Tag Archives: Competition

Navel-Gazing… Your Worst Enemy

Umbilicus intuens can be extremely debilitating.  Indeed, I worked with a leader who once remarked that his organization was full of navel-gazers… those who spent more time looking within the company than outside the company.

navel-gazing

Sir Winston Churchill’s wry description about the enemy lends a credible analogy:

“However absorbed a commander may be in the elaboration of his own thoughts, it is sometimes necessary to take the enemy into consideration.”

Here are 4 warning signs that you should spend more time considering the competition when executing your business plans:

  • Marketing literature touts features and capabilities vs. solving customer needs – Customers may indeed care that your product comes in a variety of colors, or has WiFI but the most important consideration is whether or not it addresses a customer need.  (This TED video illustrates how appealing to ‘why’ is more persuasive than showing ‘what’.)
  • Metrics measure activity vs. achievement – (see Moneyball and the Customer Experience)
  • Culture rewards those who play politics vs. help the company succeed – If you look around and find people more interested in advancing their personal prospects than in serving the customer/company, you have a problem.   Companies are teams so if one teammate begins to monopolize the energy and attention of a group, you can be sure that they are no longer serving the company’s needs to the fullest extent.  Think I’m wrong?  Ask yourself about the US politicians and our recent fiscal woes.  The needs of the country are clearly subordinated to the re-election hopes of congress.
  • Employees are ranked and evaluated against their peers vs. the industry – your company wants the best people on the market, right?  So when evaluating performance it is critical to understand which employees compare favorably to the overall talent pool.  (And just as critical to know where you have talent gaps compared to your competition.)

The pivot point is that if you neglect competitive forces or customer needs POGO’s reflection that “we have met the enemy and he is us” may indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What can you do to help align your company to focus on external factors to ensure your continued survival and success?

Einstein’s Theory of Employee Rankings

Want engaged employees?  Want better performance from your employees?  Don’t compare them to their peers. If you do, achievers lose their drive to achieve and under-achievers surrender.

Comparing employees to their peers de-motivates people.  Iwan Barankay’s study supports the conclusion that “telling people about their rank reduces their effort.”  The experiment demonstrated that those who received feedback were 30% less likely to return to work than those who had no feedback.  Of those who returned, those receiving rank feedback were 22% less productive than those receiving no feedback. The Wharton article summarizes: “people who rank highly think, ‘I am already number one, so why try harder?’ And people who are far behind can become depressed about their work and give up.”

Rank feedback is inadequate because the comparison is made against the wrong benchmark.  After all, your products and services must compete with those of your competitors.  It stands to reason your people must be better than the competitor’s in order to “win” in business.  Many a high school valedictorian found the competition at the next level made them average. Their performance hadn’t changed in absolute terms, but in relative terms they lost ground.  According to Einstein,

When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute-and it’s longer than any hour. That’s relativity.

It’s all relative.  How disappointed would you be if Employee A left for the competition? What about Employee C?

If you must rank employees, the pivot point is to benchmark performance relative to the competition, not one another.

American Airlines’ Poor Policy Costs $75,000

A recent experience trying to get a standby seat on an American Airlines flight left me baffled.  What does it say about a company if they could treat you well, but don’t?  Does such a company value your business or take it for granted?


  • The plane had available seats.
  • I had a ticket on a later flight.
  • The gate agent said that American Airlines’ policy was that I couldn’t get a free standby seat.  (Not a friendly policy, but I can understand that they might want to charge a “change fee” to take a different flight.)
  • BUT adding insult to injury, the policy also prohibited the option of paying a change fee to take the earlier flight.  Huh?  Are they afraid they’ll run out of peanuts?

It used to be that customers could take an earlier flight, if space were available.  Now, even when space is available you can’t buy a seat?

From a customer experience perspective this policy is, well… stupid.  The policy is just as detrimental from a business perspective because customers have choices.  In this case, I walked further down the terminal to a rival airline (Southwest) and paid $250 for a ticket.  What did/will the policy cost American Airlines?

  • An unsatisfied customer who will relate the poor experience via word of mouth
  • A nominal change fee
  • Approximately $75,000 (future value of my air travel)

The pivot point is that companies should seek ways to serve customers and earn their loyalty instead of implementing policies that alienate customers.  Last I checked the airlines weren’t so healthy that they could look down their noses at customers.  But if American Airlines chooses to implement such a policy, then consumers can certainly choose to take their business elsewhere – I did and I will.

What companies have earned your scorn and lost your business?