Potential: Revealed

Strategic Thinking, Innovative Ideas, Growth Marketing, and Revealing of Potential

Archive for potential

Potentially Optimistic

At another URL I maintain a blog that is quite political, or at least contains a fair amount of writing and comments on the state of things political and socio-economic. I refrain from that on my blog here because it is my intent to stay above — or outside — that often contentious set of issues (important as they may be).

I have been looking for, however, a way to write in this blog about the state of affairs in the U.S. from a balanced but positive perspective. I continue to believe that the potential of America is still yet to be fully revealed. I am certain I have this hope in large part because I desire it to be true for my own children’s sake.

It is hard, in my opinion, not to argue that I and my fellow Americans are quite fortunate to be citizens of an exceptional nation. As our President said recently, many nations, perhaps all, view their nation as exceptional too. That is fine and such an attitude is helpful in fueling the growth and prosperity of the world’s peoples and can serve to lift them out of poverty and turn attention away from conflict and towards betterment of all types.

I will contend though that America has a special role to play in continuing to set an example — and to rely upon its own example set into motion over 200 years ago — for the world to follow.

It is, in other words, important to be optimistic in all facets of life. Even more so in the face of seemingly challenging and possibly overwhelming odds against continued success — or as some fear, survival. As I often quote to my friends, and attribute to my “grandfather”, when you have “fallen into a hole, there is no place to go but up”. This simple thought often gives me encouragement and I use it to encourage others (or add a little humor) when facing a difficult situation.

Gary Becker is a very intelligent man and someone to pay attention to. His writings, fortunately, will outlive him and now that he has reached advanced age his thinking seems clearer than ever. I have produced the link to the text below here. What he says about our future has much caution and some prescriptions for change, but overall it is the optimism for the future, the potential we can still reveal as a nation, and the chance to continue to be a global role model that appeals to me. I hope to you also.

—–

Stanford, Calif.

“No, no. Not at all.”

So says Gary Becker when asked if the financial collapse, the worst recession in a quarter of a century, and the rise of an administration intent on expanding the federal government have prompted him to reconsider his commitment to free markets.

Mr. Becker is a founder, along with his friend and teacher the late Milton Friedman, of the Chicago school of economics. More than four decades after winning the John Bates Clark Medal and almost two after winning the Nobel Prize, the 79-year-old occupies an unusual position for a man who has spent his entire professional life in the intensely competitive field of economics: He has nothing left to prove. Which makes it all the more impressive that he works as hard as an associate professor trying to earn tenure. He publishes regularly, carries a full-time teaching load at the University of Chicago (he’s in his 32nd year), and engages in a running argument with his friend Judge Richard Posner on the “Becker-Posner Blog,” one of the best-read Web sites on economics and the law.

When his teaching schedule permits, Mr. Becker visits the Hoover Institution, the think tank at Stanford where he has been a fellow since 1988. The day he and I meet in his Hoover office, Mr. Becker has already attended a meeting with former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and spent several hours touring Apple headquarters down the road in Cupertino with his wife, Guity Nashat, a historian of the Middle East, and their grandson. “I guess you’d call our grandson a computer whiz,” he explains proudly. “He’s just 14, but he has already sold a couple of apps.”

winterrobinson

I begin with the obvious question. “The health-care legislation? It’s a bad bill,” Mr. Becker replies. “Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses. This bill doesn’t address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It’s going to increase health costs—not contain them.”

Drafting a good bill would have been easy, he continues. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets.

“Here in the United States,” Mr. Becker says, “we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only about 12% of total health-care spending. In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that.”

Despite the damage this new legislation appears certain to cause, Mr. Becker believes we’re probably stuck with it. “Repealing this bill will be very, very difficult,” he says. “Once you’ve got a piece of legislation in place, interest groups grow up around it. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. Originally, the American Medical Association opposed Medicare and Medicaid. Then the AMA came to see them as a source of demand for physicians’ services. Today the AMA supports Medicare and Medicaid as staunchly as anyone. Something like that will happen with this new legislation.”

Bad legislation, maintained by self-seeking interest groups. Back in 1982, I remind Mr. Becker, the economist Mancur Olson published a book, “The Rise and Decline of Nations,” predicting just that trend. Over time, Olson argued, interest groups would form to press for policies that would almost invariably prove protectionist, redistributive or antitechnological. Policies, in a word, that would inhibit economic growth. Yet since the benefits of such policies would accrue directly to interest groups while the costs would be spread across the entire population, very little opposition to such self-seeking would ever develop. Interest groups—and bad policies—would proliferate, and the nation would stagnate.

Olson may have sketched his portrait during the 1980s, but doesn’t it display a remarkable likeness to the United States today? Mr. Becker thinks for a moment, swiveling toward the window. Then he swivels back. “Not necessarily,” he replies.

“The idea that interest groups can derive specific, concentrated benefits from the political system—yes, that’s a very important insight,” he says. “But you can have competing interest groups. Look at the automobile industry. The domestic manufacturers in Detroit want protectionist policies. But the auto importers want free trade. So they fight it out. Now sometimes in these fights the dark forces prevail, and sometimes the forces of light prevail. But if you have competing interest groups you don’t end up with a systematic bias toward bad policy.”

Mr. Becker places his hands behind his head. Once again, he reflects, then smiles wryly. “Of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t any systematic bias toward bad policy,” he says. “There’s one bias that we’re up against all the time: Markets are hard to appreciate.”

Capitalism has produced the highest standard of living in history, and yet markets are hard to appreciate? Mr. Becker explains: “People tend to impute good motives to government. And if you assume that government officials are well meaning, then you also tend to assume that government officials always act on behalf of the greater good. People understand that entrepreneurs and investors by contrast just try to make money, not act on behalf of the greater good. And they have trouble seeing how this pursuit of profits can lift the general standard of living. The idea is too counterintuitive. So we’re always up against a kind of in-built suspicion of markets. There’s always a temptation to believe that markets succeed by looting the unfortunate.”

As he speaks, Mr. Becker appears utterly at ease. He wears loose-fitting clothes and slouches comfortably in his chair. His hair, wispy and white, sets off his most striking feature—penetrating eyes so dark they seem nearly black. Yet those dark eyes display not foreboding, but contentment. He does not have the air of a man contemplating national decline.

 I read aloud from an article by historian Victor Davis Hanson that had appeared in the morning newspaper. “[W]e are in revolutionary times,” Mr. Hanson argues, “in which the government will grow to assume everything from energy to student loans.” Next I read from a column by economist Thomas Sowell. “With the passage of the legislation allowing the federal government to take control of the medical system,” Mr. Sowell asserts, “a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of the values and institutions of America.”

“They’re very eloquent,” Mr. Becker replies, his equanimity undisturbed. “And maybe they’re right. But I’m not that pessimistic.” The temptation to view markets with suspicion, he explains, is just that: a temptation. Although voters might succumb to the temptation temporarily, over time they know better.

“One of the points Secretary Paulson made earlier today was how outraged—how unexpectedly outraged—the American people became when the government bailed out the banks. This belief in individual responsibility—the belief that people ought to be free to make their own decisions, but should then bear the consequences of those decisions—this remains very powerful. The American people don’t want an expansion of government. They want more of what Reagan provided. They want limited government and economic growth. I expect them to say so in the elections this November.”

Even if ordinary Americans still want limited government, I ask, what about those who dominate the press and universities? What about the molders of received opinion who claim that the financial crisis marked the demise of capitalism, rendering the Chicago school irrelevant?

“During the financial crisis,” he replies, “the government and markets—or rather, some aspects of markets—both failed.”

The Federal Reserve, Mr. Becker explains, kept interest rates too low for too long. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made the mistake of participating in the market for subprime instruments. And as the crisis developed, regulators failed to respond. “The Fed and the Treasury didn’t see the crisis coming until very late. The SEC didn’t see it at all,” he says.

“The markets made mistakes, too. And some of us who study the markets made mistakes. Some of my colleagues at Chicago probably overestimated the ability of the Fed to smooth disruptions. I didn’t write much about the Fed, but if I had I would probably have overestimated the Fed myself. As the banks developed new instruments, economists paid too little attention to the systemic risks—the risks the instruments posed for the whole financial system—as opposed to the risks they posed for individual institutions.

“I learned from Milton Friedman that from time to time there are going to be financial problems, so I wasn’t surprised that we had a financial crisis. But I was surprised that the financial crisis spilled over into the real economy. I hadn’t expected the crisis to become that bad. That was my mistake.”

Once again, Mr. Becker reflects. “So, yes, we economists made mistakes. But has the experience of the past few years invalidated the finding that markets remain the most efficient means for producing economic growth? Not in any way.

“Look at growth in developed countries since the Second World War,” he continues. “Even after you take into account the various recessions, including this one, you still end up with a good record. So even if a recession as bad as this one were the price of free markets—and I don’t believe that’s the correct way of looking at it, because government actions contributed so greatly to the current problem—but even if a bad recession were the price, you’d still decide it was worth paying.

“Or look at developing countries,” he says. “China, India, Brazil. A billion people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990 because their countries moved toward more market-based economies—a billion people. Nobody’s arguing for taking that back.”

My last question involves a little story. Not long before Milton Friedman’s death in 2006, I tell Mr. Becker, I had a conversation with Friedman. He had just reviewed the growth of spending that was then taking place under the Bush administration, and he was not happy. After a pause during the Reagan years, Friedman had explained, government spending had once again begun to rise. “The challenge for my generation,” Friedman had told me, “was to provide an intellectual defense of liberty.” Then Friedman had looked at me. “The challenge for your generation is to keep it.”

What was the prospect, I asked Mr. Becker, that this generation would indeed keep its liberty? “It could go either way,” he replies. “Milton was right about that.”

Mr. Becker recites some figures. For years, federal spending remained level at about 20% of GDP. Now federal spending has risen to 25% of GDP. On current projections, federal spending would soon rise to 28%. “That concerns me,” Mr. Becker says. “It concerns me a great deal.

“But when Milton was starting out,” he continues, “people really believed a state-run economy was the most efficient way of promoting growth. Today nobody believes that, except maybe in North Korea. You go to China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, even Western Europe. Most of the economists under 50 have a free-market orientation. Now, there are differences of emphasis and opinion among them. But they’re oriented toward the markets. That’s a very, very important intellectual victory. Will this victory have an effect on policy? Yes. It already has. And in years to come, I believe it will have an even greater impact.”

The sky outside his window has begun to darken. Mr. Becker stands, places some papers into his briefcase, then puts on a tweed jacket and cap. “When I think of my children and grandchildren,” he says, “yes, they’ll have to fight. Liberty can’t be had on the cheap. But it’s not a hopeless fight. It’s not a hopeless fight by any means. I remain basically an optimist.”

Advertisements

Do it your way

A little while back I read an article about Brett Favre, quarterback now for the Vikings but for most of his career the star of the Green Bay Packers. It was a very personal profile. More recently there was an article about Ringo Starr, who will soon turn 70. Ringo of course was the drummer for the Beatles. (Trivia: he was not the original drummer! Do you know who was?). After reading both I had similar reactions and thought I’d write about it.

Both clearly had much potential – potential that was fully and famously revealed by each in their own unique ways.

They were similar in some respects: both grew up in families and surroundings of modest means. Ringo perhaps more so but Brett didn’t have any silver spoons either.

They had different influences though. Ringo said Liverpool was rough and at times violent and unsafe. But he has clear memory of loving and kind people, in his family and from his neighborhood growing up.

Brett had an excessively tough father who was his high school football coach and life long (tor)mentor. His father was critical and unforgiving well into Brett’s adult life and professional career. In one famous incident, he criticized his son’s play and abilities despite Brett having the best year of his career and having just won the league Most Valuable Player award for the 3rd time.

What does this say about revealing one’s potential? It doesn’t matter if you are loved or ridiculed and it helps to start out by growing up poor and then striving hard enough to be successful beyond expectations?

I don’t think so. Something else that they had in common seemed more like the key.

Brett did not have good football passing mechanics. In fact they were unusual and not very pretty. What he possessed was an unusually powerful arm and knack for improvisation, and he could throw the ball farther and more accurately than any rival. He said he simply loved throwing the football. Always had and still does. It is what drives him to compete despite recently turning 40 – and compete at a level that nearly took him to yet another Super Bowl in 2010. He listened to – and focused intently on – this love he had.

Ringo was not a classicly great drummer. Many have said he was the “weakest” Beatle, musical talent-wise. Of course he’s competing with the greatest song writing duo in modern music history (Lennon and McCartney) and a multi-talented artist (George Harrison) so it might be fair to cut him some slack. It’s like saying Dimaggio was only the 4th greatest baseball player – behind Ruth, Williams and Aaron.

But Ringo said he loves drumming. Always had and still does. He has for many years since the Beatles broke up put together a series of touring bands he’s called the All Starr Band (usually packed with contemporary greats from the 60’s and 70’s such as Joe Walsh, Dave Stewart, Gary Wright and Edgar Winter, and from more recent times such as Ben Harper, Joss Stone, Don Was and Benmont Tench). The reason why all these great musicians want to play in his All Starr bands is because Ringo is so fun to play music with. He brings out the best in them because his drumming is there to complement and enhance – not overshadow – his band mates’ playing and singing. He’s considered a pioneer of this style. I’m sure John, Paul and George felt this when they were writing, creating and playing all those great Beatles tunes together. His love of drumming and the role it plays in making great music with great musicians drives him, despite the fact that he is soon going to turn 70 years old.

What’s the lesson? One is a common one: do what you love and follow your passions. Potential and success are often revealed if you do. An important corollary seems to be: don’t worry if how you do what you love is “flawed” or “different” somehow. If Brett and Ringo had let that stand in the way, think of all the potential greatness we would have missed.

Uplift Marketing

Recently we’ve been working on a simple framework for data-driven marketing (i.e., integrated, cross-channel, analytics-based, closed-loop):

Accumulate: • Accumulate data (multiple sources) • Integrate • Cleanse • Aggregate • Store

Synthesize: • Normalize • Match • Common Data Model • Single Customer View

Crunch: •Segment • Score • Peer Compare • Recommendations • Alerts

Publish & Execute: • Publish analytic outputs • Integrate to execution apps

Feedback, Improve & Repeat

An example of results has been impressive. ROI is a mere few months based on what we’ve seen.

More work to do and much evangelizing to propagate and get everybody doing it. But as suspected when we started, there is much potential that has been hidden and shows great promise of being revealed and realized.

Practical Strategy

True to my intent, I have written somewhat eclectically about discovering potential, looking ahead, thinking critically and objectively and wanted to get back to a business-oriented mode for a few posts.

Many organizations (and individuals!) are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to deal with our current, unique and challenging circumstances. But they are also trying to plan for the future (with optimism that “this too shall pass” and wanting to be ready for the next set of opportunities and challenges). I applaud any form of optimism! And so, I have a practical tool for use in getting some strategic thinking and planning done, which seems especially useful in these times as an overdone, over-wrought approach will be overkill when “directionally correct” might be all that is needed until some of the uncertainties and issues of the current time pass. I would argue though that even in more certain times, the approach I’ll write about in this and subsequent posts is useful and gets most any organization beyond being stuck in the present and looking ahead with a critical and purposeful eye.

The approach I advocate is squarely focused on getting a specific vision and strategy down on paper — and will serve as a very powerful tool to also use in successive iterations (a critical component of the strategy process as a one-time vision and strategy exercise might not even be worth the effort).

What I also like about this approach is that it uses language and key words that were not “strategy double-speak” and won’t put off the executives and other participants who often tune out of a strategy exercise because of preconceived notions about strategy, consultants, etc. (i.e., “too complicated”, “too high level”, “not executable”).  

The approach also ensures completeness without being overly complex and strenuous as a management team exercise. I often say when about to embark on this process that I want the team to “work out”, not “wear out”, their thinking capacity.

I call it Practical Strategy because of the definition of the word “practical”: \ˈprak-ti-kəl\, adj., useful and no-nonsense.

There are two basic steps to the process, with the second working through and answering a series of questions. I’ll summarize the first step in this post, and then work through the second part and the questions in a couple of subsequent posts.  The first step is to articulate a long range vision for the business. This can sound too simple on the surface. A good vision is not just a statement that gets put onto posters, inside annual reports, or laminated on cards handed out to employees and customers. Getting it right is hard work but needn’t be a too-long effort. It must be clear, specific and define the place for the business to aspire reaching (but with no set time horizon). A test will be that a good vision statement can be decomposed and set the boundaries for and guide the answering of the subsequent questions in this exercise. If it fails this basic test, the vision is not practical and should be refined.

I’ll give an example. The practical vision for Domino’s Pizza: “Make and deliver a fresh, hot, high-quality pizza to the customer’s home within 30 minutes or less.” Several things:
– this makes clear what value is to be delivered – fresh, hot and high-quality. Any one of these may be sufficient, why choose all three? Knowing why make subsequent decisions about business model, operational strategies and so forth quite clear

– a key differentiator is articulated – 30 minutes or less (and in their advertising they backed this with a guarantee-or-free offer)

– a key operational characteristic is defined – to the customer’s home. If taken literally (which they did), this kept them focused on the home delivery model and away from building sit-down or walk-in or stores, and has clear direction for their location and logistics strategies. 

– even the omission of something can be useful — the vision only mentions pizza. No mention of other products or open-ended placeholders for other foods or items that could be thrown in. It is about pizza, plain and simple.

Not all businesses are as simple as Domino’s. Or is it that not all businesses go to trouble of defining their businesses in such clear and practical ways? I’m sure the answer is in the middle somewhere but I will argue it falls toward the latter.

As always I welcome your feedback and look for a post soon on the first of the questions that must be answered to complete the rest of the Practical Strategy process.

Adversity is an Opportunity

On a plane ride home recently I read a review of a family biography of Henry James, Sr. and his remarkable children. One son, Henry, Jr. was one of the great novelists of all time. Another, William was an intellectual powerhouse and author of the breakthrough work “The Fundamentals of Psychology”. The interesting thing was the odd and hardly idyllic – shall we say “difficult” – familial environment they endured. But it didn’t end there. It wasn’t enough to have an unusual father – one who traipsed around Europe with his family in tow, never putting down roots, subjecting his children to his unique “theories” on education, spirituality, and life and never giving them any chance for normalcy — it was an on-going family saga of unending and dramatic ups and downs which Henry Jr. and William endured throughout their own adult lives.

Why am I writing about these people? Before I say, let me take a tangent to another topic. Recently our adult Sunday school class watched a program about and discussed Randy Pausch’s “Last Lecture” . The story is famous enough that I’ll spare any details of it (although I cannot recommend it enough). What our class discussed, inspired by Randy’s lecture and life, and what we asked ourselves was: “what are the lessons you would like to leave behind for your children when you die?”

The one I offered was “to persevere”. I said the usual trite stuff we heard as kids about “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” and “nothing ventured, nothing gained” and that this would teach my kids to have stamina and courage – which have at various times in life served me well. I want my kids to learn that lesson too, I said. But reading about the James family gave me a different perspective and one that seems more insightful – and powerful. The James’ brothers (as well as Randy Pausch) didn’t endure and overcome as much as they used their life journeys instead to draw strength from, and lead them to, greatness. The challenges they faced turned out to be the “roadmap”, revealing the path to greatness. Why? Because they embraced their life and experiences, continually mixing all of them – the difficult and the tragic, with the good and the bland – until something worthy and satisfying emerged.

So, I’m changing my lesson for my children. While persevering is not a bad lesson to learn, it sounds too episodic to me now, like advising them to simply get over the hump, and just admonishing them to “leave your troubles behind you”. Revealing your potential for greatness is a process (like rocks being polished into gems, a beautiful pearl being developed by an oyster as protection against harmful bacteria), and an attitude that adversity is an opportunity to improve and add to your current greatness.

Cloudy Thinking

Here’s an interesting way to think about Latent Value. And feel free to tell me if you agree or not!

The Latent Value of a business opportunity can be expressed as a function (think mathematics). Simply stated, Latent Value can be expressed as a function of the total Potential Value, the Cost to Unlock the Value, and the Divisibility of the Value. The latter two are related but I see them as distinct. If the potential value is high then a high cost can possibly be tolerated if the ROI comes out favorably enough. But often companies, being nothing if not pragmatic and conservative, will decide that if the potential value cannot also be unlocked in discrete, “bite-sized” chunks then a high ROI is still insufficient to proceed. Think of it as simply risk aversion to a seemingly all or nothing bet.

Recently, I was doing some research on “cloud computing” and found a particular piece on why some companies are not jumping on this bandwagon. There is a line in the piece that says on fear stems from the “downsides of depending upon SEI (Somebody Else’s Infrastructure)”. When I read these sorts of sentiments I get concerned though (note: these are not the author of the article’s sentiments). The potential of cloud computing is quite compelling as it directly impacts the Divisibility factor of my Latent Value function above.

Consider as an example, taking advantage of business intelligence (BI) solutions offered in a “software as a service” (SaaS) model (a very mainstream version of cloud computing ).

Using existing, non-SaaS BI solutions the challenge for any organization, but particular the tens of millions of small and medium sized businesses (SMBs), to get at the Latent Value available from mining and analyzing their internal data (e.g., sales history, order patterns and mixes, etc.) and improving future sales or marketing decisions is that the Cost to Unlock is steep. But more importantly, the cost to get the first increment of Potential Value is relatively high. In other words, traditional approaches to BI have a low Divisibility factor.

In comes BI offered in the “cloud” and the overall cost potentially comes down but more importantly due to the typical low entry cost and pay-as-you-grow  business model most vendors offer, there is much improved ability to achieve initially meaningful ROI.  This significantly raises the Divisibility factor.

So while SEI should be a factor, it should be weighed carefully and considered against the trade-off: without SaaS a company may not be able to get at any of the Latent Value. SaaS has potential well worth checking out and continuing to monitor as it evolves and becomes more and more applicable to more businesses of all sizes.

Trust, Integrity, Accountability

Recently I was working with a client on preparations for an important meeting. The exact details of the meeting and the content are unimportant. What my client sponsor was wrestling with was concern that his peers would not act on the recommendations we were making. As I asked him more probingly about the root of his concerns he blurted out something about “our leadership team often agrees in a meeting but follow through is poor.”

Through further discussions I came up with a framework for the meeting that he seemed to like and gave him confidence that his concern about follow through could be overcome. I described the framework like this:

– ultimately establishing clear Accountability for decisions and actions is required in order for follow-through to be ensured. I said we should start off with asserting this to the meeting attendees (all of them S and E level VPs, along with the GM of the overall business unit) and giving a definition of accountability that everyone could agree to: “a willingness to be held to account for one’s promises and actions“.

– next we would say that accountability requires two foundations, first is Trust. Trust can be simply defined as “a relationship of reliance“. The team of executives, we would say, would see in a few moments that our recommendations revealed the clear interdependencies between each of their respective areas of the business. They were reliant upon each other and their teams to achieve success. While this may go without saying, we would invite them to openly discuss any areas where they felt they could not indeed “rely” upon each other or where weaknesses existed between business area linkages. Those areas would be addressed in the meeting and cleared up or an action plan would be devised to address them as output from the meeting.

– the second foundation element for accountability was “Integrity. Integrity can be defined as an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting“. We would say that often accountability is desired and trust exists yet ultimately accountability falters because what someone or some group is held accountable to lacks integrity. Sometimes this is personal integrity but more often it is the integrity of — or the lack of a factual, fact base for — what is recommended and decided to be implemented. So our final activity before dealing with the recommendations was to spend more-than-usual time on the facts behind the business problem and opportunity we were dealing with. We said grounding all the participants equally and giving all a chance to develop a solid “fact base” was critical for them to hold one another accountable for follow through. If during our discussion, we said, the facts did not hold up, additional facts were needed or more clarity was required, it was better that we postponed final decisions and reconvened with the missing data ready to present.

What was interesting was that A) everyone seemed to appreciate the open recognition of the accountability issue. It had clearly become a sort of “elephant in the room” problem, which led to B) a reasonably candid discussion of some real, but solvable trust and integrity questions and challenges, and resulted in C) a preliminary acceptance of the facts and recommendations but request for the postponment of final decisions until a few important additional facts and factors could be brought to the table for consideration at a subsequent meeting. That follow up meeting was, I’m told, one of the most productive they’d had in quite some time which they attributed to the framework my client presented and used faithfully throughout the discussions.

As most of us have learned, often it is not just what we say but how  we say it that can ultimately matter. Revealing and capturing the true potential of an idea or recommendation, in this case, depended upon it.