Output is Not Necessarily Outcome
During a recent conversation, a university faculty member told me of a student who approached her about a grade. It seems the young lady had added up the points she had received in the course and discovered that she had earned a "B" rather than the "A" she desired. When the professor acknowledged that it was the grade she was about to receive, the young lady protested. "I’ve worked so hard!" she said. "I deserve an "A." The professor explained to her that quantity of work is not connected to quality of work, hence the grade. Of course, that led to an accusation of "that’s not fair!"
Have we, as a society, trained the emerging generation to think that the harder one works the better the grade, the more you earn, the greater success you experience? Probably not. The disconnect between output and outcome has been around for a long time. Twenty years ago, the leading edge of Generation X was telling its Boomer co-workers that they were going to work smarter, not harder. But in an all-consuming environment where everything has to be better, cheaper, faster, it is easy to understand how Millennials and their younger brethren might conclude that simply putting the time in is the way to the best outcome. On top of this, we have intimated through grade inflation that anything less than an "A" is a sign of mediocrity or even failure. As a faculty member, I have come face to face with students who tell me that they expect and "A" because they always receive an "A."
This approach, of course, has migrated into the workforce in the form of performance appraisals where one assumes that he or she will automatically receive the best evaluations. Sadly, too many supervisors comply to avoid conflict. A number of individuals accused former GE CEO, Jack Welch, of being mercurial because of his expectations that the bottom 10 percent of performers be weeded out of the organization every year. But while there is always some truth in accusations such as these, many organizations are a far distance from defining clear outcomes and enforcing those expectations in a way that reflect the integrity of a well-managed firm with employees focused on clear outcomes.
So how do with deal with those who believe that output equals outcome? We need to remember two simple strategies:
Number one, remind them that output is different than outcome and show them examples. In an academic setting, it might be the 25 page paper full of unfocused information versus the well-written 10 page paper. In a business setting, it might the work habits of the person who works 60 hours a week versus the person who works 40 hours and achieves the same result. Have people compare and contrast the difference in approaches and they’ll get the message.
Number two, provide regular and meaningful feedback. In an academic setting, this means lots of notes and comments on submissions rather than a simple number or letter grade. I have always prided myself on arguing with, persuading, and challenging students as I grade their submissions. A comment like, "How could you have taken this page and reduced it to a paragraph?" challenges them to write concisely and consider the central point of their argument. Spending five hours writing a paper that could have been written in two with better up front organization is an example of output versus outcome.
In a business setting, that outcome might be smaller budgets, tighter writing, more concise metrics and other ways to measure results. The emerging generation will not learn the difference between output and outcome unless we teach it and enforce it. What can you do today to take a step in that direction with your team?
Case Study
I am the vice president of sales for a specialty advertising firm. We recently merged with a company selling similar products and I have been tasked with integrating the two sales teams. My big challenge appears to be the age difference and experience between the two groups. My team has built a book of business by working the phones and visiting customers. The team from the other organization has focused on on-line sales and social networking. My team certainly recognizes that on-line efforts will play an increasing role in sales over time, but we also recognize the value of the relationships we have built over the years with customers upon who we rely on for thousands of dollars of business every year. The other team will hear none of it. They don’t seem to see any value in telephone sales, let alone face-to-face encounters. A couple of them even called my people dinosaurs, in a joking sort of way. We are not getting off on a good foot. What would you suggest?
The best way to battle the perception that phone and face-to-face sales are worthless is with numbers. Develop a set of metrics that will allow you to compare the outcomes of both approaches. These might include sales-per-person, revenue-per-customer, size of average transaction, cost-per-salesperson, overhead associated with each sale, time consumption-per-sale, and other factors idiosyncratic to your situation. Be sure to include all the hidden costs associated with each approach. Yes, face-to-face selling may be more expensive in one context. But when you factor in the cost of server maintenance, website design and upkeep, domain licensing, technological glitches and such, you may find that the metrics are comparable. Arguing with numbers also allows you to answer the accusation that you are simply supporting that with which you are most comfortable.
Then there is the difference in customer relationships. Customers you call upon may prefer the personal contact. At the same time, there are many individuals who prefer to purchase without the human element. But we have to factor in customer investment with your organization. Even Amazon.com, with its army of programs and marketing specialists, still experiences a high rate of shopping cart abandonment. If 50% of those getting to the shopping cart go away before purchasing, is that acceptable? All of this must be factored into the overall equation. Once you have, you can gather the troops and let them hash out the differences.
Recognize that the resistance to personal contact on the part of the other team may be a symptom of discomfort with this kind of sale in the first place. As we have become increasingly transactional in our communication, there is evidence that so-called digital natives are uncomfortable with face-to-face contact due to inexperience with it. If you find yourself unable to convince these individuals to embrace the value of phone and face-to-face customer contact, you will have some decisions to make about how to assign the time and talents of those who report to you. But that’s a topic for a different day.
The global point here is not for one approach to win out over the other. Regardless of technological advances, there will always be room for the face-to-face sales call. After all, how many people do you know who commit to a five- or ten-thousand dollar purchase without wanting to talk with a live person? But that said, anonymous on-line sales will also play an increasing role in your revenue picture.
Face the fact that no matter what you do, those with a deeper belief in on-line sales will defend it as the be-all-end-all. Again, your job is not to create a win-lose situation. Your job is to foster an appreciation, even an embrace, of both approaches. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Continue to revisit this issue, even when it is not an issue. That way, you’ll stay abreast of changes in the marketplace and anticipate how to best motivate your overall team.
|
