). From the hundreds of applications, AngelCube puts together a shortlist of 20, of which no more than 10 will likely be accepted.

What is AngelCube looking for?

Globally scalable tech startups (think beyond Australia!)
In-house tech skills/resources (it’s not really a matching service)
Great teams (more than the ideas themselves)
Customer traction (ideally revenue-generating)
Consumer-oriented solutions (rather than B2B)

What has the experience been like for successful graduates?

Three alumni of previous AngelCube programs offered some personal insights, and then participated in a Q&A with the audience of 400:

First up was Peter from Ediply, a service that matches students to the course or university of their choice. Given the growth in education and lifelong learning, and the increasing numbers of students (especially from Asia) looking to study overseas, the business seemed like a natural fit for AngelCube. However, it was still a relatively new or unknown sector in terms of end-user or independent services (rather than in-house marketing and enrollment efforts) – which sort of broke one of AngelCube’s rules for acceptance: no established market. Peter stressed that the main reasons for applying were the need to overcome some development barriers, and to get out of a “Melbourne mindset”.

Ash from Tablo (“YouTube for books”) probably broke another AngelCube rule, in that he was a sole applicant (not part of a team) and he had limited tech resources. AngelCube made him work harder, think big, and keep going – and helped him to become a disruptive force in publishing, with customers in 130 countries collectively publishing 1 million words a day. He’s also closed a C-round of funding, and has some impressive investors on his share register.

Lastly, David from etaskr (“a private label elance”) had to quit a full-time job with one week’s notice once he got accepted into AngelCube. He even had to Google how to pitch. Plus he came into the program with a totally different idea, got slammed, failed to get customer traction, and ended up pivoting to an enterprise software solution (and broke another AngelCube rule in the process – no B2B, because of the longer sales cycle). Despite having to live on very little money for 6 months (less than $200 pw) the team persevered, and are now starting to get traction, including overseas markets like Holland. His final words were “risk is not something to fear, but to overcome”.

Q&A with the audience

Most of the questions were about the application process for AngelCube, and how it helped the successful startups, particularly with going global. In large part, this due to some great networks, access to high-profile connections (“we got to meet the first employees at Yammer!”) and links to some influential investors. There was also some discussion about how to secure your first customers (mainly via social marketing techniques), and the challenge of enterprise sales (“it sucks, because you need 100 different minds to all say ‘Yes!'”).

Finally, for more insights, please visit these links to previous posts about AngelCube and some of the successful applicants.)

Next week: Help! I need to get some perspective…