Business Insight Zone

After talking about how I follow up with new acquaintances when I get home from attending a conference, I got feedback from a friend of mine who manages the neat perfecta of being (a) a nifty human being, and (b) a stone-cold sales pro. She elaborated on a practice of hers that I also follow, but that I didn’t mention in the post.

Here’s what we both do:

1. As we’re talking to the new acquaintance, or shortly thereafter, we jot down something about them that’s not related to business. My friend called this “some non-business rapport-building topic I’ve discussed with the person.” I might call it “common ground.”
2. When we follow up with them later, we include some reference to this shared interest. My own follow-ups have included things like “Next time you’re in Austin, I’ll be sure to take you out for some REAL Texas barbecue” and “It’s always great to find someone who shares my affection for the Blue Ridge Mountains.”

As my friend points out — and as I’ve experienced myself — this kind of contact makes the other person feel special, and that we’ve connected on a personal level, whether or not any business arises from that connection.

I like doing business, and I like connecting with people — so why not operate in a way that satisfies both impulses at once?

So how do you make personal connections with business acquaintances?

~

Image by Victor Bezrukov.

Maybe you don’t need advice for keeping your inbox tidy. Maybe you’re an Inbox Zero devotee from way back. If so, more power to you.

For the rest of us, though, a little bit — or a lot — of Inbox-Fu can come in handy from time to time. To that end, I’m using this post as a landing page for everything I’ve written (and will write?) in the Inbox-Fu vein.

• 25 Feb. 2009 — Ten handy tips to build your inbox-fu.
• 27 Feb. 2009 — 11 Ancient Secrets of the Dragon Claw School of Inbox-Fu
• 9 Mar. 2009 — Inbox-fu: the mystery of ReSaDoTh.
• 11 Jan. 2010 — The Simplest Inbox-Fu of All.

I hope you enjoy it — and I’d be glad if the comments queue here filled up with the tales of your own legendary Inbox-Fu prowess.

What’s your greatest inbox-management exploit?

~

Photo by Martin Kingsley.

Much to my surprise, a few short posts about Will Smith that I wrote a while back continue to be among the most popular items on this blog, month in and month out. Here are the ones I mean:

• 5 December 2007: The work ethic of Will Smith: “deliberate practice” in action.
• 29 October 2008: The Talented Mr. Smith and His Money-Making Ways.
• 18 November 2008: The Basic Basics: Go the last mile(s).

I was thinking of these as I watched this montage video about Smith’s working philosophy at Trey Pennington’s site:

(If the video doesn’t work, try this link.)

Maybe some of what Smith says about the “flow of the universe” sounds hokey, but it’s well worth heeding his core messages about (a) obsessive focus on what’s important to you, (b) making the world better for others, and (c) an “unrealistic,” unrelenting work ethic.

Pennington suggests that we take Smith’s philosphy — along with that of the witty video blogger Jay Smooth — and apply it to our social media practice. It probably won’t surprise you that I want to take it one step further, into a broader consideration of how we work, why we work, and what holds us back.

Check out the video, then please tell me what you think: How can we in the corporate world emulate Smith’s approach to success?

~

Other related posts:

• Deliberate practice in the working world.
• Deliberate practice in a nutshell.

~

It’s endemic — and I’m not talking about the nation’s households checking to see what else in on during the commercials for LOST.*

I’m talking about the sometimes herky-jerky rhythms of our daily work, the constant mental channel-flipping between e-mail and IM and spreadsheets and meetings and drop-in visitors and . . . all of it.

It’s an old issue, and indeed I’ve written about it any number of times here. (Case in point.) I also read a good bit about how to combat it, especially at blogs like TimeBack.

But somehow today brought it all home for me. I got a couple of important things done by being systematic. Other things I interrupted by being distractable and unsystematic. But I also recognized a couple of key gaps in my work thanks to several bits of feedback that, taken singly, wouldn’t have amounted to much but, taken together, showed me where I’ve been missing opportunities — not just today or this week, but in the bigger picture.

Taking time to think, to stay on one channel, is a good way to spot those missed opportunities sooner and better. Channel-flipping, while it’s good for many things (diversity of intake, amusement, etc.), isn’t great for that kind of pattern recognition.

You think?

~

* Given (a) the furor over tonight’s season premiere, and (b) the extreme confusion I’ve experienced every time I’ve accidentally watched the show, I’m glad I’m not a LOST fanatic. Maybe I’ll rent it on DVD so I can watch it back-to-back when it’s all over.

~

Photo by Francis Bijl.

You may preface this form of Inbox-Fu with any of the other forms previously discussed. Indeed, it may be easier to persist in this form if you have used batch processing and other tactics to winnow your inbox to a more manageable size.

Here is the method of this form:

1. Sort your inbox from newest to oldest.
2. If possible, set your e-mail client to open the next item automatically when you handle the current item. (In Outlook, this is achieved via Tools -> Options… -> E-mail Options… -> “After moving or deleting an open item: open the next item.”)
3. Start with the newest item. Handle it to completion.
4. Repeat Step 3 until your inbox is empty.

Steps 1 and 2 are simple to say and simple to do, as is the first part of Step 3. The second part of Step 3, which implies making firm decisions without becoming distracted, is easy to say and hard to do, especially for e-mails that contain inherently difficult tasks.

Step 4, which implies great persistence in the face of the constant influx of new messages, may be the hardest of all.

This is the simplest Inbox-Fu I know. What about you?

~

Related posts:

• Ten handy tips to build your inbox-fu.
• 11 Ancient Secrets of the Dragon Claw School of Inbox-Fu.
• Inbox-fu: the mystery of ReSaDoTh.

~

Photo by Zest-pk.

One of the topics that consistently yields the most hits on this blog is “deliberate practice,” a form of expertise-building studied by psychologist Anders Ericsson and laid out in books like Geoff Colvin’s Talent Is Overrated and Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers.

I’ve discussed deliberate practice here many times, and I’m always interested when new conversations arise in the comment threads of those posts. If you’d like to join one of these in progress, check out the lengthy exchanges between “tallison” and me in the comment thread of the post “Deliberate Practice in a Nutshell.”

How do YOU think we develop our abilities? And how much does talent (or “talent”?) matter?

Please chime in!

Are you like me? Do you have a hard time saying “No”?

Last month a friend invited me to take part in a blogging project. When I saw the list of people he was inviting, I was flattered even to be included. The guy making the offer is a friend of mine socially, but also a stone-cold professional. I wanted to jump at the chance to work with him.

But as much as I did, I had to admit it wasn’t the right opportunity. Before I told him “No,” I listed the two main reasons for myself:

• I like to think I know something about business, but I know I lack expertise in the topic at hand. My friend was giving me too much credit.
• I say “Yes” too much in general . . . which makes me overbooked . . . which means that each project I do suffers under the weight of all the projects I take on. (Sound familiar at all, O overworked legions?)

This one time, I talked myself down from saying “Yes,” and I was glad I did. It’s a habit I’m working hard to replicate. The takeaway I hope you’ll share with me:

It’s easy to say “No” to obvious losing propositions.
It’s hard when the opportunities are attractive.

So where does the rainbow-colored diagram come in?

It’s taken from Ted Williams‘ classic baseball manual, The Science of Hitting. Williams used it to show what batting average he guessed he’d earn if every pitch he faced were in that particular part of the strike zone. (Imagine you’re the pitcher facing Williams, and he’s standing on the left-hand side of the chart.) The colors are brighter for the areas where Williams knew he hit the best. They bear out his assertion — backed up by his own prodigious career — that “baseball history is made on the inner half of the plate.”

The fact that Williams gave this so much thought helps to explain why he was one of the greatest hitters of all time. But the book has an even simpler formulation for what goes into great hitting, regardless of the type of hitter we’re talking about:

“Get a good pitch to hit.”

I submit to you that it’s a great rule for business, too. Sure, you could reach the prospects at the fringe of your ideal target range — and it’s especially tempting to do that when the economy is as tight as it is now.

But is that where your best margins lie? Are those the kind of customers you’ll have in the brightest version of your company’s future? In other words, is that how you’ll make business history?

Ignore the pitches you can’t drive. Get a good pitch to hit.

Be selective.

~

Image source.

‘Cause I seem to have one.

Me.

I asked this question on Twitter. These were the answers I got:

• Coffee (three votes) or Red Bull (which I’ve never had).
• Music — “a rollicking song” or “Eye of the Tiger.” (Solid idea, but I’ll skip the Survivor in favor of the White Stripes or the Black Keys.)
• If coffee fails, “I clean my desk.“
• “Just start with baby steps: tackle the small tasks that don’t take too long — boosts confidence at least.“
• “The slows don’t happen to me often, so [I] indulge them when they come.“
• “I imagine someone else getting to my goal before me.“

What would you add? How do you work your way out of doldrums?

~

Photo by Craig ONeal, used under a CC-Share Alike license.

This summer I’ve been on a fitness kick — walking, jogging, weightlifting, pushups, et cetera. As with past exercise binges, I’ve found myself getting more and more meticulous about my regime, not just going to the gym when the mood strikes me, but planning my schedule around it, and not just jotting down what sets and reps I do, but planning out each workout in advance. It reminds me of the father of a childhood friend, who could consult his handwritten logs to tell you how far and how fast he ran on any day of the previous 20 years.

And then there’s work.

I take my work seriously, and I’m trying hard to get better at is as I tackle new, bigger, and unfamiliar projects. I keep spreadsheets and meeting notes and topical files, and simple force of habit has made me more systematic about this than I used to be. But step-by-step planning and recording of work progressions? Meticulous after-action notes? Uh, no.

So, two things:

1. I take it for granted that my work will keep improving as I make it more methodical. (Writing this post is one way for me to stick a flag in the ground about being more methodical.) But what do you think — is that a safe assumption?
2. Why do so many people not approach their work as an area that’s ripe for systematic improvement? Laziness? Boredom? Fatigue? Fear? Institutional inertia? What?

Oh, and if you detect a connection to my many discussions of deliberate practice . . . you’re right.

~

Photo by Richard Giles, used under a CC-Share Alike license.

. . . and bunkers and anywhere else that will give him a bad lie. Then he sees if he can save par from those lies. This is part of why — even in a “disappointing” year — he’s the best in the world. Some vignettes of Tiger from 60 Minutes:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Thanks to Dave Livingston — who shares my interest in “deliberate practice” – for the tip on this.

~

Related links:

• Are you willing to re-tool your swing?
• Deliberate practice in the working world.

~