The Art Of Managing "Yes"

Sometimes Agreement Can Turn Out To Be Bad

By David Miranda

The Yes man (or woman) has gotten a bad rap in business circles - and rightfully deserved. These bobble heads of assent, particularly when its viral, aid and abet in allowing a bad idea to be disguised as a good idea.

The higher a bad idea rises on an organizational hierarchry, the greater the potential damage. How does this happen? People in the enterprise not knowing how to manage "yes". We all know how to manage "no". We stop. We rethink. We revise. "Yes", however, gains momentum in the organization and, unless tested by constructive dissent, is like a snowball rolling down hill. It eventually becomes an unstoppable force. When a bad idea disguised as a good idea attains this kind of organization momentum, without constructive dissent, a disaster is waiting to happen.

Yes people whose little voice told them "this is a bad idea, but everyone else including the boss likes it, so I'll keep my opinions to myself" are accessories to the crime. These are the same people who comment after the disaster "I knew all along that that was a bad idea". It's like the old adage "success has many fathers (mothers), but failure is an orphan".

Bad ideas disguised as good ideas? There are many historic examples. Here's two.

Where were the voices within Coca-Cola during the creation of New Coke? Didn't somebody speak up in one of those many meetings and say "hey, what if we upset all those millions of people that like Coke just the way it is? Think any of them might care?" New Coke has too much momentum and senior management support of "yes".

How about IBM thinking it was a good idea to out-source the operating system for the IBM PC to an unknown firm called Microsoft? It's the hardware that's more important. Bad idea disguised as a good idea.

The moral of these story is that there is an art in managing "yes". Here are some guidelines

1. The higher you are on the org chart the more weight your "yes" carries. Be careful and prudent on your influential vote. Other people are watching and listening.


2. Trust your initial gut reaction. It's probably the most honest.


3. Speak out and be vocal of your opinions particularly if dissenting. Silence translates into tacit approval.


4. Don't dissent just to dissent or approve just to approve. Have good solid foundations for your opinion or you will just be considered just negative or a yes person.


5. Collaborate, listen, create dialogue with others in your organization - not to build consensus but to build confidence in the process and the ultimate decision whether it is yes or no.


6. Don't be afraid to expose a bad idea regardless of its maturity in the planning cycle. Saying its gone too far or its too late to stop is a cop out and implies corporate cowardice.


7. If everyone is agreeing, there is a problem. No one agrees on everything.

Bottom line? Don't take yes for an answer.

Marketers - Discover Your "Sense Of Human"

Remember People Buy Your Stuff, Not Marketing "Terms"

By David Miranda

Imagine going to a dinner party at a friend's house. On arrival, you knock at the door and no one answers. You discover the door is open and you enter the foyer to see a sign that says "Please wait to be seated". You observe the hosts scurrying around the premises arranging this and that while you (and other arriving guests) are massing at the door. They see you, smile, continue their activities and you hear one say to the other "looks like a number of our target audience have arrived." Finally one of the hosts comes over and the first words out of their mouth is "how many in your party?". They seat you in the living room and then ask "can I get you anything from the bar?" and then immediately disappear while you and other guests stare at each other in utter disbelief. Have these people gone mad?

Sounds crazy, but this is the typical reception that people get in restaurants every day. It is an example of the restaurant people losing "their sense of human".

It also happens in marketing where people are seen as "targets", "prospects", "eyeballs", "impressions", "click thoughs", "Gen Xers", etc. Are these the terms that these same marketers use to describe their family, friends, neighbors, colleagues? Of course not. Ever receive a direct mail solicitation addressed to you, but with the caveat "or the existing occupant"? Makes one feel very special. Or how about........

.........."Hello, mom. As a key target audience of our family, I noticed that you did not "click through" on the email I previously forwarded to confirm our call today." or.......... "Honey, our Gen Y neighbors contacted us today in response to our direct mail solicitation for a free home-cooked dinner offer. I reminded them to present the enclosed coupon on their arrival to our home."

Marketing has de-humanized the people that they wish to "engage" to buy their stuff. Simply put, marketers have lost their "sense of human".

If airlines, for example, discovered their sense of human they would be concerned about how people were treated during the typical airport experience - from departure to arrival. Airlines, however, consider people that travel "passengers" - customers that pay various fares to get from Point A to Point B - hopefully with their luggage.

So marketers need to consider this when thinking about getting people to want to buy their stuff.

Think of them as human beings. Discover your "sense of human".

Recognition Marketing - Good Search Engines Can Do Bad Things

Sponsored Links - Bait And Switch?

I love Google (and Yahoo!, Ask, MSN, Lycos, etc). Each provides a quick and friendly tool to find what I am looking for. Google even shows me that my search for whatever produced several hundred thousand results in .02 seconds. Simply amazing!

Ever notice (or click), however, on what these search engines call "sponsored links"? These are the ones that magically (and always) appear at the top or right hand column of search results. These are the ones "sponsored" or paid for by third parties. These third parties successful bid (and pay for) keywords and phrases that guarantee their links appear next to the free (organic) listings. By the way, the search engines make a considerable sum of money from these "sponsored links" known by their better name "paid search".

I, for one, am not against anyone making an honest buck and the search engines have surely done that in recent years.

But there is something amiss here that needs to be corrected (or disclaimered). In other media, mis-direction or misleading ads of this kind all called "bait and switch" , i.e. "I thought I was getting this, but I got this instead." Translation: "I've been bamboozled".

Let's say you did a search for say a specific brand (Delta Air Lines, AT&T Wireless, Citibank, etc.) and in the sponsored links you noted "Delta Air Lines" etc and clicked on it only to find it was not Delta Air Lines, but another firm's web site who had paid the search engine for the keyword phrase "Delta Air Lines" say a travel agency or another competitive airline. Sounds like bait and switch to me. Wouldn't you also wonder why a respected search engine would be a party to re-directing or misleading you?

I am sad to report that this is indeed the case with many sponsored searches. There is not even a clear disclaimer that informs the consumer that "the following links may not be sponsored by the mentioned brand."

I, for one, thinks its high time that search engines respect the integrity of brands on their respective sites. If the link implies it is sponsored by the brand I recognize and I am searching for, I should be linked to that brand and not some company that has hijacked it or a search engine who is aiding and abetting this behavior.

To all the good search engines, I say, stop this bad behavior. Put consumers and brands first.