The COMMERCE-SAVVY BLOG has moved!

The COMMERCE-SAVVY blog has now moved to my own domain (simonstapleton.com) so I can provide even better content, advice and news for Technical Professionals.

The link to the new blog, and the reason why I continue to provide this service is here:

http://simonstapleton.com/wordpress/2008/05/01/simonstapletoncom-why-do-i-do-this/

Simon

Are you restricting your own Success?

I doubt many of us can answer this question Yes or No outright, but the answer maybe lurking there if you consider how frustrated you might be about not achieving your (realistic) desires. Career success, for example, is dependent on other folks supporting you and recognising your achievements. But I'd say in most cases, it's dependent on yourself. So why might you be frustrated?

Well take a look at this article on the InspiredMoneyMaker blog, which will give you 15 reasons why you might 'killing your success'. I find Paul Piotrowski provides a wonderful insight into the ego to explain why your frustration may be strongly felt. Paul discusses the influence of the ego and how it can blind you to what others may see as plain as the nose on your face!

The link: http://www.inspiredmoneymaker.com/2008/04/22/15-things-that-may-be-killing-your-success/

Tuning into language

Technical professions require precision in language. We can’t express computer program code in slang, as much as we can’t express an insurance illustration without being exact. So in our profession, you’d expect all articulation and use of language to be unambiguous and precise, wouldn’t you?

Well research has shown that technical professionals can still lack precision in language outside of pure technical expression. For example, a developer might report “I’ve fixed most of the bugs” or “the majority of code is ready.” I think for most conversations this is OK, as being precise might mean very lengthy conversations! It’s unacceptable in management reports, particularly between supplier and customer.

In today’s world of international outsourcing and flatter management structures, precision of language is growing in importance. Workers are being held to account much more than before, and this will continue. The problem becomes more acute with language barriers and cultural differences.

So I wrote this article titled ‘tuning into language’ to firstly highlight the issue, and secondly to suggest a way forward. The key to avoiding miscommunication is in the art of asking questions, not necessarily bloating reports.

I think it is acceptable, for the benefit of efficient communication, to allow vague statements to be made. Most of the time, people involved in a conversation have enough content and context to know what’s being said. When a communication is more formal, such as an RFP document or project dashboard, there is no escaping the need to lay out all the pertinent information for the communication to be credible. But when it’s a conversation, I think the onus is on the receiver of the message to ‘tune-in’ to the language and ask for more precision. Sometimes (and lets be honest) one might say something vague because we don’t know what we’re talking about deep enough, or are trying to deceive the other person. It happens, particularly with people from other cultures where losing face is a major sin. We shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it! For example, a developer may say "most of the bugs have been fixed", the receiver may ask "how many have been fixed and how many remain?" or perhaps she might ask "what about the remainder that hasn’t, when will those be fixed?" Further drilling will reveal the underlying data and truth.

This may not look like rocket science, and you’d be right. But I think vague statements often go by unchallenged. I believe that it’s our responsibility that if we partake in a conversation, we tune in and make the most of it by drilling down. This will create the best chance of optimizing the conversation, and from a cynical viewpoint prevent a skilful hoodwink.

This subject was suggested by Juan Cortez in London (thanks Juan)

Using Chaos to Organize large scale programs and projects

I frequently see and hear about how organizations struggle with the planning of programmes or large scale projects, as is often the case nowadays, they involve the integration of many partners, business units, mavericks, doubters and in summary complexity. The complexity, at first, creates chaos which manifests itself as overwhelming dependencies and uncertain delivery dates. This can be a headache. A big headache.

What happens often is that there is a long malaise of inactivity and spinning of wheels without tangible progress (sometimes called Planning Paralysis). Execs and senior managers get impatient and attempt to intervene by de-scoping deliverables, changing structures or setting hares running in the wrong direction. It’s their prerogative and understandable.

But it needn’t be that way, if you understand how a chaotic situation like this can be controlled by allowing uncertainty in, and ‘banking’ the certainties. Let me explain.

The world isn’t perfect, so therefore information is not perfect. Projects start with assumptions and beliefs, and a planning process starts from there. Often these assumptions on scope, resource availability, buy-in and budget are flawed (as time tells). It's safe to say that the project starts from an optimistic point of view. However it is often the tendency of project planners to try to fix a plan of a long-term project in minute detail in order to get to (what is often an arbitrarily set) target completion date. As information flows back into the planning process, the dependencies are mapped onto a ‘critical path’ - the date can’t be met. Panic ensues. Chaos reigns.

But what if we ‘banked’ the certainties? I.e. if we were confident (say 90% plus) of the next three months of a twelve month project but only 50% certain of the following nine months, why not say that? Why not let chaos be controlled after the first three months with that caveat? As a project planner, if you can give certainty for 90 days ahead, that is a positive statement. Besides even if you could give certainty now for the whole twelve months, something will come later to disrupt it. Guaranteed. By applying a rolling plan of certainty, you can get the project moving and starting banking the resulting deliveries. Allowing chaos room later (and it will likely be always later, not the next three months) then you have the project under management.

Of course, the prevailing period of chaos must have a project framework of resources, deliverables and delivery dates. This approach won’t work if you’re blind to the full scope of the project. But the lynchpin of this approach is establishing an active and pro-active planning mechanism for three months ahead.

In highly risk-averse environments, this approach may not be considered acceptable. I’ve found this strange as there is always a balance of risk of doing something and not doing something. Without this approach, I have found, the project takes a long time to gain momentum and traction on deliveries. This initial period is almost always unplanned.

Final point is to address the above point. In highly risk-averse environments, my recommendation is to plan on a lengthy period of feasibility and dependency analysis upfront, where all questions are answered, plugged into the plan and further iterations performed. However, the appetite of risk must be shared right up to Exec level for this to work, or chaos will take hold as Execs’ perform their ‘management interventions’.

This subject was suggested by Brian Jones in New York City (thanks Brian)

Is Governance a pain in the ass?

'Governance' is a term that is becoming more and more popular in today's business. Governance, in essence, is the process of policing an organization internally, making sure standards and policies are adhered to, budgets are kept and that decisions are rational and appropriately transparent. Governance is there to ensure your organization complies with Sarbanes-Oxley, should it be required to. In the eyes of many people, governance stalls progress, stifles intuition and innovation, and is entirely bureaucratic. But which is it? Well it can be both, depending on how it is applied and perceived by those being 'governed'.

As technical professionals, it's our job to make decisions and implement technology, whether it be IT, product rules, calculate risk, etc. To do that job, we need skills, experience and judgment. We apply them at our discretion. But how do you know you apply those things in line with policy, regulation, risk appetite and without bias, using all the facts? Governance functions are there to help you know, and to also report this to senior Execs. Often their work appears as dashboards for Execs, where each 'measure' (mostly an arbitrary scale of compliance) is scored, often as a RAG (Red: Bad, Amber: Not bad, but not good, Green: Good)

The irritation of governance, I have concluded, is that in order to gain a view on each measure, a bunch of questions need to be answered, forms filled, meetings held and time committed. But moreover it generally requires the governance body to have some, equal or more knowledge in the subject areas of those being governed and how that subject fits into the big picture of an organization. The esoteric nature of technical subjects can mean this is very difficult to actually achieve. This can result in risks and issues being misreported, incorrectly measured or badly articulated up towards Execs. Then you have to spend time unravelling it and getting the story straight. The sum total can be a lot of wasted energy and time. Even worse is when technical projects and initiatives are discarded at the thought stage due to concerns about getting it by the long arm of the internal law! Innovation suffers. It can create a huge overhead at great cost.

So is this is an attack on governance? Actually no. Not at all. In fact I think governance is essential for a modern organization to tick. Governance can prevent a business making a stupid decision. It can retain corporate memory so that the organization knows why a decision was made and what compromise was accepted. Governance can give an organization's Exec valuable information to make rational decisions from (Execs can tend to act on intuition alone!) But governance has to be applied effectively and appropriately. You won't have control of that, well not at least all the time. But as a technical professional, you can have influence over the process, by building a trusting and open relationship with the governors, building credibility. By working closely with a governor such as Internal Audit, you can use policy to guide decisions, preventing further rework and rectification. It will also help you build in some latitude with the body so that you can have influence of what is 'governed' closely, or not. In past appointments I have made the first move with Internal Audit by inviting them in, for example, to team meetings and giving them an open slot. I've also instigated the construction of a Risk Register (where risks under my control are documented and actively managed). The result of this was a growing relationship based on trust. Governance should not be feared, but it should be controlled and influenced appropriately and with integrity.

I can't stress this enough; building a strong relationship with governance will give you an edge. Governance isn't a pain in the ass if you don't make it that way.

Are you bored or overwhelmed by governance? Let me know: simon@commerce-savvy.com

Suggest a subject

I frequently receive suggestions on subjects; these are always helpful - it helps me focus my writing on to topics that have value to you... and that's why I do this: to add value to the community of technical professionals.
So I'd like to hear from anyone who has a suggestion for an article on the Commerce-Savvy blog. Send your suggestions to: simon@commerce-savvy.com

Thanks for your help!

The 'art' of Opening and Closing meetings

You might consider this subject more general than technical matters, and you’d be right. Although actually I am writing about the opening and closure of meetings about technical subjects, whether they be about discussions, reviews, decision making or methodology. If as a technical professional and a host of meetings you’ve felt that your meetings haven’t had the right spark of energy, or actually resulted in anything but a room full of hot air, then read on.
The thing is having observed meetings held by technical folk for many years, I’ve noticed a pattern of weakness that I think can be easily overcome. There are two aspects of this pattern:

• Meetings are opened by jumping straight into ‘content’, without setting context or enjoying a momentary chat about the members of the meeting.
• Meetings are closed without clarifying the actions, with target dates, and ensuring that they are understood.

Now I’ve titled this as the ‘art’ of opening and closing meeting for one reason and that is we should always remember that the members of a meeting are human beings with personal lives, financial worries, family matters, dreams, aspirations and possibly back-pain. The reference to ‘art’ is that there isn’t generally a formula for opening a meeting that allows the humanity in for a while. But there are simple things that can humanize a meeting, break the ice and set the meeting up nicely.
Such things may be celebrating a success by the group or by an individual, or sharing some other positive news. It could be as simple as talking about the weather. Whatever your choice of subject, talk about something positive that everyone can engage in. Get faces smiling and a few laughs in before the technical subjects flood in. What you will find is:

• You’ll get more engagement in the meeting from some of the more silent members, if they’ve had a chance to speak
• The body language of the members will become more relaxed
• It will give you a reference point in the meeting should the discussion require a breakpoint
• It will assert you as a human being, and as a leader (by demonstrating your control of a meeting)
• The energy levels of the group will have risen

So I’m going to skip now to the end of the meeting, during which you may have taken notes or had someone record minutes. The ‘content’ of the meeting is over, but the meeting itself is not.
You should always end the meeting by summarizing the content of the meeting, in most cases expressed as the agreed actions with owners. If you hadn’t done so before, an expectation of the timeframe for the action should be discussed. This becomes your indelible record of commitment, and should be published to the group after the meeting. It’s also crucial at this point that if you suspect any action isn’t clear, or hasn’t been understood properly, that this is called out. A way of confirming the understanding is to ask what the output of the action is, such as a paper, a decision, etc. Whatever it takes to be satisfied that the next steps have the best chance of success, you should take it!

Want an alternative view on how best to hold meetings? Then I recommend the following two books:

The Manager's Guide to Effective Meetings (Briefcase Books)

How to Run a Great Workshop: The Complete Guide to Designing and Running Brilliant Workshops and Meetings

Communicating 'Bad News'

A number of emails led me to write this article on communicating ‘Bad News’. This is a common issue in business, particularly in the western world where short-term results are king. Passing on information that is considered to be unwelcome fills a lot of people with angst and dread, so I want to address this phenomenon head on.

So why did I put the words in ‘quotes’? Well ‘Bad News’ is really just a concept. I think no news is ‘bad’ if it means that we can do something about it and make a change for the positive. The news may be ‘disappointing’, but I ask if you didn’t hear the news at all, wouldn’t that be worse?
I’m tackling this in two ways. One is to look at how such bad news is delivered and the other is looking at how it is received. I’ll then offer some advice on how to minimize the fallout from these situations by some stakeholder management.

Delivering ‘Bad News’
Delivering disappointing information is not easy, as it often involves the creation of negative energy in delivery. It’s often sugar-coated, that is, given in non-direct ways or wrapped up in other neutral news. Delivering disappointing news can be a mind game, and therefore stressful. Many people aren’t experienced enough and to be frank, resilient enough to cope with this pressure. What frequently results is avoidance or a mumbled, poorly delivered message.
However, it’s my opinion that disappointing news should be delivered straight and untainted – delivered with confidence. Communication, regardless of content, should be delivered unambiguously, clearly and concisely if it is to have the correct meaning. So why should disappointing content be any different?
Delivering disappointing news should also be delivered with context. Disappointing news should address the potential outcome as well as the problem itself. What I mean is that if, for example, a project will slip by a week, then the deliverer should discuss the implications, in this example describe the impact on other projects and the extra cost of manpower. Adding some commercial perspective is always advised should it be appropriate.
Delivering disappointing news also gives the deliverer an opportunity to offer alternatives or rectification activities to deal with the problem. Don’t be shy in doing this. Managers more often than not want solutions, not problems. Obviously any such opportunities need to be grounded, so some groundwork with colleagues might be necessary.
In the end, delivering disappointing news is a facet of ones responsibility. So it must be done with responsibility. A poorly delivered, watered down message doesn’t show this responsibility and could ones credibility.

Receiving ‘Bad News’
Receiving disappointing news is part of communication. It’s also part of ones responsibility. So often I’ve seen tempers flare and toys thrown out of the proverbial cot. It’s also a mind game and like the delivery, some folk are not always experienced enough to cope with receiving disappointing news. Some managers quite honestly see this as an opportunity to impress their positional power or exert some bullying tactics. Never have I seen this be fruitful in the long run.
Receiving disappointing news, in some ways, is a gift. It’s a means of getting information that challenges or confirms assumptions or ideas. Disappointing news can avert disaster. If you can see it that way then you have can create positive energy to overcome the problem. I am not advocating ‘being soft’, or overly tolerant of failure. I’m also not advocating being OK with incompetence. However dealing with those things is part of the solution.

Minimizing fallout
If you have disappointing news that needs to be communicated, then have a clear message, understand the implications of it and think of ways to overcome the problem. Validate any facts. And then pause for thought. A key bit of advice is to ‘socialize’ the news first before taking this formal. E.g. try taking the news to your manager one on one rather than delivering it around a meeting table. This will avoid potential embarrassment! Open a discussion rather than an argument. Despite what I’ve written above about receiving bad news, your manager might not have read it! Think about a potential way of engaging with the receiver in an environment where any outburst of negative energy is contained.

I’m hoping this article helps you deal with these tricky situations. If you’d like to discuss this with me then email me on simon@commerce-savvy.com

Principle vs Specific arguments

I'm constantly reminded how a dynamic of argument and debate is in the wrong place. A recent issue cropped up where a colleague was pushing back to a technical supplier because insufficient information had been provided against a change request. The problem though was that the phrasing of the pushback was principle-based, i.e. he argued that the change request didn't comply with standards (whether explicit or otherwise), yet the supplier hadn't previously agreed the standards. So the argument becomes abstract, and doesn't deal with the specific issues.

So I thought about this and realised that this is often a source of conflict, debate and mostly wasted energy. Principle-based arguments are only effective if both sides have previously agreed the principles. I am not saying that they are pointless, in fact no, principle-based arguments are essential if you're striving for new standards or application of new methodologies and technologies. Adherence to standards is essential in today's business climate.
But if standards and principles haven't been agreed or are at best implicit, then arguing for them will get the other side's back up, or if you're lucky, just leave them confused.

If you find yourself in a situation where you feel an agreed standard is compromised, then you should argue for it. If you find yourself in a similar situation where what you consider as standard is compromised, but it hasn't been agreed, then try pointing out the specifics of what needs to be improved but compromise this time, and maybe the next, and if you're generous, the next time too, but then argue that the other side should have enough experience to know what standard is expected. E.g. you could say that 'document x doesn't mention how you would roll back that change, but we'll let it slide this time but make sure it's included in the next document.'

Consider this approach next time you feel something isn't to standard and it may mean the difference between conflict and progress.

If you need help or advice on the management of process change or the implementation of standards, then contact me on simon@commerce-savvy.com

The impact of Unplanned Work

This might resonate with you if you're a technical professional: how many times have you been asked to do a piece of work (often portrayed as a 'small' job) which disrupts planned activities and means one of both slip or are done with compromise? A study in 2002 found that IT departments can be spending 10% of their time on unplanned work, which is 10% of work that is unbudgeted and under-resourced. The costs are hidden and the strain on workers can be significant. If you take a standard 40 hour working week (assuming that those hours are allocated to work in advance) then workers are spending an extra 4 hours a week on unplanned work! Time that could be spent in the pub :-) No way Jose!
It seems that this is a common problem in technical departments. I've experienced this a lot in my career, and it seems to be as a result of a lack of respect or courtesy. Worse still it can be because the requestor doesn't consider the role of the technical department as crucial or important to business. But wait, if someone asks you to do something unplanned, why are they doing it? The answer, more often than not, is because non-techies view techies as problem solvers and have a gift for dealing with obscure problems of an esoteric nature. So this is a compliment, right?
Whether its a compliment or sheer lack of respect, it happens. What does a committed and professional technician do in these circumstances?
It's common for the requested activity to be absorbed into the work stack. It's also common for it to be pushed back outright. But a coping mechanism I've found to be successful is to respond in a matter-of-fact way, which is helpful to both sides of the request. If a sales guy came to me and asked me to 'do him a favour', if I couldn't absorb it with free time I would lay out the other work I had to do that day and ask him how these work items should be prioritised, plus ask him to help approach the recipient of work I had otherwise agreed, should I feel that appropriate (it's a judgment call I can only make). It's amazing how many times this has resulted in the request being withdrawn, plus an apology received. Although in most cases like this I have helped the would-be usurper by suggesting alternative colleagues who might have free time, or a potential alternative means of achieving the same outcome.
This isn't rocket science. It's a way of helping others understand that our work is important and part of the organizational machinery, but that we're not unhelpful or beligerant.
Most importantly, technical professionals must realize that unplanned work can cost an organization significantly and that it should be practically avoided, but not aggressively!

Knowing your craft, inside out

What have Michael Dell (of Dell Computers), Jack Welch (of General Electric) and Bill Gates (of Microsoft) got in common? They reached the pinnacle of their domain and organization by knowing their companies industry and products, inside out. These guys are true captains of their industries (whether you like their products or not). All three became head honcho because they committed themselves to their industry, their companies products and shaped product development intimately, as legitimate head of the business and (more importantly) as thought leader and innovator.
It isn't just the smart talkers or the sharp suits who can reach the top. Above all, the best person to run a computer manufacturer is a computer engineer; the best person to run a coffee empire like Starbucks is a coffee afficianado like Harold Shultz. So use the success of these folks as an inspiration to you as a technical professional, that your passion and commitment to your craft can lead to your utmost success.

Can you spot a bad CIO? (... or CTO, or IT Director, or IT Manager, or Head of IT)

I was perusing the CIO.com website and found a good article which covers the traits of a 'bad CIO'. If you forgive CIO.com's annoying paginated delivery of content, you might enjoy reading this. I think it applies not just to bad CIOs, but as I suggested in the title it can apply to spotting anyone who dubiously fills a senior technical position.
But before you take a look and possibly read it at face value, I have a few thoughts on the article. I think it assumes that folks who will judge their leader against the criteria offered have 'perfect' and unbiased information to use to make the judgment. Equally it assumes that the reader is unbiased themselves. Most of all, the article assumes that the leader in question has full control of their domain and is able to apply influence upwards, to their own masters. This isn't always the case, so don't rush too quickly to judge your leader as 'bad'. Read this article, enjoy it, use it even to make a call on the performance of your CIO, but once you've done so have a think about the situation they find themselves in and consider alternative explanations for the behavior.

The link: http://www.cio.com/article/186800/How_to_Identify_Bad_CIOs_in_Their_Natural_Habitat/5

... whilst we're on the subject of recession...

A recent article on HBS: Working Knowledge gave a marketing view on coping with recession (take a look.) You might notice a number of parallels between the advice aimed at marketers and the advice I gave in my last article '5 Recession Beating Tips'.
I think this is because marketing and technical departments face similar challenges in justifying themselves in terms of their value against their cost, particularly as both functions are less easily measured than sales and customer services and that functional value is less immediate in all but a few examples (such as computer operators and perhaps campaign marketers.) Both marketers and technicians must strive to ensure that they are efficient but moreover effective, by understanding their customers (whether internal or external) and adjusting focus to suit.
Both marketing and technical departments must be frugal with budget and challenge major spend, but as marketers shouldn't cut advertising, technical departments must not stop investing in staff (such as training). In both marketing and technical departments, inaction and continuing to plough the same furrow is dangerous and potentially wasteful.
To conclude, technical departments will not be singled out during recession and nor will they be at the sharp end of an organizational axe, but like all departments in an organization facing tough times, maximizing value, reducing costs but maintaining progress and delivery is an absolute must.

5 Tips for beating recession in techical roles

It's hotly debated whether we're heading into a global recession or not; my personal view is that the economy is slowing down sufficiently enough to spur me to prepare for recession. Taking positive action now could soften the blow if such a disaster were to happen, and I'd confront it on the front foot. Below are 5 tips I'd like to share, gathered from a number of my colleagues across technical industries.

Tip One: Speak to your boss
This is at number one for a reason, it's in my opinion the most important thing to do of all. Talking to your manager about a possible recession will give you an opportunity to air your concerns and to get feedback on how it might affect your department and organization. You may get insight into particular issues faced by your superiors, such as the impact of a reduction of sales or budget squeezing. Most of all it shows you are interested and aware of the threat ahead and that you're willing and able to contribute to withstanding it.

Tip Two: Reconsider major expenditure in your organization
If your department is considering, or has chosen, to make any large purchases such as new software, new IT systems, etc. then get together with your colleagues and manager to reassess whether it is absolutely necessary. Can you live without it for a while? Is there an alternative measure you can put in place temporarily? Think outside the box, and try to hang up your own personal biases just whilst you consider alternatives. If you come up with anything that has legs, document it and present it to your department head. Whether the alternative is taken forward or not, it shows you are taking initiative and care about the future of your organization.

Tip Three: Push for training to widen your skillset
This might sound counter-intuitive, but read on. In hard times, organizations begin to freeze recruitment and also look at their staffing levels and consider laying off people in roles that are not central to the organizations continued core operation and folks whose role does not add immediate value. By widening your skillset, you can put yourself into a position where recruitment isn't necessary, or that some roles (particularly those filled by contractors) can be made redundant. Training can be expensive, so you may need to strike a deal with your boss to ensure your organization gets value from it. Also consider offering to take distance learning and CBT based courses rather than residential courses which considerably reduces the cost.

Tip Four: Fortune favors the brave - be brave
This classic phrase has meaning in hard times. In my opinion, one of the most damaging organizational behaviors before and during an economic slump is inaction. That is, organizational resources are channeled into projects and initiatives that are not moving fast or delivering enough value rather than strengthening core operations and departments. You may know of things going on in your organization that are wasting time and energy. You may see projects that are slipping and will only slip further as recession bites. My advice - be a whistleblower. Speak up and say how it is. Be brave. Nobody will thank you later for saying 'I knew that would fail' - but you'll be festooned with kudos for calling foul on initiatives that will go belly-up. Whats more, if you see colleagues loafing and lazing about, then deal with that too. They will only bring you down with them if not.

Tip Five: Polish your CV/Resume
Who knows what will happen? You maybe the unfortunate one who loses their job. It happens, and accepting this as a real possibility now means you can think about how you can deal with it later. Preparing a sh*t-hot CV now that sells you and your services can give you a head start on others who will be in competition for a dwindling number of vacancies.

Getting feedback on your CV is important. But still 62% of CVs submitted to recruiters from all industries are considered ineffective in selling the individual to their potential. Worst still in the IT recruitment sector, 72% of CVs fit this category. I am happy to review your CV and offer helpful advice free of charge - get in touch: simon@commerce-savvy.com

Articulate your success

I've discussed before how developing and improving your public speaking skills can also improve your personal confidence (see here).
On a similar vein, I'm discussing my views on the importance of good articulation skills, i.e. how you use language, vocabulary, your voice and inflections such as pauses. The reason why is through research and experience I know that people who can demonstrate a grasp of language succeed better in the workplace. It's similar to the psychological phenomenon that overweight people are perceived as less intelligent (with no actual basis of evidence behind it.) Becoming more articulate can change how others percieve you to your advantage.
I am not saying though that by using language more skillfully *actually* makes you more intelligent or a superstar in the workplace. What I am saying is that other people may perceive you to be!
The basis of good articulation is knowing what words and phrases more succinctly and appropriately get your point across. Its not about using fashionable buzzwords. Its about precision. A simple example: You might say "This stock has a really good chance of increasing in value", or more articulately say, "This stock has growth potential". It's a matter of using a better mix of words that sum up your point quickly but without confusing folks. In technical conversations, you could argue that jargon fits this description, but it's true that non-techies may struggle to understand what the words used mean. Good articulation is also about making your language accessible to your audience. The whole point can be lost if you use specialist words that only a small group of you comprehend.
So I may have shown you why good articulation is a benefit to you. But how do you learn it? Well like most things in life, you learn by practice, some trial and error and hopefully feedback. Something I do is if I hear a word that I haven't comes across before (and I should point out that it's likely others haven't too) then I look it up in a dictionary or a thesaurus, so I could use the word's meaning in a similar context but maybe using a more accessible word. For example, I may hear the word 'astruse' used, so I look it up and find out it has the same meaning as 'esoteric' or 'puzzling' - the first less commonly used than the latter so I would likely use 'puzzling' if I am conversing with a youngster as they're more likely to know my meaning.
Good articulation comes with having a wide vocabulary, so what's better than exposing yourself to a wider wordset than reading a variety of genres of books, magazines, journals, websites? If a word crops up you don't understand, look it up.
Now this might seem a bit of a language-101, but my argument here is that in business, particularly if coming from a technical viewpoint, good articulation can win over audiences and build confidence in others and yourself. Good articulators climb the career ladder quicker, statistically speaking, and if you're intent on using your techncial skills in a wider business context then good articulation is a must for you.
If you want to learn more about language and articulation in business, I thoroughly recommend the following book:

Going out for a Curry or Tacos may do more for you than your hunger

I've coined the phrase 'Going for a curry or tacos' as a euphemism for getting out with your colleagues over dinner to 'socialise' ideas and problems.

It's really about getting out of the office environment where formal positions and behaviors are established and enforced, and getting together with colleagues (from various levels) to chew over some ideas or issues that might normally create too much conflict inside the office. I think this is particularly so with techies who vigilantly defend their faith in their technologies and methods and the way things get done. An old friend of mine used to take exception with being challenged in the office - he was a bit of an ass that way - but it paid off for him most of the time as his way and his technologies won over. In fact he proactively stamped out any challenges with rebuking any new ideas early on before they even reached his desk. However, I think this gunboat diplomacy damages colleagues confidence, creates too much conflict and politics, stifles innovation and doesn't really do the company the best service in the end.

Anyway the point is here that its valid for a team to take their issues or opportunities out of the office now and again and dealt with them in a safe but open environment. It's an application of the term 'socialising' (which I personally hate, but the point remains) which means that groundwork for decision-making is done outside of the formal channels, so the agent can sound out key influencers and find out who needs more persuasion and who might be hostile. It's not exactly espionage, but it could be construde that way. I think the differentiator is that it isn't malicious or overtly manipulative.

Simply put, going for a curry or tacos might result in issues or opportunities get dealt with on a level playing field and with everyone's interests represented. Many of them can be resolved with a full belly and a smile. In fact it was Freud who linked hunger and aggression, ie. the more hungry you are, the more aggressive you become. So get your enemies belly full and then bring up the point of contention, as long as it isn't about his eating habits :-)

It's also true that if you organize such a culinary outing, it gives you the chance to set the agenda and deal with the matters you want resolution to. Take the lead and you could see an end to your woes, at least know where you stand. If you do take this responsibility on, then make sure you invite all the people who have influence over the issues, whether you see them on your side or not. Getting full representation means you won't face another round of yapping back in the office. If your invite is rejected then make sure that person knows what could be discussed and see if they want to send someone else in their place.

To cap this off I will say give this a go. It will be a great way of dealing with stuff, you'll have something nice to eat, and quite possibly improve your social standing!

Are you at risk from Outsourcing?

My recent survey found that 30% of respondents were concerned that outsourcing will put your job at risk. This is a complex area and also a concern that has real grounds as its undeniable that outsourcing has been a huge source of change in business organization, management and economics. I've personally been involved in organizations that have undergone an outsourcing initiative, and I am perhaps lucky to have seen cases where the outsourcing has achieved success, and also cases where the changes have failed to meet the business objectives. In my experiences, successful and unsuccessful outsourcing initiatives were well structured, well organized, and the business reason for outsourcing was clear and justifiable and economical.
But my observation of outsourcing initiatives that have succeeded against thost that fail is the quality and quantity of the leadership practiced within the organization, starting at the top, and flowing right through the levels of the organization. Not just that, but if employees within an organization consider the outsourcing as something being 'done' to them, it has a much lesser chance of succeeding. Organizational change of this magnitude is a change for the whole organization, and everyone within it must be helped to feel responsible for its success. Bold words (yes literally I know) and easy for me to say, but I do feel strongly about them. Not the tough thing for the likes of us guys is if we are on the 'receiving end' of the outsourcing, ie. it's our jobs that will be moving. Does this mean we shouldn't play nicely? I say no, and I do so because a) you'd still be an employee of the organization and therefore have a responsibility to it, b) in most countries there are laws to protect your rights so you won't be forced out into the cold, and c) something very interesting and prosperous may come of your valuable input, particularly if in the area of leadership through the change. Point c is most poignant; case in point - Jon Miller is a lab technician who's role was suddenly being transferred into an outsourcing vendor by his pharmaceutical empoyer, but Jon didn't look at this as a crisis, but in fact rallied his colleagues and helped them look at the possible opportunities in their new employer. He unofficially became a team leader and spokesperson for his team and eventually transitioned to the vendor with no loss of his comrades, picking up a new role as a supervisor to boot. If you work with the change and make the most of it, at the very least you can leave with your head held high and a severence paycheck in your pocket, or possibly find a great job in the outsourcing vendor. Either way, I don't consider this as a personal 'risk'.
Folks I know this is complicated and effects us all in different ways, but I just wanted to get the message over that outsourcing is not always bad for you as an individual, and with a good attitude and an open mind, the change could yield something great for you.

If you want to read more about Outsourcing, here is a good article on the businessballs.com website: http://www.businessballs.com/changemanagement.htm

And of course you can email me on the subject if you have questions: simon@commerce-savvy.com

Taking your first step as a manager of supervisor in technical teams

One of the most difficult moves on a technical career path is moving from technician and knowledge worker (i.e. a 'doer') from a manager of supervisor. I found this tough, as do many technical professionals who have this responsibility thrust upon them. Supervisors and managers of the 21st century will have broader responsibilities, taking charge of more projects and more people. In todays business climate, I'd say it was fair but inevitable that a lot of folk are given these responsibilities too early or without the necessary skills and moreover experience. I've seen many folks rise to the occasion and perform well in their new roles, making few mistakes, but I've also seen many cases where naivity has resulted in serious judgment failures leading the the crash-and-burn of the new manager.

Overcoming this isn't easy, but then again not impossible. It depends on how you view the risk to your confidence, reputation and position in your organization. The obvious fasttrack is to plunge yourself into the new role and learn from your experiences. If you're going with that route then you really should seek a coach and/or mentor to help you through and to give you feedback on your behaviors. You'll need someone experienced in management to give you pointers and to challenge you if you're going to wing it! This is a risky approach, but if you are a natural born leader or manager then it maybe the most effective route for you.

Then again, you could opt for more formal training based out of a classroom, which is done in a safe environment where you learn the theories and practices of management and supervision. These programs focus on the movement from technical professional and/or engineer to supervisor or team leader.
These programs also provide the critical skills that any manager may need regardless of level by providing simple, direct solutions to the most common problems managers face: how do I motivate people, what are the steps to coaching, how do I handle non-performance, how do I give people a strong message, how to develop people. They generally distil the most useful items in the behavioral sciences into a basic approach to managing people and teams.
I can't really say which route is best one way or the other; it depends on your personality and your personal tendencies, as well as your attitude towards risk in your current role. My advice though is to give it some careful thought first.

If you want to contact me to discuss your best route or if you have any related questions, please get in touch (simon@commerce-savvy.com)

Asking for a salary increase

Throughout my career working with people in technical roles, I've seen that many folks really struggle with asking for a payrise.
Technical roles typically pay higher salaries than average, but it's common for technical workers to have problems in engaging with their managers and paymasters to ask for an increase. I attribute this to the phenomena that (more often than not) technical professionals are not truly aware of the value they add to their organization, and (on the flipside) don't understand the true cost of their package to their employer. This is the essence of many discussions on the COMMERCE-SAVVY blog. Not to put too finer point on this, if you're going to successfully negotiate a rise, you need to know these things to a sufficient depth that you and your manager can talk openly and with trust.
Not exactly coincidentally, but a recent COMMERCE-SAVVY survey of technical professionals shows that the top third concern (49% of respondents) is that "Technical roles are undervalued by business leaders" and the seventh top concern (33% of respondents) is "Salaries/contract rates are slowing/reducing." To see the top ten concerns from this survey, click here.
Here is a link to a great article I found on the businessballs website, which covers the 'art' (or when you're an experienced negotiator, the 'science') of salary negotiation. I strongly recommend you take a look at it. I couldn't have written about the subject better myself!
The link: http://www.businessballs.com/payrise.htm

Results of survey of Current Concerns of Technical Professionals

A couple of days late getting this out whilst I compiled the stats, but here is the report on the survey I conducted in Dec 2007 of 200 IT professionals, actuaries, data analysts and other technical professionals. The survey aimed to find out the top 10 concerns of our sector of the workforce. Each respondent was asked to answer how concerned they were with a list of 25 current issues facing our profession. The top 10 issues are ranked in order below. A full report will be available from the COMMERCE-SAVVY.COM parent site in the next few days.

1. The 'credit crunch' will have widespread impact on all markets, causing a recession and economic downturn - 72%
2. Projects/initiatives will be cancelled or postponed until the economy stabilises - 65%
3. Technical roles are undervalued by business leaders - 49%
4. My work is creating even more demand on my personal life - 48%
5. I won't be able to find another job/contract if I choose to leave my current position - 39%
6. Training and skills development available to me won't be sufficient to meet the demands of future roles and opprtunities - 34%
7. Salaries/contract rates are slowing/reducing - 33%
8. Outsourcing puts my job at risk in the immediate future - 30%
9. My income will remain the same whilst living costs are increasing - 28%
10. Global political instability makes me concerned for future jobs - 22%

Do you agree with these concerns? Are you personally affected by them? Please feel free to contact me (simon@commerce-savvy.com) for a confidential discussion.

Commerce-Savvy Survey: What technical professionals are most worried about

A Commerce-Savvy survey of over 200 technical professionals has found that over 60% of respondents are worried about the consequences of the 'credit crunch' on their jobs. The effect of the current crisis in world markets has created nervousness in technical sectors, particularly that projects could be pulled or whole departments laid off.

Full results of the survey will be published next week (20 Feb 08)

Developing a Helicopter Mind - how technical managers can improve their success

The Helicopter Mind is a concept of thinking and questioning that allows managers to interweve abstract and specific thoughts, and to have the ability to switch between the two modes of thought appropriately and skilfully. An extensive study has shown that managers who have these abilities are more successful and perform better in their roles than those that do not.

How does the Helicopter Mind work? Well if you can hold an image of a helicopter in your mind that moves up (towards abstract) when a WHY question is asked and moves down (towards specific) when a HOW question is asked. A manager who asks WHY questions will be reviewing an activity in terms of its purpose, value and desired outcome. A manager who asks HOW questions will review activities in terms of their method, process and skills involved.

So if you have grasped the concept, its application is simple. Asking a WHY question allows managers to think more laterally about a given task and reconsider the methods in which they use to achieve it. In my experience, technical managers do not do enough of this, and are generally more interested in the task and optimising it. But asking WHY one performs an activity before HOW the activity is completed allows a technical manager to consider the objectives and outcome and challenge them.

To illustrate:

WHY? Maximise company profits

WHY? Efficient production and increase customer satisfaction

WHY? Produce quality widget

ACTIVITY: Run quality checks on each widget

HOW? Inspect each widget by hand

HOW? Staff visually checks each widget as it comes off the production line

HOW? Staff applies a checklist according to the spec of each widget

In the above example, asking HOW questions about the activity take you into specific solutions to the problem. But asking WHY questions consider what is the desired outcome of the activity, which may lead you to consider a different activity to achieve the same result. In this example, desiring the production of quality widgets could be achieved by quality checking the production process rather than checking the quality of the final product, i.e.

WHY? Maximise company profits

WHY? Efficient production and increase customer satisfaction

WHY? Produce quality widget

ACTIVITY: Run quality checks against the production process

HOW? Check items at each stage of the process periodically

HOW? Take a sample of every hundredth product when it leaves a stage of production

HOW? Staff applies a checklist according to the spec of each production stage

The above example aims to illustrate that by using WHY and gaining height in your helicopter opens up the mind of you and your colleagues to alternative ways of achieving your goals. By considering the Produce Quality Widgets objective, you've been led to think about ensuring you have a quality process (which should in turn produce a quality product) rather than just ensuring you produce a quality product.

In summary, exhibiting a Helicopter Mind where one asks WHY something is done as well as HOW can lead you to consider alternative strategies to achieve a technical activity. Business leaders like this. This is how innovation is achieved and new ideas concerning products, operations and other business benefits are stimulated. It's also a way for a manager to make their mark in their organization. Developing a Helicopter Mind should offer you personal development benefits as well as career benefits.

Personal Resilience in your quest for personal excellence

Once again I am pointing you to an article on the Leader to Leader Institute website, and this time it covers being 'prepared to start over - again and again'. I like this article because it talks of personal resilience and learning from personal experiences.
I doubt if anyone has had setbacks in their career or personal lives, but not everyone chooses to learn from these experiences and consider how future circumstances can be influenced by the learning. Setbacks can be losing your job, not winning that promotion, failing your finals, project failure, etc. All these experiences can be tough, but they can also be sources of learning and personal development.
The article doesn't just talk about behavioral adjustment; it also discusses the importance of ones associates and friends who influence and color our lives. In essence, it suggests that after a setback you take a look at your network who will support you and refer opportunities to you. In my experience, my network is a valuable asset when bouncing back from a setback, providing it is filled with positive, supportive and aligned people. Your network is the vein, artery and capiliary of opportunity and like the analogy the less clogged and more free-flowing they are the better for you.
And lastly the article talks (in a roundabout way) about personal confidence and the application of You Inc. - the skills, tricks and relationships you've built up - into new opportunities that you will create, or will come to you. After a setback, e.g. being laid off, you is all you have. If you don't believe you will pull yourself out of the mire, you probably won't. So sell the services of You Inc. If you have technical skills that can be applied to new situations, dust them off, set up your stall.

I strongly recommend you read this article, whether you're in tough times or not!

The link: http://www.leadertoleader.com/knowledgecenter/journal.aspx?ArticleID=694

No Excuse Leadership

Below is a link to a great article that discusses No Excuse Leadership, which I think you should read. Why? Well I think it discusses an important aspect of leadership (and I stress leadership and not management) - creating a vision that inspires an organization to break down resistance to change and to set behavioral standards.

The article delves into how excuses are used to avoid change in an organization, particularly in the public sector, and they are often a behavioral norm. How often do you hear in a meeting that something won't work because because because? Listen during your next few meetings to see if you spot a pattern.

Excuses cripple innovation and progress in business and in organizational performance. Its a way of giving up without even trying. Sometimes the reasons given for not changing are out of date or invalid, but the excuse goes unchallenged.

Its true (in my experience) that technical functions are the most excuse-driven. So much is invested in tools, technologies and methods (especially in the skills and know-how of staff) that change is resisted and excuses positioned as battlements. It feels strange that the organizational functions who are most adept at delivering innovation in the business are inept in delivering innovation in their own department.

I think the key to resolving this is in the article. As excuses are offered, a leaders role is to ask how the objective can be reached whilst overcoming the excuse. Put the ball back in the court of the person with the excuse - they're probably best positioned to know how to overcome it. By playing on their pride you may create the necessary motivation to overcome the excuse, especially if, in conjunction, you articulate a compelling vision of what is being created. Overcoming excuses is a behavior that should be embedded into an organization for it to become innovative.

The link: http://www.leadertoleader.org/knowledgecenter/journal.aspx?ArticleID=664

Perfectionism vs Pragmastism: Career Implications

This is a debate I often see in technical circles, mostly between technicians and their less technical managers or stakeholders. It’s a debate that often leads to conflict or a reduction in morale or motivation in each party. It has career implications too; as technical leaders aiming to build a career, its something we need to be aware of.

Perfectionism is a belief that perfection can and should be attained. It is a belief that there is only one truth. In its severest form, a perfectionist believes that anything less than perfect is unacceptable. Pragmatism, on the other hand, is a belief that there are many truths, often in conflict, and that a balance can be attained to honor each truth.

My experience of working in IT with technical specialists is that this community often sees a technical issue as black or white, i.e. it is perfect or totally dismissible. In my early career working on technical infrastructures, I exhibited that too. I was a perfectionist. Only the best laid out solution that worked perfectly in all instances was acceptable to me. It's perhaps because technical professionals are very invested in their subject matter, and that there is a real perception that a compromise on the quality of deliverables in their chosen subject reflects badly on them. However, as I’ve worked my way through the ranks and become more ‘commercial’, I realised that a perfect state is often very difficult to achieve, and later still, in many cases shouldn’t be achieved. Let me illustrate.

A perfect system that will never fail and always meet its purpose is an ideal, but one that in most cases is very costly to achieve. Unless you remove all human error in all layers of a solution, it won’t meet this ideal. This should apply to safety systems in space shuttles, but we all know that doesn’t happen either. To seek this perfection is to seek it at any cost. As a business, it’s very rare that ‘any cost’ is a viable business justification. Stockholders and Execs don’t subscribe to this, so business decisions are made which create constraints like a budget.
So it’s pragmatism that in this context is what most frequently wins out, whether you like it or not. Projects have to the best with the budget and resources it has. Now as a technical professional on a project or operation, you have a choice as to accept this position or not, and you will exhibit it in your behaviour. Those that do will do what they can to make the outcome as near-perfect as they can, and may indeed build a case for extra budget or resources – this is still pragmatism. But those that don’t tend to moan about it or engineer the situation so they can say ‘I told you so!’ The latter state of mind is very dangerous for career builders. Senior managers don’t want to hear it, particularly as they (more often than not) are aware of the compromises that have been made.

Of course any senior manager worth their salt should listen to grave concerns about compromises, to manage risks or learn of innovations for a better way of doing it. But once a decision has been laid out in concrete, it should be accepted by all and the best made of it.

In terms of career implications, managers and leaders will almost always be working with a compromise. As a budding manager and leader, demonstrating that you accept this is positive, as is a demonstration that one has the skills and tools to manage the situation. Basic Project Management instruments come into play; maintaining a Risk Log and Issue Log are some examples of how managers will consciously manage information and base decisions from. Leaders will work with the people to overcome their concerns and motivate workers to do their best in the knowledge that the risks are known and will be mitigated. These are positive responses to compromise. Indeed these are positive responses to further your career.

Using the Power of Pride in an organization to generate motivation

Despite Pride being one of the Seven Deadly Sins, it is a powerful if not underused means of getting things done in the workplace. Pride is an emotion of self-respect.

It is an emotion that, if tapped into, you can use to motivate others, particularly in technical job areas. I use pride as a trigger often – I don’t consider it as manipulative as in almost all circumstances its exhibition benefits you and the person or persons it is triggered in.

As an example hereon, imagine you need some thorough technical documentation to make a decision from. You have three options; document it yourself, buy it, or delegate it. Documenting it yourself might be impossible if you don’t have the time, knowledge or skills. Buying it might be costly or impossible if the subject matter is particular to your technology or its application. You might not be in a position of authority or power to formally request the work to be done. So what should you do?

If the documentation needed can most efficiently be created by knowledgeable colleagues, then this is the way you should go. In fact not doing so, i.e. having the documentation created by some other way, could be perceived as a threat by the colleague. The better option is to motivate them to do the work by creating in them the purpose to do so. Pride could be the key.
Imagine then that the trigger for pride is to give your colleague the opportunity to be great. ‘Great’ in the sense that they will be saving the day, or correcting a mistake that you have made. So imagine then that you ask your colleague to do the work under some big cause for the greater good by articulating how the documentation is pivotal to making the big business decision (big is relative to your colleagues sphere of awareness). You might say (but do it honestly) that a senior manager or exec needs the decision to be made. Offer the recognition to your colleague at a senior level, even if you have to ask for an intermediary manager to request the recognition. Ensure you always follow up on the recognition, and of course your own gratitude is important and sometimes enough.

I’ve found that technical professionals like us are very proud and love to point out the mistakes of their peers. If you think it is a big ask to request your colleague to do the documentation from scratch, then start the documentation to your best knowledge. It’s OK to not be 100% confident in its accuracy. If you could do that then you should do the documentation yourself. Once you’ve completed your draft (and perhaps where you have gaps put in the title headings of what you need) then ask your colleague to review it and fix any mistakes. I bet you’ll find the mistakes are corrected first before any gaps are filled! Once you’ve got what you need, again make sure that your colleague is credited for their contribution.

Pride is a simple but powerful motivator. Don’t be afraid to use it. Develop this as a skill and you’ll find that it happens naturally and if you do feel it is manipulative at first, it's possibly because you've done it a bit clumsily, but you’ll find with practice you become more adept at doing it smoothly and with integrity.

Of course this doesn’t just apply to getting documentation, and indeed just with your colleagues and peers. This is technique you can use with anything and anyone. It is an application of reward power, and everyone likes rewards!

I’d love to hear your stories from you!

To MBA, or not MBA... that is the question?

Question: Does completing an MBA give you a ticket to success as a business leader?
Answer: No, it doesn't.

The virtues of an MBA are often hyped and rarely understated. So why is it such a big deal? Well the average MBA will cost a student 25K UKP/50K USD, so the universities have a good reason to let you think it is. But I'm not cynical. Quite the opposite. I think that the price of an MBA is worth it, but not for the reasons so many people lament on about. To dispel to some myths: An MBA does not train you as a business leader. An MBA does not open a door to the boardroom. An MBA does not turn you into a commercial genius.

So what does an MBA give you that I think is still a big deal? An MBA gives you the basic education of how an organization in business works; how it makes profit, how it markets its products and why, how business economics and finances work, how strategic decisions get made, etc. etc. It gives you the full business context. Don't underestimate the value of gaining wide and diverse knowledge on business basics. It's what will put you on the path to being a CEO, Commercial Director, COO, or whatever your career goal.

But don't be fooled into thinking an MBA is the end to becoming a business leader. It is merely the start. My concern in general is that MBAs are described as the making of a business leader. This is crap. Why? Well an MBA is an academic course, based on theories and science. It is not a course on people - it doesn't put you in the leadership position in which to learn from. I'm afraid the leadership bit comes when you've gained experience and demonstrated how you can apply the theory in a real business situation, and gained followers who are willing to apply it for you.

The real benefit of an MBA in my experience is that it gives you a vocabulary and context in which to understand and add value to a business. Whats more it gives you confidence and a common language in which to engage colleagues right across the organization. I found that the learning from an MBA removed a cloud of self-doubt when put into new situations outside of my core area of expertise, and it created confidence when taking on new challenges.

In modern times, its possible to do an MBA whilst you still work, as well as the more traditional classroom-based courses. There are a number of affiliations between top Universities and online education specialists. For example, in Europe you can take an online MBA with the University of Liverpool who outsource to Laureate Education. If you want to take this path, I couldn't recommend them more strongly, as it was with these guys I took my MBA. If you're in the States there is an online MBA available with Portland State University for example. For a list of online MBAs available in the US, take a look here. I will be blunt though. Having been through this myself, this is a H U G E commitment both personally and financially - it will be a significant drain on your cash, and if you're in a relationship, it will probably take its toll on that too. If you're serious about doing an MBA whilst still in employment, be 150% sure you can cope with the burden on the effort.

Classroom-based MBAs are still popular, such as the one at Cranfield University in the UK or of course the Harvard Business School in the US. With these courses you'll dedicate your time to your studies and have close interactions with tutors and fellow students. It's perhaps still the best way to do an MBA, as the interaction creates a productive learning environment. However the downside is that you'll have to leave employment for a couple of years whilst you take the course, which might be impossible if you have a mortgage and a family to support.

An MBA will give you a rock-solid and complete education on business context across all necessary facets. It won't be a short-cut to the Executive Suite. But effectively applying your developed skills to a real organization is an opportunity your career will benefit from in enormous ways, so if you can afford it and you have commitment, you should seriously consider an MBA.

Starting afresh in 2008

Its a new year, if you hadn't noticed, and its that time a lot of folks talk about new year resolutions or wiping a slate clean. Cliche? Thats up to you, but its perhaps a good time do something different from this point and see how it goes. What have you got to lose except a little time, pride or pocketmoney?

This year, I've decided to be more cheeky. Not cheeky like a small child who talks about farting. Cheeky in the sense that I'm going to ask for more, push my luck, negotiate, damn well get the most from everything. "If you don't ask, you don't get" wise old buggers used to tell me. Well I'm going to be more cheeky this year and see what happens.

So what can you do? C'mon you can work that out. But here are some starters:

• Try reading more books on business leadership and economics, or other commercial subjects
• Get involved with people more, in clubs or in groups
• Try learning the basics of a new language
• Starting a new exercise regime
• Try going to bed earlier, and getting up earlier.... see the morning sun in its full glory
• Take up photography - its therapeutic

There's loads of things you can do. Just do it and try it. Or what will you have done this year for yourself?